Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: SJ 80/18 IN SUM.1488/17 ORDER 1
EXHIBIT
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.80 OF 2018
( CNR No.MHCC01-003043-2018)
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1488 OF 2017
M/s.Shree Ambika Printers & Publications,
it is Registered Partnership Firm carrying on its
business at 214/215, Narayan Udyog Bhawan
Industrial Estate, Dr.B.A.Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai
– 400012 and correspondence address at Plot
NO.31, Snehal COop. Society, Lane No.1,
Sector 17, Near White House Tower, Nerul
(East), Navi Mumbai – 400706. … Plaintiff
Vs.
1. S.L.Publicity,
A proprietorship firm through its Proprietor,
Mrs. Sneha Sandip Lad, having address at 7,
Radhika Smruthi, 2nd floor, Kisan Nagar – 2,
Wagale Estate, Thane (West) 400602 ..Defendant
2. Mrs.Sneha Sandip Lad
Age :Not known, an adult, Prop.S.L.Publicity,
having address at 7, Radhika Smruthi, 2nd floor,
Kisan Nagar – 2, Wagale Estate, Thane (West)
400602
3. Mr.Sandip D.Lad
Age :Not known, an adult, having address at 7,
Radhika Smruthi, 2nd floor, Kisan Nagar – 2,
Wagale Estate, Thane (West) 400602
Advocate Mr.Prasad Das for the plaintiff.
Advocate Ms.Khushboo Rajgor I/b.Pritesh Birad Associates for
Defendant .
-- 1 of 6 --
SJ 80/18 IN SUM.1488/17 ORDER 2
CORAM : HER HONOUR ADHOC JUDGE
SMT. C.V. PATIL
(C.R.NO.15)
DATE : 1st April 2022
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed Suit for recovery of principal amount of
Rs.1,80,858/ plus interest at the rate of 18% p.a. that is Rs.1,26,804/.
In short suit is for recovery of total Rs.3,07,681/. In the said suit by
way of Summons for Judgment plaintiff is claiming principal amount as
well as interest amount.
2. The plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is the printers and
Publishers of daily newspaper. The defendant no.1 is proprietorship
firm. The defendant no.2 is its proprietor and defendant No.3 is dealing
with day today transaction of defendant no.1. The defendants in due
course of business requested to plaintiff by issuing the Release Order to
appoint them as advertising agency for providing space in their
newspaper editions/publications for publishing advertisements.
Accordingly the plaintiff has published advertisement and raised
invoices to the defendant. The said invoices duly received by
defendants. Initially there was no any dispute from the side of
defendants. Thereafter defendants were irregular in payment of
invoices. On 25/4/2014 the defendants accepted and confirmed due
amount of Rs. 2,70,921/. Thereafter they have made part payment,
same is adjusted against due amount. Defendants have made last
payment on 31/12/2014 i.e Rs.5000/ and even thereafter
Rs.1,80,858/ is due against defendants. Inspite of several demands and
requests the defendants failed to pay amount. Therefore, on 14/9/2017
notice was issued and called defendants to pay the amount but no use.
-- 2 of 6 --
SJ 80/18 IN SUM.1488/17 ORDER 3
Therefore, this suit is filed.
3. The defendants have appeared on record and filed application for
leave to defend the suit under Order XXXVII Rule 5 of Code of Civil
Procedure. The defendants have denied due amount shown by plaintiff.
They have submitted that the plaintiff has not carried out his job
accurately and therefore, defendants are not liable to pay due amount.
Defendants have admitted placing of order by them which was received
by them from different customers. But, it is their submission that
plaintiff has not done his job accurately. The defendants submitted that
the plaintiff did not give free right up of the client name Omviras
Educare. Accordingly the said client refused to pay Rs.20,400/ to
defendant and ultimately defendant is not liable to pay said amount to
the plaintiff. The defendants have submitted that in the work of client
Ramkrushna Bazar there was big mistake in publishing the name of
client and in the work of client Avas Infracons Pvt.Ltd.was not as per
specification. It is the submission of defendant that like client Omiviras
Educare these two clients also refused to pay the amount to defendant
because plaintiff has committed big mistake in the publication of
advertisement and the said publication was not as per specification
given by client. Therefore, the two clients respectively refused to pay
Rs.76,500/ and Rs.40,800/ to the defendant. Therefore, defendant is
not liable to pay said amount to plaintiff. The defendants had
communicated this fact by Email letter to the plaintiff. Accordingly in
para 22 of the application the defendant has given his calculation how
the plaintiff has shown wrong due amount against them. As per that
calculation only Rs.17,658/ is due against the defendants and they are
ready to pay that amount. Lastly, it is requested to allow them to defend
the suit unconditionally.
