Delhi High Court
M/S Brakewell Automative ... vs P.R.Selvam Alaghhapan on 16 December, 2011
Author: V. K. Jain
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Pronounced on: 16.12.2011
+ CS(OS) No. 1690/2010
M/S BRAKEWEL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS (INDIA)
PVT. LTD. ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. J.S. Bakshi with Mr.
Amitesh Singh Bakshi, Advs.
versus
P.R SELVAM ALAGHHAPAN ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. V. Senthil Kumar with Mr.
V.N. Subramaniam, Advs.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.20,94,953/-.
The case of the plaintiff is that in November, 2002,
the defendant approached the plaintiff company for supply
of auto components to him and pursuant thereto, the
parties entered into a Wholesaler Agreement at New Delhi,
whereby it was agreed that all disputes between them will
be subject to Delhi/New Delhi jurisdiction only. Two
accounts were opened for the goods supplied to the
defendant, one in the name of M/s Kargappa Auto Products
and the other in the name of M/s Paans Auto Products.
2. The plaintiff supplied Auto components and parts
to the defendant from time to time and bills were raised for
those components and parts. A sum of Rs.8,01,708 is
stated to be due in respect of the goods supplied in the
account M/s Kargappa Auto Products, as on 15.10.2007,
and a sum of Rs.4,93,952/- was due in the account M/s
Paan Auto Products as on 06.6.2008, thereby coming to a
total sum of Rs.12,95,660/-. Since the defendant has failed
to pay the aforesaid amount, the plaintiff has claimed a sum
of Rs.12,95,660/- as the principal sum along with the
amount of Rs.7,99,293/- as interest @ 24% per annum,
thereby making a total sum of Rs.20,94,953/-.
3. Since written statement was not filled by the
defendant, his defence was struck off vide order dated
20.10.2011. The plaintiff, however, was directed to file
affidavit by way of evidence in order to satisfy the Court
with respect to the merits of its case. The plaintiff has,
accordingly, filed an affidavit of Mr. Sandeep Arora, one of
its Directors in support of its case. In his affidavit, Mr.
Sandeep Arora has supported on oath the case set-out in
the plaint and has stated that a sum of Rs.8,01,708 was
due to the defendant in the account M/s Kargappa Auto
Products as on 15.10.2007 and another sum of
Rs.4,93,952/- was due from him in the account M/s Paans
Auto Products, as on 06.6.2008. He has also proved the
documents filed by the plaintiff company in evidence.
4. 'Ex.PW1/1' is the copy of certificate of
incorporation of the plaintiff company, whereas, 'Ex. PW1/2'
is the copy of the Resolution passed by its Board of
Directors dated 20.6.2010, authorizing Mr. Sandeep Arora
to institute legal proceedings and to appear and act in all
courts on behalf of the plaintiff company.
5. 'Exs.PW1/7' to PW1/44' are the copies of various
invoices whereby goods were supplied by the plaintiff to the
defendant. In his affidavit, Mr. Sandeep Arora has also
stated that the wholesalers Agreement between the parties
was entered into at Delhi and the payment was also made at
Delhi. He has further stated that the cheques received from
the defendant were deposited for payment at Delhi. If the
agreement between the parties for supply of goods by the
plaintiff to the defendant was entered into at Delhi, as
stated to be by Mr. Sandeep Arora and the payments were
also to be made at Delhi, the cause of action to file this suit,
at least partly arose in Delhi and Delhi Courts, therefore,
have territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit.
6. 'Ex.PW1/4' is the copy of statement of account in
respect of the goods supplied to the defendant in the
account M/s Paans Auto Products. A perusal of the
statement of account would show that a sum of
Rs.4,93,952.30/- was due to the plaintiff in this account as
on 06.6.2008. This statement of account would show that
the defendant has been making payment to the plaintiff
from time to time and last payment was made vide cheque
no.441615 dated 28.5.2008 drawn on HDFC Bank, Delhi on
06.6.2008 for Rs.1,33,130/-. One payment of Rs.1,37,892/-
was received vide cheque no. 435996 dated 20.5.2008. One
payment of Rs.1 lac was received on 17.8.2007 vide cheque
no.404038 dated 09.8.2007 drawn on HDFC Bank, New
Delhi, and payment of Rs.22,307/- was received vide
cheque no.403469 dated 30.3.2004 drawn on Bank, SBI
Chandni Chowk on 02.4.2004.
Since the defendant has been making part-
payment in writing, a fresh period of limitation starts from
each such payment in view of the provision of under Section
19 of Limitation Act. The suit, therefore, is well within the
limitation having been filed in 08.8.2010.
7. A perusal of 'Ex.PW1/3', which is the statement of
account in respect to goods supplied in the account M/s
Kargappa Auto Products would also show that the
defendant has been making payment in writing from time to
time. Last payment of Rs.1 lac was made on 17.1.2008.
One payment of Rs.1 lac was received on 17.8.2007 vide
cheque no.391162 dated 11.8.2007 drawn on HDFC Bank,
Delhi. A number of payments were received on 03.9.2004
vide cheques drawn on HDFC Bank, Delhi. Since a fresh
period of limitation starts from each such payment, the suit
is well within limitation, in respect of the goods supplied
under their account M/s Kargappa Auto Products.
8. No payment has been made by the defendant to
the plaintiff during pendency of the suit. The plaintiff is,
therefore, entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 12,95,660/- from
the defendant.
9. A perusal of the invoices would show that the
defendant was liable to pay the interest @ 18%, if the bills
were not paid within 15 days. Since, the agreement
between the parties restricted the interest to 18% per
annum cannot claim interest at a higher rate. The plaintiff
is entitled to the interest amount @ 18% p.a, which comes
to Rs.5,99,417/-. The plaintiff, thus, is entitled to recover a
total sum of Rs.18,95,077/-.
In view of the above discussions, a decree for recovery of
Rs.18,95,077/- with proportionate costs and pendente lite
and future interest @ 12% per annum is hereby passed in
favour if the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
Memo of fees be filed during the course of the day.
(V.K. JAIN)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 16, 2011
KA
