M/S Prabhatam Advertising Pvt. ... vs M/S Green City Buildtech Pvt. Ltd
2011 Latest Caselaw 3941 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                        Judgment Pronounced on: 12.08.2011

+ CS(OS) 1386/2008

M/S PRABHATAM ADVERTISING PVT. LTD ..... Plaintiff
             Through: Ms Monica Kapoor, Adv.

                                 versus


M/S GREEN CITY BUILDTECH PVT. LTD               ..... Defendant
              Through: None.

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?                          No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                   No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported                  No
   in Digest?

V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs 24,21,320.05. The

plaintiff is an advertising company and was engaged by the

defendant to advertise its products and services. The

plaintiff-company used to place advertisement in newspaper

and various electronic channels on behalf of the defendant.

A sum of Rs 24,21,320.05 was due to the plaintiff-company

as on 31st March, 2008 towards unpaid amount for the

advertisements published/broadcast on behalf of the

defendant-company. Since the defendant has failed to pay

the aforesaid amount, the plaintiff is seeking its recovery

along with interest.

2. The defendant filed written statement contesting

the suit. It is alleged in the written statement that the

defendant had paid all the dues to the plaintiff for the work

done by it for the defendant. It was also alleged that the

plaintiff had concealed that 50% of the payment of

production job used to be made in advance.

3. The defendant was proceeded ex parte on 29 th

March, 2011. The plaintiff has filed affidavit of Mrs Neelam

Khanna, General Manager of the plaintiff-company, by way

of ex parte evidence. In her affidavit by way of evidence, Mrs

Neelam Khanna has stated that the directors of the

defendant-company, who were well known to the directors

of the plaintiff-company, had approached the plaintiff-

company for getting their products advertised in various

newspapers and media on different dates and the plaintiff-

company had agreed to get the advertisement

published/telecast accordingly. She has further stated that

the advertisement work was carried out by the plaintiff in

terms of the requirement of the defendant-company, but the

outstanding amount was not paid, despite repeated

requests from the representatives of the plaintiff-company

and a sum of Rs 24,21,320.05 was due to the plaintiff from

the defendant.

4. A perusal of the statement of account Ex.P-1/2

would show the defendant made payments on various dates

by way of cheques. The transaction between the parties

started only on 06th June, 2006. The suit having been filed

on 10th July, 2008 is well within time. Considering the

statement of account, coupled with the deposition of Mrs

Neelam Khanna, the plaintiff-company has been able to

prove that a sum of Rs 24,21,320.05 was due to it from the

defendant-company.

5. The defendant has not come forward to prove the

allegation that 50% of the payment used to be made in

advance. More importantly in its written statement, the

defendant has not disputed any entry made in the

statement of account filed by the plaintiff-company. This is

not the case of the defendant that the plaintiff-company had

not got advertisements published by it for the amount

shown in the statement of account filed by it. This is also

not the case of the defendant in the written statement that

any payment made by it to the plaintiff-company has not

been credited in the statement of account. In these

circumstances, I hold that the plaintiff-company is entitled

to recover a sum of Rs 24,21,320.05.

6. A decree for Rs 24,21,320.05 with costs and

pendente lite and future interest @ 12% is hereby passed in

favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

(V.K. JAIN) JUDGE AUGUST 12, 2011 bg