Delhi High Court
M/S Diamond Products Ltd. vs Footmart Retail India Ltd. on 7 August, 2015
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 820/2013
Decided on 7th August, 2015
M/S DIAMOND PRODUCTS LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through Ms. Sumedha Dua, Advocate
versus
FOOTMART RETAIL INDIA LTD ..... Defendant
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
A.K. PATHAK, J. (ORAL)
1. Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of
`38,12,595/- along with pendente lite and future interest @12% p.a. and
costs.
2. Plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that plaintiff is a company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, involved in the business of
manufacturing and trading of footwears. Vide Board Resolution dated 24 th
April, 2013, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jain, authorized representative of the
plaintiff company has been authorized to file the suit. Pursuant to the orders
placed by the defendant at Delhi, plaintiff supplied various types of
footwears through invoices. Defendant used to make part payments from
time to time. Running ledger account of defendant was maintained by the
plaintiff in its books in normal course of business. Last part payment of
`4,00,000/- was made by the defendant on 5th May, 2010. A sum of
`26,48,343/- still remained due and outstanding against the defendant
which it failed to clear. The defendant was also liable to pay interest @12%
p.a. amounting to `11,64,252/- as on the date of filing of the suit i.e. 25th
April, 2013. Thus, the defendant was liable to pay a sum of `38,12,595/-.
Since the amount was not paid, hence the suit.
3. Despite service, defendant did not appear in Court, accordingly,
defendant was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 2nd September,
2014.
4. Plaintiff has led ex-parte evidence. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jain has
stepped in the witness box as PW-1. He has tendered his affidavit Ex-PW-
1/A in his evidence and has proved documents placed on record.
5. I have perused the deposition of PW-1 as contained in his affidavit
Ex. PW-1/A, and find that he has corroborated the averments made in the
plaint, which have been reproduced hereinabove. He has categorically
deposed that the plaintiff had supplied various types of footwears to
defendant on regular basis through invoices. He also deposed that defendant
had been making part payment from time to time. He further deposed that a
running ledger account of the defendant in the books of the plaintiff was
maintained in normal course of the business. He has also deposed that the
defendant made last part payment of`4,00,000/- on 5th May, 2010. He
further deposed that `26,48,343/- was still due and outstanding. He further
deposed that the defendant was liable to pay interest @ 12% amounting to
`11,64,252/- as on 25th April, 2013. He also deposed that a total sum of
`38,12,595/- was outstanding against the defendant. He has proved several
documents in support of his above contention. True copy of running ledger
account of the defendant was proved as Ex.PW-1/1. Interest calculation
sheet was proved as Ex.PW-1/2. Board Resolution dated 24th April, 2013
was proved as ExPW-1/3. Invoices along with the consignment notes were
proved as Ex. PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/24.
6. In my view, from the testimony of PW-1 compelled with the
documents placed and proved on record, the plaintiff has succeeded in
proving that a sum of `38,12,595/- including interest is due and outstanding
against the defendant towards the goods supplied. I am also of the view that
defendant is liable to pay interest, present being commercial transaction and
also because plaintiff has been deprived of its rightful dues inasmuch as
defendant has reaped the benefit of the withheld amount for its own business
purposes, Rate of interest as envisaged in the invoices is 24% p.a., however,
the plaintiff has claimed interest @ 12% p.a. which is lesser and I find the
same just and proper rate of interest.
7. Accordingly, I pass a decree in the sum of `38,12,595/- in favour of
the plaintiff and against the defendant along with pendent-lite and future
interest @ 12% p.a. as also the costs of proceedings. Decree sheet be drawn.
A.K. PATHAK, J
AUGUST 07, 2015
rs
