Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment in Suit No. 1146 of 2018 1
MHCC010009472018
Presented on : 17-01-2018
Registered on : 19-04-2018
Decided on : 10-08-2023
Duration : 5 Y: 6 M : 24 D
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GR. BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO.1146 OF 2018.
Exh.13
M/s. New Manak Overseas Private Limited ]
Formerly known as ]
Manak Overseas Private Limited ]
Having address at Manak House, ]
2nd Floor, 44, C. P. Tank Road, ]
Mumbai - 400 004. ]....Plaintiff.
Vs.
Mr. Karansingh Gangasingh ]
An adult, aged about 45 years, ]
Proprietor of M/s. Rajputana Metals, ]
Having address at 41, Sindhi Lane, ]
Near C. P. Tank, Mumbai – 400 004 ]...Defendant.
Appearance:
Adv. S. R. Mourya for the plaintiff.
Defendant – Exparte.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY
Coram : Shri. U.C.Deshmukh.
Judge (CR No. : 59)
Date : 10th August, 2023.
-- 1 of 7 --
Judgment in Suit No. 1146 of 2018 2
ORAL JUDGMENT
This is suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,04,605/- with
interest @ 24% p.a.
Brief facts of the case are as under :
2. The plaintiff contends that it is company registered under the
Companies Act. It carries the business of Stockist and Dealer of Ferrous
and Non-Ferrous Metals and Steel Merchant. The defendant is proprietor
of M/s. Rajputana Metals. It regularly used to place order to supply the
goods by the plaintiff. The plaintiff maintains ledger account of the
defendant. Since 01.04.2013 to 31.12.2017, there was transactions in
between the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant used to pay part
payment of the goods. However, failed to pay an amount of Rs.1,04,605/-.
Hence, he issued notice on 21.02.2017. However, the defendant did not
reply. Hence, this suit.
3. The defendant failed to appear, hence, suit is ordered to
proceed ex-parte on 23.04.2019.
4. To prove its case, the plaintiff examined one Sangeer Mehta at
Exh.04. It also filed documents alongwith Exh.05, which are as follows;
Sr. No. Exhibits
Particulars
1. Exh.06
Extract of Plaintiff's Board Resolution dated 04.12.17.
2. Exh.07
(Colly.)
Plaintiffs Tax Invoice and Challan No.
-- 2 of 7 --
Judgment in Suit No. 1146 of 2018 3
a. Invoice No.00280 dated 06.02.2014
b. Invoice No.00053 dated 19.05.2014
c. Develivery Challan No.00053
d. Invoice No.00091 dated 16.06.2014
e. Develivery Challan No.00091
f. Invoice No.00179 dated 11.11.2014
g. Develivery Challan No.000179
3. Exh.8
(Colly.)
Plaintiff's original extract of Ledger Statement of
Account for the periods of
a. 01.04.2013 to 01.04.2014
b. 01.04.2014 to 01.04.2015
c. 01.04.2015 to 01.04.2016
d. 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017
e. 01.04.2017 to 31.12.2017
4. Exh.9
(Colly.)
Office copy of demand notice dated 21.02.2017
5. Exh.10 Certificate under Section 65 (b) of the Evidence
Act.
5. The plaintiff closed its evidence.
6. It is submission of Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff that the
plaintiff has sufficiently brought on record that the defendant failed to pay
suit amount. In absence of evidence and pleading of the defendant, there is
no reason to discard its case. Hence, prayed to decree the suit.
7. Considering submission of the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff
and documents on record following points arise for determination.:
-- 3 of 7 --
Judgment in Suit No. 1146 of 2018 4
Sr. No. POINTS FINDINGS
1.
Whether the plaintiff is
entitled to recover an amount
of Rs.1,04,605/- with
interest @ 24% p.a.
....Partly Yes....
with interest @ 6%pa.
2.
Whether the suit is within the
limitation? ...Yes....
