Full Order Text
Final Order 1 · 30 Jan 2019 · CNR MHCC010012592018
Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement Pdf Text: Presented on 22.01.2018 Registered on 16.03.2018 Decided on 30.01.2018 Duration Yrs. M. Days 10 14 CNR No. EXH. IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY SUMMARY SUIT NO.332 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. 1. Teem Advertising, a sole propriety concern, having its office and carrying on business from 135/3, Main Gulmohar Park Road, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi110049. 2. Mr.Sumeer Grover, Adult, Hindu Indian Inhabitant, Sole Proprietor of Teem Advertising, having his office address at 735/3, Main Gulmohar Park Road, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi 110049. ...Defendants. Appearances: Ld. Adv Ms.Radha Kapadia for plaintiff. None for defendants. Hence, suit proceeded exparte against defendants. MHCC01-001259-2018 -- 1 of 6 -- .. j/2 .. Summary Suit No.332/2018 CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI ABHIJEET A. NANDGAONKAR (C.R.No.20) DATED : 30th January,2019 J U D G M E N T (Exparte) This is a suit for recovery of Rs.3,12,135/ 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 sole proprietary concern of defendant No.2. They are customers/ constituents of plaintiff. Plaintiff carrying business as Publishers of various nonnews Magazines like, 'Vogue India', 'GQ India', ' Artchitectural Digest India', amongst others. 3. Plaintiff submitted that, on or abut September,2015 defendant No.2 approached to plaintiff with a request to publish the advertisement pertaining to the brands “Jaype Hotels” in the plaintiff's maganize, 'Vogue India'. The said advertisement as per Release Order dt.17.09.2015 was to be published in the October,2015. Accordingly plaintiff has raised their invoice on defendants in the sum of Rs.2,15,022/ towards costs of advertisement that had appeared in the October,2015 issue of plaintiff's magazine 'Vogue India'. The details of the invoice are as under : Sr. Date Invoice NO. Invoice Amount (Rs) Outstanding Amount. 1 15th October, 2015 Ad/1516/1465 2.15.022/ Rs.2,15,022/ Total ... Rs.2,15,022/ -- 2 of 6 -- .. j/3 .. Summary Suit No.332/2018 4. Plaintiff submitted that, above invoices are duly received by defendants without any objection. Therefore, defendant are due and liable to pay the amount of the invoices to plaintiff. However, defendants did not make the payment of the same. Therefore, plaintiff issued notice through Advocate dt.23.06.2016 calling upon defendants to make payment. In spite of receipt of notice defendants failed to make the payment. Plaintiff submitted that, in spite if availing services, defendants have failed and neglected to make the payment outstanding against them. Therefore, plaintiff approached to this Court and tendered present suit against defendants for recovery of outstanding amount. 5. Writ of summons of this suit served upon defendants. Affidavit of service is filed. In spite of service defendants have not appeared nor contested the suit. Hence, suit proceeded exparte against defendant. 6. In support of its claim plaintiff tendered claim affidavit at Exh.5 and list of documents at Exh.6. Plaintiff proved the following documents during the course of trial. Ex.07. Ex.08. Ex.09. Copy of release order dt.17.09.2015. Copy of invoice dt.15.10.2015 bearing No.AD/15 16/1465. Copy of legal notice dt.01.07.2016 together with online tracking report. 7. Heard learned Advocate for plaintiff. Perused record and proceedings. 8. On perusal of the release orders at Exh.7 it is apparent that, on behalf of defendant No.1 the order was placed to plaintiff for -- 3 of 6 -- .. j/4 .. Summary Suit No.332/2018 publication. After publishing the advertisement plaintiff raised invoices and which were duly accepted by defendants without any demur. Therefore, it is legal liability of defendants to pay the amount of invoices issued against them by plaintiff. In spite of several requests and reminders defendants 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, defendants are 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 defendants. 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. Defendants 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 defendants have not paid the amount. Therefore, costs of this suit needs to be saddled on defendants. 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.332/2018 O R D E R 1. Suit is decreed with costs. 2. Defendants jointly and severally do pay Rs.3,12,135/ along with interest @ 21 % per annum on principal outstanding amount Rs.2,15,022/ to plaintiff from the date of filing of this suit till realization of entire decreetal amount. 3. Defendants jointly and severally do bear their 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.: 30/01/2019 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai Dictated on : 30.01.2019 Transcribed on : 30.01.2019 Signed on : 30.01.2019 kps/ -- 5 of 6 -- .. j/6 .. Summary Suit No.332/2018 “CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER” 30.01.2019 at 5.00p.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 30.01.2019 Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 30.01.2019 Judgment/order uploaded on 30.01.2019 -- 6 of 6 --
