Delhi High Court
M/S R.K. Profiles Pvt Ltd vs M/S Vente Industries Produits ... on 17 January, 2018
$~OS-14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 17.01.2018
+ CS(COMM) 511/2016
M/S R.K. PROFILES PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr.Asit Tewari, Adv.
versus
M/S VENTE INDUSTRIES PRODUITS SERVICES
& ANR ..... Defendant
Through defendant is ex parte
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL)
1. Present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking to recover a sum of
Rs.1,10,26,364/- from defendants No.1 and 2. It is the case of the plaintiff
that defendant No.1 is a limited company registered under the provisions of
laws of France. Defendant No.2 is the single Director and shareholder of
defendant No.1 and is actively engaged in the management and day to day
affairs of defendant No.1 company and is also personally responsible for the
dealings with the plaintiff. It has been pleaded that the plaintiff has been
engaged in the business dealings with the defendants for a period of about
12 years and has been exporting/supplying EPDM Rubber Profiles to the
defendant. The plaintiff is manufacturer of the said EPDM Rubber Profiles
and other auto products. The defendants had been making payments to the
plaintiff for the supply made till 2013. Though the defendants had evaded to
make the payment. Reference is made to a purchase order issued by the
defendants on 7.6.2013. It is pleaded that goods were supplied for the
CS(COMM) 511.2016 Page 1 of 4
purchase order and the plaintiff received payment. Subsequently, in the
interregnum during the pendency of said supply of the goods regarding the
said purchase order dated 7.6.2013 another purchase order dated 13.8.2013
was sent by the defendants with the same specifications as that of the earlier
purchase order dated 7.6.2013.
2. Plaintiff started manufacturing pursuant to the said purchase order
dated 13.8.2013 and supplied/exported the first consignments vide invoice
dated 17.9.2013 for Euro 37362 vide bill of lading dated 24.9.2013, the
second consignment was sent vide invoice dated 7.10.2013 for Euro 37236
vide bill of lading dated 17.10.2013 and the third consignment was
despatched vide invoice dated 29.10.2013 for Euro 37194 dispatched vide
bill of lading dated 16.11.2013.
3. It is pointed out that the consignment which was sent vide invoice
dated 29.10.2013 reached the port of delivery at Le Havre Port at France on
1.12.2013 but the defendants evaded and refused to take delivery of the
original documents sent through the concerned courier for release of the
goods. Thereafter the defendants through Mr.M.Benamou, father of
defendant No.2 wrote an e-mail dated 4.12.2013 to the plaintiff stating
therein that primer on the rubber profile was not the requirement of the
defendants. It was also pleaded by the defendants that the buyer is upset
over the same as the primer is highly inflammable. The plaintiff sent a reply
on 4.9.2013 stating that all the goods manufactured are as per specifications
and as per purchase order raised by the defendants. Hence, it is pleaded that
the defendants have become liable to pay a total outstanding of Euro 111792
equivalent to Rs.93,90,884.40. In addition, it is submitted that the
defendants also became liable to pay to the plaintiff the value of 11000
CS(COMM) 511.2016 Page 2 of 4
pieces of item No.20730650 which stood manufactured by the plaintiff when
the defendant had requested for stopping of further production. The goods
manufactured as per purchase order dated 13.8.2013 are lying in the
premises of the plaintiff and are custom made material and cannot be further
sold in the market as finished goods and can be sold only as a scrap. Hence,
it is pleaded that the defendants are also liable to pay the value of the said
items which amounts to Euro 19800. On 31.12.2013 the plaintiffs sent
through counsel a legal notice demanding Euros 111792 plus Euros 19800.
The defendants refused to accept the legal notice. Plaintiff also sent the
legal notice through email.
4. Despite service defendants did not appear before this court on
20.4.2017 and were proceeded ex parte.
5. The plaintiff has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Mohit
Mendiratta, who has reiterated the contentions in the plaint. He also filed an
affidavit under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. He has exhibited
various documents filed by the plaintiff. The purchase order dated 13.8.2013
is exhibited as Ex.PW1/17. Similarly, notice dated 17.9.2013 is exhibited as
Ex.PW1/18, the original bill of lading dated 17.9.2013 is exhibited as
Ex.PW1/19; the invoice dated 7.10.2013 is exhibited as PW1/22; the bill of
lading dated 7.10.2013 is exhibited as Ex.PW1/23; the invoice dated
29.10.2013 is exhibited as PW1/26 and; original bill of lading dated
29.10.2013 is exhibited as PW1/27. Original shipping bills have also been
exhibited. The legal notice dated 31.12.2013 is exhibited as Ex.PW1/33.
6. It is quite clear that plaintiff has proved dispatch of goods to the
defendants. There is no evidence on record to show that the defendant made
any payment or that the goods that were dispatched by the plaintiff were
CS(COMM) 511.2016 Page 3 of 4
defective. Earlier also in June 2013 itself purchase order with similar
specifications have been placed by the defendants for which payments have
been made on supply of goods. Accordingly, the plaintiff has proved that
defendants remain liable to pay for the dues claimed in the plaint.
7. A decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants
for a sum of Rs.1,10,26,364/-. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to interest
@ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till recovery of the
amount. The plaintiff is also entitled to costs.
8. Suit stands disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
JAYANT NATH, J.
JANUARY 17, 2018/n
