Final Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: CS SCJ 1549/24
M/S JOY EXPORTS Vs. M/S GLOSIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED
THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1 of 7 (Charan Salwan)
Civil Judge-03, Central, Delhi
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARAN SALWAN, CIVIL JUDGE-03,
DISTRICT CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ No. : - 1549/2024
CNR No. : - DLCT0-005769-2024
In the matter of;
M/s Joy Exports
Through its Proprietor
Mr Sunil Gupta
1/23B, 1st Floor,
Asaf Ali Road, Delhi-110002
...Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Glosia Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Through Its Directors
181 Udhyog Kendra Extn-1,
Eco Tech-III, Greater Noida,
Uttar Pradesh – 201307.
...Defendant
Date of Institution of Suit : 08.08.2024
Date of Decision : 22.08.2025
Suit for Recovery of Rs. 1,89,616/-.
Judgment (
ex-parte) :-
1. Vide this Judgment, I shall decide the suit for recovery of
Rs. 1,89,616/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Nine Thousand Six
Hundred and Sixteen Only) instituted by Mr. Sunil Gupta,
Proprietor of M/s Joy Exports (
hereinafter referred to as the
‘plaintiff’) against M/s Glosia Technologies Pvt. Ltd., through
Directors (
hereinafter referred to as the ‘defendant’).
-- 1 of 7 --
CS SCJ 1549/24
M/S JOY EXPORTS Vs. M/S GLOSIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED
THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2 of 7 (Charan Salwan)
Civil Judge-03, Central, Delhi
Brief Facts:
2(a) As per the averments made in the plaint, the brief facts are
that the plaintiff is in the business of importers and distributors of
HCH Ball bearings and related products. It is averred that the
defendant is involved in manufacture of domestic appliances. It is
averred that the defendant in ordinary course of business
approached the plaintiff at the registered office and placed purchase
order for supply of ball bearings and assured that there would be no
delay in payment and assured that payment shall be made upon
receiving of goods. It is averred that the plaintiff supplied the
material at defendant’s site and raised various tax invoices, as
follows:
Date Invoice No. Amount (in Rs.)
05.02.2022 JE/21-22/568 19,470/-
25.02.2022 JE/21-22/616 19,470/-
10.03.2022 JE/21-22/656 1,36,290/-
TOTAL 1,75,290/-
(b) It is averred that payment of Rs. 19,470/- and Rs. 20,790/-
were released by the defendant on 25.02.2022 and 10.03.2022
respectively. It is averred that defendant issued a cheque bearing no.
000286 for amount of Rs. 1,15,500/- in favour of the plaintiff to
clear the outstanding payment and requested the plaintiff to present
the cheque for encashment. It is averred that on presentation, the
cheque was returned unpaid with the reason ‘insufficient balance’.
-- 2 of 7 --
CS SCJ 1549/24
M/S JOY EXPORTS Vs. M/S GLOSIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED
THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3 of 7 (Charan Salwan)
Civil Judge-03, Central, Delhi
(c) It is averred that despite repeated requests, the defendant has
not cleared the outstanding dues. It is averred that the defendant is
liable to pay an amount of Rs. 1,34,970/- towards principal amount
and Rs. 54,646/- towards interest. It is averred that the plaintiff was
constrained to serve legal notice dated 08.05.2024, but the same was
returned with the remarks ‘not found’. Hence, the present suit has
been instituted by the plaintiff seeking the following reliefs:
“A. Pass a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,89,616/- (One Lac
Eighty-Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Sixteen Only) in
favour of the plaintiff and against the Defendant and on that
behalf;
B. Award the pendente-lite and future interest @24% p.a.
from the date of filing the present suit upto the date of actual
payment in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendant
and on that behalf;
C. Award the cost of the suit/ litigation costs inclusive of
Court fees and Advocate's Fees of Rs. 20,000/-in favour of
the Plaintiff and against the Defendant and on that behalf;
D. Pass any other and further orders in favour of the Plaintiff
and against the Defendant, which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the
interest of justice.”
Service of the Defendant
3. The defendant was duly served with summons of the suit via
emode. However, Written Statement was not filed by the defendant
-- 3 of 7 --
CS SCJ 1549/24
M/S JOY EXPORTS Vs. M/S GLOSIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED
THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4 of 7 (Charan Salwan)
Civil Judge-03, Central, Delhi
and therefore, the defence of the defendant was struck off and the
defendant was proceeded exparte vide order dated 12.02.2025.
