Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: 1
Received on : 01.02.2018
Registered on : 07.02.2018
Decided on : 12.10.2021
Duration : 03Y 08M 11D
EXHIBIT12
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SHORT CAUSES SUIT NO. 395 OF 2018
( CNR No.MHCC010016902018)
SHRI NARPAT HARIJIVAN MEHTA ]
Proprietor of Mega Steel Industries ]
Age: 43 years, Occupation: Business ]
Shop No.2, Ground Floor, 48, Noor ]
Manzil Building, 6th Kumbharwad ]
Lane, Mumbai 400 004. ].. Plaintiff.
V/s.
SHRI RAJAIAH ]
(Full Name Not known) ]
Proprietor of Pride Industries, ]
Age:Not Known, Occupation:Business]
Old Address: 112/291, ]
Chennai Gappa Industries Estate, ]
Hegganahall, Cross Main Road, ]
Sunkadakalte, Bangalore560091 ]
Karnataka State. ]
New Address: 28, 5th Cross Sngandha]
Kavalu, Hanumantha Nagar, ]
Vishwaneedam Post, Sunkadakalte, ]
Bangalore560091, Karnataka State. ]..Defendant.
Advocate Mrs. Lata Kharwa for the plaintiff.
Defendant Exparte.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI VIDYADHAR B. KAKATKAR
(C.R.No.15).
DATE : 12th OCTOBER, 2021
-- 1 of 6 --
2
JUDGMENT
The suit is instituted for the recovery of amount of Rs.
2,02,284/– along with interest on the amount of Rs.1,53,828/– at the
rate of 18% per annum from the date of institution of the suit to
realisation of the total decreetal amount.
2. It is the case of plaintiff that he is stockists and suppliers of
ferrous and nonferrous metal. Defendant placed the orders to the
plaintiff at Mumbai from time to time for sale and delivery of goods of
S. S. Sheets, S. S. Patra, rod, angles, pipes etc. from April 2014 till
30/05/2015. Defendant made payments from time to time.
3. It is the case of plaintiff that he has maintained books of
account in regular course for defendant. As on 31/03/2016, the amount
of Rs. 1,53,828/– was due and payable by the defendant to plaintiff.
Plaintiff demanded the said amount repeatedly to the defendant but
defendant failed and neglected to pay the same. Plaintiff issued a legal
notice to defendant on 11/12/2017 and demanded the principal
amount along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Defendant
received the notice but did not pay the amount nor he replied the
notice. Hence, plaintiff was constrained to institute the present suit.
4. Defendant was duly served with the writ of summons but
failed to appear before the court. Hence, the suit proceeded ex parte
against him.
5. Considering the plaintiff, evidence on record and
submissions of learned advocate for plaintiff, following points arise for
-- 2 of 6 --
3
my determination and my findings to them are as stated below for the
following reasons.
Sr.
No.
POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether plaintiff proves that as on
31/03/2016, the amount of Rs. 1,53,828/–
was due to him from the defendant?
In the
Affirmative
2 Whether plaintiff is entitled to the interest at
the rate of 18 % per annum?
Partly In the
Affirmative
3 What Order and decree ? As per Final Order
R E A S O N S
AS TO POINT NOS.1 AND 2:
6. All 2 points are related with each other and hence they are
discussed at once.
7. Plaintiff has filed affidavit at Exhibit6 . The computerised
extract of account of the defendant is produced at Exhibit8 . The
extract is supported by the certificate under section 65B of the evidence
act. Plaintiff has produced copies of emails addressed to defendant are
at Exhibit9 colly . Plaintiff has produced various tax invoices on record
at Exhibit10 colly . A copy of demand notice dated 11/12/2017 is
placed on record is at Exhibit11 .
8. I have gone through the aforesaid documents. It clearly
appears from the account extract that the amount of Rs. 1,53,828/– was
due from defendant to plaintiff. The emails exchanged between the
parties clearly show that the defendant has not denied the transactions
-- 3 of 6 --
4
with plaintiff. The invoices are produced on record and show that
plaintiff has sold various material to defendant during the course of
regular business.
9. Defendant was having ample opportunity to appear before
the court by responding to the writ of summons. Defendant failed to do
so. He could have sought leave to defend the suit. In the circumstances
the oral and documentary evidence produced by plaintiff has gone
unchallenged. Therefore, this Court has to rely upon the same.
10. In view of all above discussion, I have come to the
conclusion that plaintiff has proved that he is entitled to recover
amount of Rs. 1,53,828/ from the defendant. Plaintiff has claimed
interest at the rate of 18% per annum. However, there is no basis for
such high rate of interest. Considering the current lending rates, it
appears that 12% percent per annum would be the appropriate rate of
interest for plaintiff in the present matter. Accordingly, I answer point
No. 1 in the affirmative, point No. 2 partly in the affirmative and in
answer to point number 3, I proceed to pass following order.
O R D E R
1. Suit is partly decreed with costs.
2. Defendant is directed to pay the amount of Rs.
1,53,828/– along with interest thereon at the rate of
12% per annum from the date 01/04/2016 till
realisation of the total decreetal amount.
3. Court for be refunded in appropriate proportion
and as per the entitlement.
-- 4 of 6 --
5
4. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
5. Short Cause Suit No. 395 of 2018 is disposed of
accordingly.
(VIDYADHAR B. KAKATKAR)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date:12.10.2021 Gr.Mumbai.
Dictated on: 12.10.2021
Typed on : 22.10.2021
Signed on : 26.10.2021
-- 5 of 6 --
6
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
26.10.2021 AT 3.30 P.M. MRS. SUPRIYA S. PAWAR
Name of the Judge (with Court Room
no.)
HHJ SHRI VIDYADHAR B.
KAKATKAR (C.R. No.15)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
12.10.2021
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 26.10.2021
Judgment/Order uploaded on 26.10.2021
-- 6 of 6 --