3. What order and decree? Suit is decreed.
:REASON:
As to point No. 1 to 2.:
8. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the suit is proceeded
ex-parte. Hence, there is no reason to discard its case at the first glance.
The oral evidence of the plaintiff remained unchallenged as well as its
pleading. The plaintiff has filed on record the tax invoice at Exh.07 which
supports the evidence of the plaintiff that it has delievered the goods to the
defendant from time to time.
9. The ledger account at Exh.08 fortifise the contention of the
plaintiff that since 01.04.2013 to 31.12.2017 there was transaction in
between the plaintiff and the defendant. The ledger account at Exh.08 also
speaks that there is continuation of financial liability of the defendant in
next year financial year. The defendant used to pay from time to time its
money outstanding. The ledger account for the year 01.04.2016 to
31.03.2017 explicit that the defendant was due to pay Rs.1,04,605/- on
01.04.2016. Therefore, the plaintiff has brought on record that defendant
in respect of notice Exh.09, failed to pay an amount of Rs.1,04,605/-.
-- 4 of 7 --
Judgment in Suit No. 1146 of 2018 5
10. The plaintiff specifically contends that the defendant is bound
to pay interest @ 24% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.1,04,605/-.
However, the plaintiff has not filed any documentary evidence to support
its contention. Beside oral evidence and pleadings of the plaintiff, there is
no cogent evidence on record to say that the defendant was bound to pay
interest @ 24% p.a. on the amount outstanding. It is pertinent to note that
the ledger account at Exh.08 is also silent as to the plaintiff has levied such
interest on amount outstanding from the defendant. Therefore, it can not
be said that the defendant is bound to pay interest @ 24% p.a. on
outstanding amount.
11. The ledger account at Exh.08 also manifest that on
22.01.2015, the defendant has paid an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.10
Lacs against the outstanding amount. The suit is instituted on 17.01.2018.
An amount of Rs.13,50,000/- was paid against outstanding amount of
Rs.84,75,000/-. Thereafter, the defendant has also paid an amount of
Rs.17,00,000/- since 01.04.2015 to 13.06.2015. If these last payment
dates are taken into consideration, the suit is instituted on 17.01.2018 is
within the limitation.
12. As earlier observed that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover
the amount with interest @ 24% p.a. However, considering the nature of
transaction, it would be just and proper to direct the defendant to pay
interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the suit. Accordingly point Nos. 1 and
2 are answered.
-- 5 of 7 --
Judgment in Suit No. 1146 of 2018 6
13. The suit of the plaintiff is going to be decreed partly. In this
case also, it would be just and proper to direct the plaintiff to bear the
costs of the proceedings. Accordingly, in answer to point No. 3, following
order is passed :
ORDER
1. Suit No. 1146 of 2018 is decreed partly.
2. Defendant is ordered to pay an amount of Rs.1,04,605/-
to the plaintiff with interest @ of 6% p.a. from the date
of the suit till its realisation within 2 months of the
order.
3. Plaintiff to bear the costs of the suit.
4. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
5. Suit No. 1146 of 2018 is disposed off accordingly.
(U.C.Deshmukh)
Judge,
City Civil and Sessions Court
Date.:10.08.2023 Greater Bombay (CR 59).
Declared on : 10.08.2023
Dictated on : 10.08.2023
Transcribed on : 10.08.2023
Checked on : 11.08.2023
Signed on : 11.08.2023.
-- 6 of 7 --
Judgment in Suit No. 1146 of 2018 7
“Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed order”.
11/08/2023 (Ms. Manisha Hirole)
Stenographer (H.G.)
Reliever.
Name of the Hon'ble Judge : Shri U. C. Deshmukh
(Court Room No.59)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/Order : 10/08/2023
Judgment/Order signed by Hon'ble Judge on : 11/08/2023
Judgment/Order uploaded on : 11/08/2023
-- 7 of 7 --