Plaintiff’s Evidence
4. To substantiate its case, the plaintiff examined himself as
PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW-1/A,
which bears his signatures at point A and B. He relied upon the
following documents: -
1. GST Registration Certificate of plaintiff
firm
Ex. PW1/1 (3 pages)
2. MCA Data of defendant company Ex. PW1/2 (2 pages)
3. Invoices of Goods delivered to
defendant
Ex. PW1/3 (Colly) (4
pages)
4. Statement of Ledger Ex. PW1/4
5. Certificate U/s 63 of Bhartiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam
Ex. PW1/5
6. Legal notice dated 08.05.2024 Ex. PW1/6
7. Additional Certificate U/s 63 of BSA,
2023
Ex. PW1/7
5. Thereafter, vide separate statement of the plaintiff, PE was
closed on 21.07.2025.
6. I have heard the ex-parte arguments on behalf of the
plaintiff and have also perused the record carefully.
-- 4 of 7 --
CS SCJ 1549/24
M/S JOY EXPORTS Vs. M/S GLOSIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED
THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5 of 7 (Charan Salwan)
Civil Judge-03, Central, Delhi
Findings:
7. The suit of the plaintiff is within limitation. In support of his
case, PW-1 tendered his evidence as per the pleadings. The plaintiff
has relied upon Ex. PW-1/3 i.e., the invoice which shows that the
defendant had placed orders with the plaintiff and the same was
delivered. Ex. PW-1/4 i.e. Ledger Account corroborates the stand of
the plaintiff that the defendant has not cleared the outstanding dues.
8. All the averments made by the plaintiff stand duly proved
by way of the afore-stated documents. Hence, the plaintiff has duly
discharged his burden of proof under Section 104 of Bhartiya
Sakshay Adhiniyam,2023. It was for the defendant to prove that
there was no liability or amount due against him. It was for the
defendant to dispute the contractual relationship with the plaintiff or
to dispute the genuineness and correctness of the documents relied
upon by the plaintiff. However, the defendant has failed to do so.
Despite service of summons, the defendant did not appear and
contest the matter and therefore, was proceeded exparte. Since the
defendant was proceeded exparte and no evidence was led by the
defendant, there is nothing on record which casts any doubt on the
testimony of PW1. The testimony of the PW1 has gone
unchallenged, uncontroverted, and unrebutted. Accordingly, the
plaintiff has successfully proved its case on a scale of balance of
probabilities. There is nothing on record which casts any doubt on
the testimony of PW1.
-- 5 of 7 --
CS SCJ 1549/24
M/S JOY EXPORTS Vs. M/S GLOSIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED
THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6 of 7 (Charan Salwan)
Civil Judge-03, Central, Delhi
9. The plaintiff has claimed an amount of Rs.1,89,616/- out of
which the principal amount is Rs.1,34,970/- and interest amount is
Rs.54,646/-. In the considered opinion of this Court, the plaintiff is
not entitled to the interest amount of Rs.54,646/- as the plaintiff has
failed to prove how and why he is entitled to the interest amount
claimed. Accordingly, the plaintiff is held entitled to the principal
amount of Rs. 1,34,970/-.
10. Furthermore, the plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate of
24% per annum on the decreetal amount. Considering the prevailing
market conditions, it is not considered equitable to grant this high
rate of interest. Accordingly, simple interest at the rate of 9% per
annum is considered reasonable and equitable.
Relief:
11. In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is
decreed and the following relief is being given to the plaintiff: -
(a) A decree of Rs.1,34,970/- is being passed in favour of
the plaintiff and against the defendant, alongwith simple
interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till date of
realization of the decreetal amount.
12. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
-- 6 of 7 --
CS SCJ 1549/24
M/S JOY EXPORTS Vs. M/S GLOSIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED
THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7 of 7 (Charan Salwan)
Civil Judge-03, Central, Delhi
13. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
14. File be consigned to the record room after necessary
compliance.
Pronounced in open court: (Charan Salwan)
Dated: 22.08.2025 Civil Judge-03, Central,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
-- 7 of 7 --