Delhi High Court
Satish Bansal vs City Capital Foundation Limited on 6 August, 2014
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 6 th August, 2014
CS(OS)3282/2011
SATISH BANSAL .... Plaintiff
Through: Mr.Sandeep Sharma,
Advocate
Versus
CITY CAPITAL FOUNDATION LIMITED .... Defendant
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV
SACHDEVA
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J (ORAL)
1. In terms of order dated 15.5.2014, the details have
been produced in the form of a chart.
2. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery
of a sum of Rs.43,56,483/- as against the Defendant.
It is contended that the principal amount due is
Rs.29,03,500/- and interest @ 18% per annum has
been claimed from 31.03.2009 till the date of filing
of the suit.
3. As per the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has been supplying
electrical equipments, fittings and electrical
========================================================
accessories from time to time to the Defendant as per
their orders.
4. The electrical goods have been supplied to the
respondent against their invoices raised. As per the
Plaintiff, the Plaintiff in the regular course of its
business was maintaining the running account of the
Defendant in respect of the purchases made by the
Defendant and the payments made. It is submitted
that running account was being maintained in the
ordinary course of business and for every supply
made a debit entry was made and for any payment
received a corresponding credit entry was made.
5. It is the case of the Plaintiff that as per the running
account there was an outstanding balance of
Rs.29,03,500/- payable by the Defendant to the
Plaintiff as on 31.3.2009. As per the Plaintiff, the
Defendant had made a payment of Rs.1,00,000/- on
31.12.2008 and acknowledgement dated 31.12.2008
was issued by the Defendant whereby the Defendant
had stated that it was paying a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
in cash on account of the material supplied and the
balance payment was promised to be made shortly.
The said letter has been exhibited as EX.PW-1/4.
6. The Plaintiff had sent a legal notice to the Defendant
========================================================
dated 20.9.2011 (Ex.PW-1/5). The notice was
received back unserved with the report that there was
no such person available at the address.
7. In the above circumstances, the Plaintiff filed the
present suit for recovery.
8. The summons in the suit were directed to be issued
to the Defendant on 23.12.2011. Since the Defendant
could not be served in the ordinary manner,
substituted service of the Defendant was permitted
by order dated 07.05.2012. The Defendant was
served through publication. The citation was
published in "Hindu" (English Chennai edition and
Delhi edition) of 14.07.2012 for 20.07.2012. None
appeared for the Defendant and the Defendant was
proceeded ex parte by order dated 06.08.2013. The
Plaintiff was permitted to lead ex parte evidence.
9. The Plaintiff has filed his own affidavit. In the
affidavit Plaintiff has deposed that he is the sole
proprietor of M/s M.S.Electricals and supplier of
electrical equipments. He has deposed that the
Defendant had been purchasing electrical
equipments from the Plaintiff for many years. The
office copy of the tax invoices have been
collectively exhibited as Ex.PW-1/1.
========================================================
10. The Plaintiff has deposed that he has been
maintaining a running ledger account in the name of
the Defendant from the year 2007. The certified
running ledger account has been exhibited as
Ex.PW-1/2. As per the running ledger account, the
balance payable by the Defendant as on 31.3.2009 is
Rs.29,03,500/-. The Plaintiff has also exhibited the
bank statement of J & K Bank to prove the receipt of
various cheques from the Defendants as EX.PW-1/3.
11. The letter dated 31.12.2008 issued by the Defendant
evidencing the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and
admitting and acknowledging to pay the balance
amount to the Plaintiff has been exhibited as Ex.PW-
1/4.
12. The Plaintiff has deposed that Defendant had assured
that the balance payment would be cleared at the
earliest, however, the same was not done. He has
further deposed that various requests and reminders
have been sent to the Defendant, however, the same
have not been complied with.
13. The Plaintiff had issued legal notice dated 20.9.2011
claiming the balance amount and the interest accrued
thereon. A copy of the notice has been exhibited as
Ex.PW-1/5. The original envelopes that were
========================================================
returned back have been exhibited collectively as
EX.PW-1/6.
14. None has appeared for the Defendant to controvert
the case of the Plaintiff. By the uncontroverted and
unrebutted testimony and the evidence, the Plaintiff
has established that the Plaintiff had supplied goods
to the Defendant and the defendant despite receipt of
the goods has failed to pay for the same. The
Plaintiff has been able to establish that a sum of Rs.
Rs.29,03,500/- was due and payable as of
31.03.2009. The Plaintiff has also established that
the Defendant has failed to pay the due amount to
the Plaintiff for the goods supplied by the Plaintiff.
15. In view of the above the suit is decreed in favour of
the Plaintiff and against the Defendant in the sum of
Rs. 29,03,500/- (Rupees twenty nine lakhs three
thousand and five hundred only) along with interest
@ 15% per annum from 31.3.2009 till the date of
payment in full. The Plaintiff shall also be entitled to
the costs of the suit.
16. Decree Sheet be drawn up accordingly.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
AUGUST 06, 2014/sv
========================================================
