Final Order 14

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: CS (Comm) 330/2023 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Cam Infotech
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02:
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
CNR No.DLNW010040892023
Civil Suit (Comm.) 330/2023
In the matter of:
M/s. Ardh Sainik Canteen,
B-29, 1st Floor, Pushpanjali Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi-110034.
Under the aegis of Ardh Sainik Welfare Trust
Through its AR Sh. Ramesh Kr.
.....Plaintiff
(Through Ms. Payal, Advocate)
Versus
M/s. Cam Infotech,
Plot No.19, Kh. No.4,1,7.5, Block-B,
Patel Garden, New Delhi, South West
Delhi, Delhi-110078.
Also at: H.No.19, Block-B, Patel Garden,
Dwarka Mor, Delhi-110078.
.....Defendant
(Defence already lying struck off vide order dt. 03.05.2024)
Date of Institution of Suit : 02.05.2023
Date of hearing final arguments : 18.09.2025
Date of judgment : 26.09.2025
Page 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
CS (Comm) 330/2023 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Cam Infotech
Suit for recovery of Rs.8,25,503.93 (Rupees eight lacs twenty five
thousand five hundred three and Paise ninety three only)
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT:
1. This is a suit for recovery filed on behalf of plaintiff against the
defendant, thereby seeking a decree in the sum of Rs.8,25,503.93 (Rupees
eight lacs twenty five thousand five hundred three and Paise ninety three
only).
2. The facts of the case in brief, as borne out from the record are that
plaintiff canteen is duly registered under the aegis of Ardh Sainik Welfare
Trust to facilitate CPMFs, defence and/or army personnel for their overall
growth in their personal and social life, having its stores and also offered
its franchise on demand. The defendant is a company duly incorporated
under the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of CCTV, video
door phones, fire alarm systems, Access Control Systems, PA systems,
intercom systems (EPABX), boom barrier, mobile signal boosters and
billing counter machines (POS).
3. The case set up by the plaintiff is that defendant approached it
seeking rights of supplying an indoor camera, 8 channel DVR, 1TB hard
disc, power supply, BNC connector and DC pin and other products offered
by defendant. Thereafter, plaintiff placed order for the said goods upon the
defendant for a sum of Rs.27,258/- for one set. Accordingly, defendant
installed 100 sets of cameras at the locations of plaintiff against invoices. It
Page 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
CS (Comm) 330/2023 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Cam Infotech
has been averred by plaintiff that it paid to the defendant a total sum of
Rs.41,22,360/- from 31.05.2018 to 05.02.2019 against which defendant
supplied goods and services worth only Rs.36,42,416.07 from 05.06.2018
to 05.09.2019. It has further been averred by plaintiff that defendant
assured it to install remaining set of cameras worth Rs.4,79,943.93 on or
before 15.01.2020 but it failed to do so. It is further averment of the
plaintiff that thereafter, defendant neither installed the remaining cameras
nor refunded the outstanding amount. It has further been averred that
despite repeated requests/reminders, the defendant did not pay any heed to
clear the outstanding amount. Thereafter, plaintiff sent legal notice dated
12.12.2022 to the defendant demanding the aforesaid outstanding amount
but in vain.
4. It is further stated that plaintiff adopted pre-institution Mediation on
23.01.2023, however, defendant failed to appear there and accordingly,
Non-Starter report dated 17.03.2023 was issued in the matter.
5. Accordingly, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit, thereby invoking
the provisions of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
6. After filing of the suit, summons for settlement of issues were issued
against the defendant vide order dated 02.05.2023. The defendant was
served and despite repeated calls, none appeared on behalf of the
defendant. Accordingly, defence of the defendant was struck off vide order
dated 03.05.2024 and the matter was notified for recording of evidence.
Page 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
CS (Comm) 330/2023 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Cam Infotech
7. The plaintiff during the course of ex-parte evidence examined its AR
Ms. Jyoti as PW1 in the matter. PW1 in her evidence by way of affidavit
Ex.PW-1/A has reiterated the averments made in the plaint and has relied
upon the following documents :- ]
Sl.
No.
Document(s) Ex.
1. Copies of bills/tax invoices received from
defendant
Ex.PW1/1 colly.
2. Copy of ledger account of defendant
maintained by plaintiff
Ex.PW1/2 (OSR)
3. Copy of legal demand notice dt. 12.12.2022 Ex.PW1/3
4. Original postal receipt Ex.PW1/4
5. Printout of tracking report Ex.PW1/5
6. Printout of mail Ex.PW1/6
7. Non starter report dt. 17.03.2023 Ex.PW1/7
8. Certificate u/s 65B of IE Act Ex.PW1/8
9. Authority letter in favour of PW1 Ex.PW1/9
8. Thereafter, vide order dated 21.01.2025, ex-parte PE in the matter
was closed.
9. I have heard Ms. Payal, learned Counsel for the plaintiff and perused
the entire material on record.
10. From the perusal of record, it is clearly evident that defendant had
approached the plaintiff for business purpose. The execution of
necessary/requisite documents between the parties in this regard has been
duly proved on record by plaintiff.
Page 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
CS (Comm) 330/2023 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Cam Infotech
11. The defendant being ex-parte, the testimony of the plaintiff's
witnesses have remained unchallenged and unrebutted. There is nothing on
record to disbelieve the unrebutted testimony of the plaintiff's witness or to
doubt the authenticity and veracity of the documents exhibited and proved
on record.
12. From the unrebutted testimony of PW1, in the matter and the
documents proved by them on record, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has
been able to make out a good case for passing of decree in its favour. As
regards the quantum of interest, the transaction between the parties being
commercial in nature, I am of the considered opinion that interest @ 12%
per annum would meet the ends of justice.
13. (i) In view of the above, a decree in the sum of Rs.4,79,943.93
(Rupees four lacs seventy nine thousand nine hundred forty three and Paise
ninety three only) along with interest @ 12% per annum from 31.03.2021
till recovery is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
(ii) Plaintiff is entitled to costs of the suit. Plaintiff is also entitled
to counsel’s fee which is quantified as Rs.22,000/-.
14. Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly, subject to payment of requisite
court fees, if any.
15. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary
formalities.
Dictated & Announced in the (Vinod Yadav)
open Court on 26.09.2025 District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts
Page 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --