Madras High Court
And Its Registered Office vs Also At on 9 February, 2021
C.S.No.825 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 09.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
C.S.No.825 of 2017
M/s.EMU Lines Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Manager Accounts,
Mr.S.Sathyanarayanan,
No.120 (Old No.272),
Thambu Chetty Street,
Akbar Tower, 4th Floor,
Chennai – 600 001.
And its registered office
at No.201, 35-A,
Siddharth Chambers,
II, Kalu Sarai, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi – 110 016. ... Plaintiff
Vs
Mr.Madhu Kumar Venkataramu,
Proprietor,
VIN Shipping @ VIN Shipping Services,
#118, 7th Main Road, Dooravani Nagar Post,
B.Narayanapuram,
Bangalore,
Karnataka – 560 048.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/9
C.S.No.825 of 2017
Also at
134, Ground Floor, 1st Main Road,
MES Colony, Konena Agrahara,
Old Airport Road, HaL Post,
Bangalore – 560 017. ... Defendant
Civil Suit filed under Order VII Rule 6 of Original Side Rules r/1
Order XXXVII Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, for the following judgment and
decree :
[i] for Recovery of a sum of Rs.1,56,31,124/- with interest at 24%
per annum on the principal sum of Rs.1,11,53,077/- from the date of suit
till the date of realization; and
[ii] To pay cost of this suit.
For Plaintiffs : Mr.H.Manojin
For Defendant : Set exparte on 16.12.2020.
JUDGMENT
This suit has been filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,56,31,124/-
with interest at 24% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.1,11,53,077/-
from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.825 of 2017
2. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of Multimodal
Transport Operator (MTO) and he is having business of handling of the
Shipment by Sea and Air as well as handling of Import Consignment
(Sea/Air) from various parts of India as well as from various countries to
India. The said company is incorporated under the Companies Act,
1956. In due course of the business, the defendant approached the
plaintiff and represented himself as Proprietor of VIN Shipping @ VIN
Shipping Services.
3. After entering into the business agreements, the defendant
agreed to pay the charges in respect to the invoices raised by the plaintiff,
at the earliest. The said business transaction is only by way of credit
facilities and the payment shall be made by the defendant once in 60 days
from the date of Invoice. The defendant has also agreed to the terms and
conditions, stipulated in the invoices raised. During the course of
business, some payments would be due for the invoices raised and the
defendant used to request for time for payment and the same has also
been granted by the plaintiff, without any objection.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.825 of 2017
4. In this regard on 28.04.2015, the defendant had given a request
letter along with outstanding bills, requesting the plaintiff that the
outstanding amount of Rs.1,13,53,077/- will be cleared as early as
possible. The plaintiff has also agreed to the request made by the
plaintiff. Subsequent to that, though the plaintiff made several requests
for settling the disputes, the defendant has not made any payment and
instead, on 30.07.2015 admitting the suit claim amount, the defendant
has executed a security bond vide certificate No.IN-
KA02256745234889N, for a sum of Rs.1,13,53,077/-. Even after
executing the bond and after admitting the liability the defendant has
never chosen to clear his liabilities.
5. Despite of repeated request made by the plaintiff, the defendant
has made a part payment of Rs.2,00,000/- on 15.05.2016 out of
Rs.1,13,53,077/-. In due course, the defendant had given a cheque
bearing No.592428 dated 06.06.2016, drawn on Andhra Bank, Indra
Nagar Branch, Bangalore and the same was returned on 07.06.2016, with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.825 of 2017
the remark as 'Account Blocked'. For the legal notice sent by the
plaintiff, the defendant failed to give any reply. Therefore, the plaintiff is
before this Court, with the present suit.
6. Despite service of notice to the defendant and his name printed
in the cause list, as he has not appeared either in person or through his
counsel, the defendant has been set exparte on 16.12.2020.
7. The Manager Accounts of the plaintiff's company viz.,
Mr.S.Sathyanarayanan, was examined as P.W.1 and the following eleven
documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P.11 were marked.
S.No. Date Description of documents Exhibit
1. 08.09.2014 Original Invoices from SE-005637 dated P-1
to 08.09.2014 to SE-00384 dated 15.04.2015 (94
15.04.2015 series)
2. 28.04.2015 Original letter given by defendant by way of hand P-2
delivery, acknowledging the outstanding dues to
plaintiff along with the outstanding bills
3. 30.07.2015 Original security bond executed by the defendant P-3
vide certificate No.IN-KA02256745234889N
4. 14.08.2015 Original letter sent by defendant to plaintiff P-4
acknowledging the outstanding dues.
5. 31.03.2017 Computer generated copy of Statement of P-5
Accounts for the period from 01.04.2014 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.825 of 2017
S.No. Date Description of documents Exhibit
31.03.2017
6. 06.06.2016 Certified copy of cheque given by the defendant to P-6
the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,11,53,077/-
7. 07.06.2016 Certified copy of information from the plaintiff P-7
bank intimating the Account blocked.
8. 14.06.2016 Original Legal Notice dated 14.06.2016 issued by P-8
plaintiff.
9. 28.06.2016 Computer generated copy of Postal tracking of P-9
notice by defendant.
10. 04.07.2016 Original Board resolution dated 04.07.2016 P-10
11. Affidavit (Certificate) under Sec.65-B of the P-11
Evidence Act for computer generated copies of
Ex.P5 and Ex.P9
8. P.W.1 in his evidence has clearly spoken about the business
transaction having by the defendant with his company. Ex.P1, is the
original Invoices, which reveals the fact that the defendant had business
transaction with the plaintiff for the suit amount. Ex.P2, is the Original
letter given by defendant wherein, he has admitted his liability that he is
liable to pay the suit amount. Ex.P3, is the security bond executed by the
defendant, which also is in support of Ex.P2. Ex.P4, is a letter sent by
the defendant wherein also he has acknowledged the outstanding dues
dated 14.08.2015. Ex.P5, is the computer generated copy of Statement of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.825 of 2017
Accounts. Ex.P6, is the certified copy of cheque given by the defendant
to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,11,53,077/- dated 06.06.2016. Ex.P7, is
the certified copy of the information from the plaintiff bank intimating
the Account Blocked. Ex.P8, is the original Legal Notice dated
14.06.2016 issued by the plaintiff. Ex.P9, is the computer generated
copy of Postal tracking of notice by defendant dated 28.06.2016.
Ex.P10, is the original Board Resolution dated 04.07.2016 and Ex.P11,
is the Affidavit (Certificate) under Sec.65-B of the Evidence Act for
computer generated copies of Exs.P5 & Ex.P9.
9. From the above documents and the evidence of P.W.1, it is
clear that the defendant had engaged the services of the plaintiff and after
availing the services, he failed to pay the dues, which were agreed during
the course of business activities. Issuance of cheque and the letter sent
by the defendant also confirms his liability. All these facts clearly
establish the fact that the plaintiff has proved his claim and is entitled to
a decree as prayed for.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.825 of 2017
10. Accordingly, the suit is decreed as prayed for, with costs with
subsequent interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of suit till the date of
realization.
09.02.2021
ars
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.825 of 2017
R.PONGIAPPAN, J.
ars
C.S.No.825 of 2017
09.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
