Delhi High Court
M/S Santosh Timber Trading Co Ltd vs M/S Maxwell Plywood Industries & ... on 22 May, 2014
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~16.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 1898/2012
% Judgment dated 22.5.2014
M/S SANTOSH TIMBER TRADING CO LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through : Mr.Kailash Chandra, Adv.
versus
M/S MAXWELL PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES & ANRS ..... Defendants
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S.SISTANI, J. (Oral)
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.24,92,600/- together
with pendente lite and future interest from the date of decree, upto the
date of realisation and cost of the suit with interest thereon.
2. Summons in the suit were issued vide Order dated 4.7.2012. Defendants
entered appearance in Court on 13.2.2013, when copies were furnished by
the counsel for the plaintiff to the counsel for the defendants and thirty
days' time was granted to the defendants to file the written statement.
Matter was adjourned to 22.8.2013, on which date further time was sought
by counsel for the defendants to file the written statement, however, since
the stipulated period for filing the written statement had already expired
back, right of the defendants to file the written statement was closed. The
matter was adjourned to 27.11.2013, on which date none appeared for the
defendants. The original documents produced by the plaintiff were
marked as Ex.P-1, P-3, to P-8 and the documents were deemed to be
admitted by the defendants. Since none appeared on behalf of defendants
on 2.5.2014, right of defendants to cross-examine PW-1 was closed and
since written statement was not filed nor did defendants appeared in
Court, they were proceeded ex parte.
3. Plaintiff has filed the evidence by way of affidavit of Mr.Sanjeev Gupta.
The affidavit has been marked as Exhibit PW-1/A.
4. As per the evidence (Exhibit PW-1/A), plaintiff is a limited company duly
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and is engaged in the
business of trading of timber, ploywoods, laminated sheets, block board,
glue, teak wood, champ wood, kail wood, margin, MDF, door skin and
veneer, etc. Certified copy of incorporation has been marked as Exhibit
P-1.
5. Mr.Sanjeev Gupta, PW-1, has deposed in the affidavit that he is the
Manager of the plaintiff company and has been duly authorized vide
Board of Resolution dated 7.6.2012 to sign, verify, file and institute the
suit against the defendants on behalf of the plaintiff. Board of Resolution
dated 7.6.2012 has been marked as Exhibit P-2. PW-1 has further deposed
that defendant no.1 is a partnership firm. It has further been testified that
defendant no.1, through its partner i.e. defendant no.2, had placed an
order for purchase of MDF and Door Skin in various sizes with the
plaintiff for a sum of Rs.17,33,602/- during the financial years 2009-2010
and 2010-2011. The plaintiff had issued invoice no.327 dated 17.3.2010
for Rs.3,88,662/-; invoice no.035 dated 16.4.2010 for Rs.7,29,202/- and
invoice no.142 dated 2.6.2010 for Rs.6,15,738/- against the aforesaid
purchase, which were made against Form-C during those years. The
plaintiff handed over/supplied the abovesaid goods to the
carrier/transporter for unconditional delivery directly to defendant no.1 at
Bangalore. Copy of the abovestated three invoices together with three
consignment receipts of the transporter have been marked as Exhibit P-3
to P-8.
6. It is further testified in the affidavit that defendant no.1, through
defendant no.2, in part discharge of admitted total liability of
Rs.17,33,602/- with respect to the abovesaid purchases, had paid a sum of
Rs.1.00 lakh through RTGS on 22.6.2010 to the plaintiff, leaving a
balance of Rs.16,33,602/-. It is further deposed that in the month of
January, 2011, defendant no.1, through its representative, Mr.Sudesh, at
Delhi, handed over two cheques, one bearing no.0000218 dated 10.1.2011
and the other bearing no.000219, dated 20.1.2011 for Rs.1.00, each, to the
plaintiff, in discharge of the abovesaid admitted liability, however, the
aforesaid cheques were dishonoured on presentation. Thereafter defendant
no.1, through defendant no.2, in partial discharge of the admitted
aforesaid liability towards the plaintiff, had issued 12 cheques of
Rs.25,000/-, each, total amounting to Rs.3.00 lakhs with the assurance to
the plaintiff that the said cheques would be encahsed on presentation,
however, all the cheques, on presentation, were dishonoured and, thus, the
plaintiff instituted the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
7. In the affidavit, PW-1 has deposed that the plaintiff maintains books of
accounts in the regular course of its business with defendant no.1, which
shows the transactions between the plaintiff and defendant no.1.
Statement of Account has been marked as Exhibit P-4. The following
amounts are due from the defendants:
(c) Balance amount as outstanding for Rs.16,33,602/-
the MDF, Door Skin materials
supplied as averted in para 4 & 5
above.
(b) Interest @ 24% per annum on the Rs.8,58,998/-
above amounts due from the date of
sales invoices till the date of
institution of the suit (i.e.
02.07.2012)
Total Due Rs.24,92,600/-
(Rupees twenty four lacs ninety two thousand six hundred only)
8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff is entitled to C
Form for the quarter ending, March, 2010, and quarter ending June, 2010,
and in case the defendants fail to issue C Form to the plaintiff, then the
defendant should pay the differential amount of the Central Sales Tax
@10.5% on the taxable value of the sales invoices, with interest @18%,
which amounts to Rs.1,75,370/-, per annum, from the date of invoices
raised till realisation of the amount. Plaintiff has also prayed for
commercial rate of interest due to commercial transaction.
9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that orders were placed
by the defendants in Delhi, the goods were handed over by the plaintiff to
the transporter at Delhi, part payments were made by the defendants to the
plaintiff at Delhi and the invoices, which have been placed on record,
shows that the Courts at Delhi have jurisdiction to try and entertain the
present suit.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and also perused the
evidence by way of affidavit (PW-1/A) filed by PW-1. The evidence of
the plaintiff has gone un-rebutted and unchallenged. Plaintiff has placed
on record invoices along with receipts of the transporters (PW-3 to 8) in
support of his plea that goods were supplied to the defendants. Statement
of Accounts has also been proved (Exhibit P-4). Having regard to the fact
that the orders were placed by defendants in Delhi, the goods were handed
over to the transporter at Delhi, part payments were made at Delhi and
even as per the invoices Delhi Courts have jurisdiction to try and entertain
the present suit, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendants. Accordingly, suit is decreed in the sum of
Rs.24,92,600/-. In case the defendants do not provide Form-C receipt, the
plaintiff would further be entitled to differential amount of Rs.1,75,370/-.
The plaintiff will also be entitled to pendente lite and future interest at the
rate of 12%, per annum. Let decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
G.S.SISTANI, J
MAY 22, 2014
msr