-- 3 of 6 --
SJ 80/18 IN SUM.1488/17 ORDER 4
4. Plaintiff has produced relevant xerox copies of documents
alongwith plaint. The defendants have not produced a single document
alongwith their reply.
5. Heard learned advocate of plaintiff as well as defendant. From
pleadings and documents on record following points arise for
consideration to which I have given reasons before them:
Sr.
No.
POINTS FINDINGS
1 Does plaintiff entitled for relief sought in
the summons for judgment ?
Partly Affirmative
2. Does defendant entitled for leave to defend
the suit unconditionally ?
In the Negative
3 What Order ? Summons for
Judgment is made
partly absolute
R E A S O N S
AS TO POINT NOS.1 AND 2:
6. It is the case of the plaintiff that as per Release Order requested
by defendants, the plaintiff has published advertisement and
accordingly he has issued invoices to the defendant. Initially, the
defendants have made payment but lateron they were irregular in
payment against invoice. The defendants have admitted request of
Release Order by plaintiff but it is their submission that plaintiff has
not done job as required by their clients. Accordingly the defendants
have suffered losses in their business. The defendants have shown
names of three clients against whom the amount is due. As per case of
the defendants said clients have refused to pay amount to the
defendants. Therefore, defendants could not pay to the plaintiff. The
-- 4 of 6 --
SJ 80/18 IN SUM.1488/17 ORDER 5
plaintiff committed mistake at the time of publishing advertisement.
The said publication was not as per specification required to the
concerned client and therefore the said clients have refused to pay an
amount to the defendants. Though the clients might have refused to pay
the amount but except bare statement there is no any document to
show that the plaintiff has not published advertisement as per
specification and requirement of the client and therefore, the said
clients refused to pay the amount to the defendants. On the contrary
from statement of defendants, it appears that defendants have admitted
publication of advertisement that advertisement is published wrongly or
was not published as per requirement is the question which can be
decided on merit. However, only statement without any supporting
documents is not acceptable to show that the so called clients refused to
pay the amount to the defendant and therefore, defendant is not liable
to pay to the plaintiff. On the contrary, admission of defendant that he
was dealing in the business of publication with plaintiff and plaintiff has
published advertisement shows that at this stage at least the defendants
are liable, to pay principal amount before entering her defence on
record. The question of interest and other issues raised by defendants
will be considered on merit but for the admission at least defendants
are liable to deposit Rs.1,80,877/. Accordingly, I answer to point no.1
partly in affirmative, point no.2 in the negative. Hence, following order
is passed:
O R D E R
1. Summons for Judgment No.80/18 is made partly absolute.
2. Leave to defend the suit is granted to the defendant subject to
deposit of amount of Rs.1,80,877/ (Rs.One Lac Eighty Thousand
Eight hundred and Seventy Seven) within 30 days from the date
-- 5 of 6 --
SJ 80/18 IN SUM.1488/17 ORDER 6
of this order.
3. If defendant fails to deposit the amount within stipulated time
the plaintiff shall proceed with the suit as if there is no defence.
4. The Summons for Judgment No.18/2018 is disposed of
accordingly.
(C.V.Patil)
Adhoc Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date: 01.04.2022 Gr.Mumbai.
Dictated on: 01.04.2022
Typed on : 05.04.2022
Signed on : 06.04.2022
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time Name of Stenographer
06/04/2022 4.00p.m. Mrs.Jyoti Mane
Name of the Judge (With Court Room No.) HHJ Smt. C.V.Patil (CR
15)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
01/04/2022
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by P.O. on 06/04/2022
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded on 06/04/2022
-- 6 of 6 --