Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: Presented on 22.01.2018
Registered on 16.03.2018
Decided on 26.04.2019
Duration Yrs. M. Days
01 01 10
CNR No.
EXH.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMARY SUIT NO.342 OF 2018
Conde Nast (India) Pvt.Ltd.
A Company incorporated under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956
having its office at 2nd floor, Darabshaw
House, Ballard Estate, Shoorji Vallabhdas
Marg, Mumbai400 001. ...Plaintiff.
V/s.
Trees Restaurant and Bar
A partnership firm registered under the
provisions of the Indian Partnership
Act,1932 carrying on business from 17,
Main Market, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi –
110 003. ...Defendant.
Appearances:
Ld. Adv Ms.Radha Kapadia for plaintiff.
None for defendant. Hence, suit proceeded exparte against defendant
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI ABHIJEET A.
NANDGAONKAR
(C.R.No.20)
DATED : 26th April,2019
MHCC01-001257-2018
-- 1 of 6 --
.. j/2 .. Summary Suit No.342/2018
J U D G M E N T
(Exparte)
This is a suit for recovery of Rs2,88,367/ with interest.
2. In short, plaintiff came with a case that, plaintiff is a company
incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act,1956 having its
office at the address mentioned in the cause title of plaint. Defendant
No.1 is a partnership firm having their address mentioned in the cause
title of plaint. Plaintiff carrying business interalia as Publishers of
Magazine, 'Vogue India', 'GQ India', ' Architectural Digest India',
amongst others.
3. Plaintiff submitted that, on or about September,2015 defendant
approached to plaintiff with a request to publish the advertisement in
respect of brand known as “Tres Restaurant and Bar' in the October
November,2015 iss7ue of plaintiff magazine “Conde Nast Traveller
Delhi Supplement '15'. Defendant accordingly issue a Release Order
dt.28.09.2015. As per specification contained in the emails exchanged
during the period 20.11.2015 to 27.04.2015 defendant had placed the
order to plaintiff. Plaintiff has published the same and also published
digitally on plaintiffs' website www.vogueltaste.in. Further the digital
advertisement were to be published by way of a barter arrangement i.e
against the same and defendant were to provide the plaintiff vouchers
of the value of Rs.50,000/. The said advertisement was as per
specifications of the defendant. Accordingly plaintiff has raised their
invoice on defendant in the sum of Rs.2,05,000/ vide Invoice
No.AD/1516/1598 on 20.10.2015 (Rs.55,000/) and Invoice
NO.AD/1516/2631 dt.28.01.2016 (Rs.1,50,000/).
-- 2 of 6 --
.. j/3 .. Summary Suit No.342/2018
4. Plaintiff submitted that above invoices are duly received by
defendant without any objection. Therefore, defendant are due and
liable to pay the amount of the invoices to plaintiff. However,
defendant did not make the same. Therefore, plaintiff issued notice
through Advocate dt.12.09.2016 calling upon defendant to make
payment. But said notice returned back. The said notice was duly
delivered to defendant. However, defendant neither made the payment
nor replied the notice. Plaintiff submitted that, in spite if availing
services, defendant has failed and neglected to make the payment
outstanding against them. Therefore, plaintiff approached to this Court
and tendered present suit against defendant for recovery of outstanding
amount.
5. Writ of summons of this suit served upon defendant. Affidavit of
service is filed. In spite of service defendant has not appeared nor
contested the suit. Hence, suit proceeded exparte against defendant.
6. In support of its claim plaintiff tendered claim affidavit at Exh.2
and list of documents at Exh.3. Plaintiff proved the following
documents during the course of trial :
Exh.4 Copy of release order dt.28.09.2015.
Exh.5 Copy of emails exchanged between plaintiff and defendant.
Exh.6 Copy of invoice dt.20.10.2.015
Exh.7 Copy of invoice dt.28.01.2016.
Exh.8 Copy of Advocates' Notice dt.12.09.2016.
7. Heard learned Advocate for plaintiff. Perused record and
proceedings.
-- 3 of 6 --
.. j/4 .. Summary Suit No.342/2018
8. On perusal of the record it appears that on behalf of defendant 1
the order was placed to plaintiff for publication. After publishing the
advertisement plaintiff raised invoice and which was duly accepted by
defendant without any demur. Therefore, it is legal liability of
defendant to pay the amount of invoices issued against them by
plaintiff. In spite of several requests and reminders defendant did not
make the payment. Even they have failed and neglected to pay the
outstanding dues after receipt of notices issued through Advocate by
plaintiff. Therefore, it seems that, defendant is avoided to pay the
outstanding amount for the services availed by them.
9. In spite of service of writ of summons none appeared on behalf of
defendant. Therefore, claim of plaintiff remains unchallenged and
unrebutted. Even the documents proved by plaintiff are
uncontroverted. Therefore, I have no hesitation to accept the
unchallenged claim of plaintiff. Therefore, suit filed by plaintiff for
recovery under O.XXXVII R.2 of C.P.C. needs to be accepted. defendant
neither present nor rebutted the claim of plaintiff. Which clearly
establishes the claim of plaintiff and therefore, plaintiff is entitled to
recover outstanding due amount with interest @ 21% per annum. In
spite of repeated demand and opportunity defendant has not paid the
amount. Therefore, costs of this suit needs to be saddled on defendant.
10. The suit remains unchallenged and undefended. Therefore,
under partIII, R(E), schedule I of Bombay City Civil & Sessions Court
Rule, 1948 plaintiff becomes entitled for refund of 2/3rd court fee
voucher, if prayed. In the result, suit deserves to be decreed with costs.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :
-- 4 of 6 --
.. j/5 .. Summary Suit No.342/2018
O R D E R
1. Suit is decreed with costs.
2. Defendant/s do pay Rs.2,88,367/ along with interest
@ 21 % per annum on principal amount of
Rs.2,05,000/ to plaintiff from the date of filing of this
suit till realization of entire decreetal amount.
3. Defendant do bear its own costs with costs of plaintiff.
4. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
5. The 2/3rd Court fee refund voucher, as per rule, be
issued in favour of plaintiff, if prayed.
( ABHIJEET A. NANDGAONKAR )
Judge, (C.R.No.20)
Dt.: 26/04/2019 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 26.04.2019
Transcribed on : 30.04.2019
Signed on : 30.04.2019
kps/
-- 5 of 6 --
.. j/6 .. Summary Suit No.342/2018
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
30.04.2019 at 5.42 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(KISHOR PRAKASH SHERWADE)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI A.A.
NANDGAONKAR
(COURT ROOM NO.20)
Date of pronouncement of judgment/order 26.04.2019
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 30.04.2019
Judgment/order uploaded on 30.04.2019
-- 6 of 6 --