Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment - 1 - Suit No.1858/2021
MHCC010031322020
Presented on : 11-03-2020
Registered on : 24-09-2021
Decided on : 23-06-2025
Duration : 5 years, 3 months, 12 days
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER BOMBAY
S. C. SUIT NO.1858 of 2021
M/s. Quantum PIC
a firm registered under Indian
Partnership Act, 1932, having office at
Naman Midtown A-Wing, 903, 9th floor,
Opp. Senapati Bapat Marg, Prabhadevi,
Mumbai-400 013,
through its authorised signatory Mr.
Dharmendra Parmar, age about 56 years,
Occ.-Service. .. Plaintiff.
V E R S U S
1. Suraj Sabharwal, Proprietor
M/s. Media International
age not known, Occ: Business,
having its office at 1596 Diwan Hall, 3rd
floor, Bhagirathi Palace, Chandani
Chowk, Delhi-110 006.
2. M/s. Prasad Corporation Pvt. Ltd., a
Company Incorporated under the Indian
Companies Act, 1956, having office at
26, Arunachalam Road, Saligramam,
Chennai-600 093. .. Defendants
Appearance :-
Ld. Advocate Mr. Rajesh Dixit for the Plaintiff.
None for the Defendants.
-- 1 of 6 --
Judgment - 2 - Suit No.1858/2021
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
U.C. DESHMUKH
COURT ROOM NO.03
DATE : 23rd June, 2025.
O R D E R
This is suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,83,023/- with 21%
interest on 2,12,400/-.
2. Brief facts are as under:
The plaintiff has come with a case that it is a partnership firm.
Defendant No.1 is a Proprietory concern, whereas the defendant No.2
is Private Limited Company. The plaintiff specifically pleads that
defendant No.1 placed an order with the plaintiff to purchase a goods.
Accordingly the plaintiff supplied 30 pieces of LTO 7 Sony worth of
Rs.2,12,400/- on 2.7.2018. The said goods is delivered to defendants
however, they failed to pay amount of goods as agreed. Therefore, the
plaintiff issued notice to defendants and inspite of notice, defendants
neglected to pay. Hence, this suit.
3. Defendants though served failed to appear. Hence, suit is
proceeded exparte vide order dated 6.9.2022.
4. Thereafter, the plaintiff examined one Dharmendra Parmar who
has filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief at Exhibit-7. The
plaintiff also filed list of documents at Exhibit-8 which are as under:
i) Original Power of Attorney,
-- 2 of 6 --
Judgment - 3 - Suit No.1858/2021
ii) Invoices and delivery challans with statement of ledger account
and
iii) Advocate’s notice dated 16.10.2019 with postal proof.
5. Thereafter, the plaintiff was directed to produce proof of
registration of the Firm. Accordingly, the plaintiff produced certificate
of registration at Exhibit-10, Receipt of fees at Exhibit-11 and Extract of
Registration at Exhibit-14.
6. Thus, considering the facts, evidence and submissions of learned
Advocate for the plaintiff following points arise for determination of the
suit:
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Does the plaintiff proves that it is
entitled to recover an amount of
Rs.2,83,023/- with 21% interest on
Rs.2,12,400/-?
Partly Yes.
2. Is suit within limitation? Yes.
3. What Order and Decree? As per final Order.
R E A S O N S
As to Points No.1 and 2 :
7. At the outset, it is necessary to note the pleading and evidence of
the plaintiff remained unchallenged. Hence, there is no reason to
discard it at threshold. The plaintiff has filed oral evidence and
examined Shri Dharmendr Parmar at Exhibit-7. He has also filed
documents along with list at Exhibit-8 comprising power of attorney,
copy of invoices and delivery challan and notice dated 16.10.2019.
-- 3 of 6 --
Judgment - 4 - Suit No.1858/2021
8. On perusal of invoices at Serial No.2 at Exhibit-8, it is seen that
the plaintiff delivered goods to defendant No.2. The invoices also
explicit that if payment of goods is not made within a stipulated period,
21% interest will be charged. As earlier observed pleadings and
evidence of the plaintiff has remained unchallenged, therefore, it has
succeeded to show that defendants were bound to pay for the goods on
delivery.
9. The goods are delivered on 2.7.2018 and suit is instituted on
11.3.2020. Hence, it is within the limitation. So far as claim of the
plaintiff as to amount of interest is concerned it is essential to note that
though plaintiff succeeds to show that as per invoice he is entitled to
charge interest 21% p.a. nothing has been brought on record to show
that time was essential to make payment of goods. As earlier observed
in absence of evidence contrary it is presumed that defendants were
bound to pay for goods on its delivery. However, considering the fact
suit is proceed exparte it is just and proper to direct defendants to pay
interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit to the
date of realisation of the amount with costs of the suit. Accordingly,
points No.1 and 2 are answered and in answer to point No.3, following
order is passed:
O r d e r
1. The suit stands decreed partly with costs.
2. Defendants No.1 and 2 are hereby directed to pay jointly and
severally an amount of Rs.2,12,400/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twelve
Thousands and Four Hundred), within two month of the order with
interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the suit to the date of
its realisation.
-- 4 of 6 --
Judgment - 5 - Suit No.1858/2021
3. Accordingly, Suit No.1858 of 2021 is disposed off.
(U. C. DESHMUKH)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date: 23.06.2025 Mumbai.
Dictated on : 23.06.2025
Transcribed on : 30.06.2025
Checked on : 30.06.2025
Correction carried on : 01.07.2025
Signed on : 01.07.2025
-- 5 of 6 --
Judgment - 6 - Suit No.1858/2021
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME 1.7.2025/1.39 p.m.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER (Grade-1) (Mrs. Pradnya S. Naik)
Name of the Judge (With Court room no.) Shri U.C. Deshmukh
(C.R. No.03)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGMENT/
ORDER
23.06.2025
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on 01.07.2025
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 01.07.2025
-- 6 of 6 --