Safina vs Rajeev Dutta
2014 Latest Caselaw 3442 Del

$~21
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CS(OS) 954/2013
       SAFINA                                          ..... Plaintiff
                           Through: Mr.Sanjeev Bajaj, Adv.

                           versus

       RAJEEV DUTTA                                       ..... Defendant
                           Through: Defendant ex-parte

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
                     ORDER

% 31.07.2014

1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.27,29,785/-.

Plaintiff is carrying on the business of sale and supply of various

kinds of corporate gift items. During the course of business

transactions, the defendant approached the plaintiff from time to

time for the supply of different type of gift items and accordingly

the plaintiff supplied the defendant the requisite goods from time

to time and raised bills/invoices against the same. On receipt of

the goods and after due satisfaction, the defendant

acknowledged those bills/invoices.

2. The summons were issued to the defendant. Despite service

defendant did not enter appearance. Defendant was proceeded

ex-parte on 10.7.2014. Affidavit by way of evidence has been

field.

3. In this case, PW1/Special Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff,

who is husband of the plaintiff, has deposed that he is conversant

with the facts of the case and looks after day-to-day affairs of the

plaintiff. During the course of the business, the defendant

approached the plaintiff for supply of different types of gift items.

The items were supplied at the request of the defendant. The

copies of the invoices dated 6.9.2011, 3.9.2011, 5.12.2011,

8.12.2011 (two invoices), 13.12.2011 (two invoices), 28.12.2011

(two invoices), 29.12.2011 (two invoices) and 9.1.2012

collectively exhibited as Ex.PW1/B. Carbon copies of the invoices

have been placed on record.

4. It has further been deposed by PW1 that a running account was

maintained as per which Rs.27,29,785/- was duly payable. It has

also been testified that defendant was called upon on various

occasions to clear the outstanding amount but the defendant has

failed to clear the same. A legal notice dated 6.2.2013 was

served by registered post at residential as well as the factory

address of the defendant calling upon the defendant to clear the

outstanding amounts. Copy of the legal notice has been exhibited

as Ex.PW1/C. Postal receipts have been exhibited as Ex.PW1/B

and AD cards exhibited as Ex.PW1/D. Despite the legal notices

have been issued the defendant has failed to clear the

outstanding.

5. I have heard the counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the affidavit by

way of evidence and the supporting documents. The carbon

copies of the exhibits of the invoices Ex.PW1/B (collectively) show

that the goods were supplied by the plaintiff and received by the

defendant. As the defendant did not clear the amounts due, the

defendant issued a legal notice to the defendant dated 6.2.2013

Ex.PW1/C. Despite service of the legal notice which is evident

from the post receipts Ex.PW1/B and the AD cards Ex.PW1/D, the

defendant has failed to pay the amount due. The evidence of the

plaintiff has remained unchallenged. Consequently, suit is

decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with

pendent lite and future interest @8% p.a.

Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.

G.S.SISTANI, J

JULY 31, 2014 ns