Delhi High Court
Grant Thornton India Llpp vs Silverdale Services Ltd. on 9 April, 2015
Author: Manmohan
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 1225/2012
GRANT THORNTON INDIA LLPP ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Ajay Talesara, Mr. Ambar
Qamuraadin & Mr. Abhishek,
Advs.
versus
SILVERDALE SERVICES LTD. ..... Defendant
Through: None.
% Date of Decision : 9th April, 2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of principal amount of
Rs. 53,50,551/- along with Rs.47,48,233/- towards interest @ 24% per
annum upto February, 2012. Plaintiff also claims pendentelite interest @
24% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.53,50,551/- from the date of
filing of the suit till its realisation.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant engaged the services of
the plaintiff for carrying out Limited Scope Financial Due Diligence Review
for various companies in India from time to time and the plaintiff carried out
its services and submitted reports to the defendant for the various companies
from time to time but the defendant failed to make the payment for the said
services to the plaintiff. The details of outstanding amount are mentioned
in para 5 of the plaint which is reproduced hereinbelow-
"That accordingly, the plaintiff provided its services to the
defendant in accordance with the various engagement letters
accepted by the defendant following which the plaintiff
carried out Limited Scope Financial Due Diligence Review
for various companies in India for which the defendant had
engaged the services of the plaintiff and submitted its report
for the various companies to the defendant and raised
invoices upon the defendant, the details of which are
mentioned herein below:-
Sl. Particulars Date of Invoice Date Amount
No. Engagement Payable
1. Shetron Ltd. 23.10.2007 7.12.2007 USD
15,464/-
2. Donear 20.06.2007 7.9.2007 USD
Industries Ltd. 13,369/-
3. Cals Limited 2.11.2007 9.1.2008 USD
12,000/-
4. Green Rubber 5.9.2008 4.11.2008 USD
Group 20,223/-
5. Petchburi 31.7.2008 25.11.2008 USD
Terminal 15,040/-
Company Ltd.
(PTCL)
6. Phoenix 29.1.2008 29.12.2008 USD
Polypropylene 15,010/-
Corporation
7. GEI Industrial 29.11.2007 27.3.2008 USD
Systems Ltd. 13,191/-
Total = USD
104,297/-
9. Murli Agro 8.1.2007 31.1.2007 GBP
Products Ltd. 7,122/-
(MAPL)
Thus, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff a
sum of USD 104,297/- and GBP 7,122/-equivalent to
INR53,50,551/- (Rupees Fifty Three Lac Fifty Thousand Five
Hundred Fifty One Only) in accordance with the invoices
raised by the plaintiff upon the defendant from time to time,
as mentioned herein above".
3. The plaintiff has also filed its evidence by way of affidavit in support
of the averments made in the suit and inter alia relied upon the following
documents:-
(i) Ex. PW1/2 to Ex.P1/9 are the copies Invoices raised by
the plaintiff upon the defendant for services in respect of
various companies.
(ii) Ex.PW1/10 to Ex.PW1/21 are the various Emails
exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendant.
(iii) Ex.PW1/22 to Ex.PW 1/27 are the various Emails
exchanged between the plaintiff and defendant wherein
the Managing Director of defendant admitted and
acknowledged its liability for the Invoices bearing Ex.PW
1/2 to Ex.PW 1/9.
(iv) Ex. PW 1/28 to Ex.PW 1/29 are reminders issued by
plaintiff to defendant.
(v) Ex. PW 1/30 is office copy of legal notice issued by
plaintiff to defendant and Ex. PW 1/31 is system
generated return receipt of service of notice via email and
Ex. PW 1/32 to Ex. PW 1/34 is postal receipt of dispatch
of legal notice.
(vi) Ex. PW 1/35 is calculation chart of outstanding amount
duly certified by Accounts Department of defendant.
4. Having perused the paper book this Court finds that despite service of
summons by email effected by the Registry of this Court as well as by the
counsel for the plaintiff, defendant failed to enter appearance. In fact, the
defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 4th March, 2014. The
said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Despite service none appears on behalf of defendant.
