Delhi High Court
Rahul Gupta vs M/S Paharpur Cooling Tower Ltd. on 24 October, 2011
Author: V. K. Jain
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Pronounced on: 24.10.2011
+ CS(OS) 2360/2010
RAHUL GUPTA ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Ujjwal Jha, Adv.
versus
M/S PAHARPUR COOLING TOWER 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.21,16,204/-. The
case of the plaintiff is that he has been supplying plastic
granules to the defendant as well as undertaking job works
for it for reprocessing plastic scrap into granules and
compounding. This is also the case of the plaintiff that a
sum of Rs.13,45,024/- is due to him from the defendant for
the plastic granules supplied and the job work done by him
CS(OS)No.2360/2010 Page 1 of 6
for the defendant during the period ending 31 st March 2008.
According to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.46316/- is due to him
for the job work for reprocessing of granules done by him for
the defendant company in the year 2008-09. The plaintiff
has claimed a principal sum of Rs.13,91,340/-
(Rs.13,45,024/- + Rs.46,316/-) along with interest on that
amount @ 20% per annum. He has also sought mandatory
injunction directing the defendant to supply C Forms for the
year 2007-08.
2. The defendant was served with the suit summon
on 23rd February 2011. One Mr. Chandra Shekhar,
Advocate on behalf of the defendant appeared before the
Joint Registrar on 1st March 2011, but thereafter there was
no appearance on behalf of the defendant. No one appeared
for the defendant company on 25th May 2011, 9th August
2011, 26th August 2011 and 2nd September 2011 and no
written statement has been filed it.
3. The plaintiff has filed his affidavit by way of ex
parte evidence. In his affidavit the plaintiff has reaffirmed
on oath the case setup in the plaint. He has stated that a
sum of Rs.13,45,024/- is due to him at the end of the year
2007-08 for the supply made to the defendant and the job
CS(OS)No.2360/2010 Page 2 of 6
work done for it. He has further stated that some job work
was assigned to him in the year 2008-09 for reprocessing of
granules @ Rs.6.15 per kg. According to him a sum of
Rs.46316/- is due to him for the job work done in the year
2008-09 in respect of 7531 kg of granules.
4. Ex.P-1 is the statement of account for the year
ending 31st March 2009 which shows that a sum of
Rs.13,45,024.20 was due to the plaintiff from the defendant
as on 26th February 2008. The statement of account also
shows that the last payment was made by the defendant on
22nd February 2008, by way of cheque drawn on United
Bank of India. Since a fresh period of limitation commenced
from the date on which last payment was made by cheque,
as provided in Section 19 of Limitation Act, the suit having
been filed on 18th November 2010 is well within limitation.
5. Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-36 are various documents,
including invoices, challan and gate pass evidencing the
supply made and work done by the plaintiff for the
defendant company for the period ending 31st March 2008.
Ex.P-41 to Ex.P-44 are the challans whereby the job work is
alleged to have been done by the plaintiff for the defendant
company in the year 2008. In para 12 of his affidavit the
CS(OS)No.2360/2010 Page 3 of 6
plaintiff has stated that at the time of the assignment of the
job work for reprocessing of granules. The rate was agreed
at Rs.6.15 per kg and therefore the amount due to him for
reprocessing 7531 kg of granules comes to Rs.46316/-.
6. It has come in the affidavit of the plaintiff that on
payment being raised by him, the defendant raised an
objection that the material supplied by him was not working
and therefore they could not release payment. He has
further stated that on visiting the factory of the defendant,
he found that material was mixed up with other materials.
He identified his product and successfully tested the
material in presence of the officials of the company. This
exercise was, according to him, carried on 15 th April 2008
and same was recorded in the minutes of the meeting which
are Ex.P-37. Similar exercise, according to the plaintiff, was
carried out on August 20, 2008 in the presence of the
officials of the defendant company and it was appreciated by
them that the material supplied by him was in good running
condition.
7. It does appear from the minutes of the meeting
dated 15th April 2008 that as per the assessment of the
officials of the defendant company, the material supplied by
CS(OS)No.2360/2010 Page 4 of 6
him was expected to be consumed @ 25 to 33 %, though the
defendant company had purchased it on the basis of 100%
consumption. The case of the plaintiff is that when similar
exercise was carried out on August 20, 2008, the material
supplied by him was found to be in good running condition.
Though there is no record of minutes of the exercise alleged
to have been carried out on August 20, 2008. I see no
reason to disbelieve the unrebutted testimony of the plaintiff
in this regard and therefore hold that the material supplied
by him was in good running condition as is claimed by him.
8. The plaintiff therefore is entitled to recover a sum
of Rs.13,45,024/- for the goods supplied and the job work
done by for the period ending 31st March 2008 and a sum of
Rs.46,316/- for the job work undertaken by him in the year
2008-09, thereby making a total sum of Rs.13,91,340/-. A
perusal of the invoice in respect of supply of goods as also
invoice in respect of the job work undertaken by the plaintiff
would show that it was agreed between the parties that
interest @ 20% per annum shall be charged if payment was
not received within 30 days of the supplies. The plaintiff
has according claimed interest @ 20% per annum. I,
therefore, hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum
CS(OS)No.2360/2010 Page 5 of 6
of Rs.7,06,138/- as principal sum and interest @
Rs.18,526/- as interest. The plaintiff is thus entitled to
recover an aggregate sum of Rs.21,16,004/- from the
defendant. Though the plaintiff has also claimed mandatory
injunction directing the defendant to supply C Form to him.
This relief is not pressed since the C Forms are stated to
have been delivered during pendency of the suit.
ORDER
A decree for recovery of Rs.21,16,004/- with
proportionate costs and pendente lite future interest @ 10%
per annum is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendant. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
(V.K. JAIN)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 24, 2011
Ag