Accordingly, defendant is proceeded ex parte. Plaintiff shall
file ex parte affidavit by way of evidence within four weeks from
today. As prayed, documents shall also be filed by plaintiff
within four weeks from today.
List the matter before Joint Registrar for making exhibits
on documents on 1.4.2014.
List the matter before Court on 13.5.2014."
5. Since the present suit was filed on 30th March, 2012 and all the
invoices mentioned in para 5 of the plaint were more than three years old on
the date of filing of the suit, this Court is of the view that the claims raised in
the present petition are barred by limitation. However, as partial claim of
the plaintiff has been admitted by the defendant in its email dated 11 th
January, 2010 which is exhibit PW 1/22, this Court is of the view that the
plaintiff is entitled to decree of US $ 50,000/- along with interest. The email
dated 11th January, 2010 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Dear Harish Sirji
Thanks for your explanation, guidance and support, Sir,
As requested (A) please do NOT perform ANY transaction for
any entity without the receipt of duly executed mandate, and
(B) to the extent possible, please invoice to ultimate client with
mile-stone=ayments (under copy to us), please.
1. GT THAILAND
We are arranging to remit Baht 300,000 being the amount as
per unsigned mandate annexed.
We are unable to locate the mandate for LEGAL DD
mentioned in invoice 2, hence for time being it is being set-
aside.
Also, as pointed out VAT should not have been charged for
„export‟ of services, hence is being ignored.
The remittance would be sent by Wings Express Pte Ltd. Since
the mandate was NOT signed by Silverdale (Suisse) therefore
no provision was made in the books for the expenses.
We would have preferred the invoice for Baht 300,000 in full
and final settlement addressed to Wings Express, in order to
proceed with release of payment; however, as desired by you,
as an exception in this case, we shall arrange for payments
without it.
2. NCT, Jayant Agro and Gulshan
Could you please write to NCL and Jayant Agro directly with
cc to [email protected] We are at your service in
terms of legal assistance (notice) and otherwise (chasing) to
recover the moneys.
Re:2(c) Gulshan
Please confirm if you would be kind enough to accept
USD10,000 in full and final settlement, which would mean
both of us (GT and Silverdale) would lose money in the
transaction.
We would strive to make the payment (INDIRECTLY) by end
of February 2010.
3. Re (a) Murli, (b) Donear, (c), Shetron, (d) Cals, (e) GEI,
(f) Neha, (g) Shiva, (h) PTC (i) Green Rubber, and (j) PPI
We would arrange for (INDIRECT) payment of USD 50,000
for 3(a) to 3(j) EXCLUDING 3(i) and 3(j). For 3(i) Green
Rubber: we require your help to sue the Company for the
payments. Being a foreign company, hopefully your aura will
help. For 3(j) PPI: the matter is already being legally
contested, we would have to wait for Court ruling before we
can act on it.
SUMMARY:
1. USD9,000 (~ Baht30,000) by 15 Jan 2010
2. USD 10,000 by 28 Feb2010
3. USD 10,000 by 31March 2010
4. USD 10,000 by 31May 2010
5. USD 10,000 by 31July 2010
6. USD 10,000 by 30 Sept 2010
7. USD 10,000 by 30 Nov 2010
As discussed, except for first 2 payments, all other payments
are LIKELY to be paid INDIRECTLY.
We are fully committed to improve upon the above payment
schedule and do pray that the actual payment time-line would
be much significantly lower than that mentioned hereinabove,
please.
Would you be kind enough to most benignly grant your
consent to the above plan, so that we can arrange for 1 st
payment ASAP, to be followed by 2nd payment, please."
6. This Court also finds that all the invoices of the plaintiff herein
stipulate that outstanding payments shall attract simple interest @ 2% per
month.
7. Consequently, keeping in view the categorical and unambiguous
acknowledgement in the email dated 11th January, 2010, the present suit is
decreed for an amount in Indian rupees equivalent to US $ 50,000/- along
with interest @ 24% from the date of the email Ex. PW 1/22 till the date of
its realisation. Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet accordingly.
With the aforesaid observations, the present suit stands disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J
APRIL 09, 2015
nk
