Final Order 3

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: CS No. 691 / 2021 Interactive Vs. Wooplr
Judgment (Exh.37) 1 of 8
Suit Lodged on : 18.04.2018
Suit Admitted on : 07.07.2018
Suit Decided on : 31.01.2026
Duration : 07 Years, 09 Months 13 Days
MHCC010050922018
City Civil and Sessions Court, Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
Court Room No. 31 – Commercial Court
Commercial Suit No. 691 / 2021
Exhibit No. 37
Interactive Avenues India Pvt. Ltd.
A company incorporated under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956
and having its registered office
at 3rd floor, V Chhibber House,
Sakinaka, Andheri (East),
Mumbai 400 072. … Plaintiff
V/s.
Wooplr Technologies Private Limited
A company incorporated under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956,
and having its office at 4th Floor,
A S Chambers, Near Legends of
Rock, Koramangala VI Block,
Bangalore – 560095, Karnataka. … Defendant
Appearances :
Plaintiff : Adv. Manish Khabrani
Defendant : Adv. Shashwat Rai
CORAM : PRASAD P. KULKARNI
COURT ROOM NO.31.
DATE : 31.01.2026
-- 1 of 8 --
CS No. 691 / 2021 Interactive Vs. Wooplr
Judgment (Exh.37) 2 of 8
***************************************************************
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 31st day of January, 2026)
Suit for recovery of amount of Rs.29,19,857.21/- with interest.
1. Plaintiff raised this suit against defendant to recover an
amount of Rs.29,19,857.21/- with interest @ 24% per annum on
principal amount Rs.20,14,856/- from the date of filing of suit till
realization of entire amount.
Facts giving rise to the dispute are as under :
2. Plaintiff is an Advertisement Company. Defendant is in
business of online marketing and selling clothes. From time to time, as
per requirement of defendant, plaintiff provided its services for
advertisement of defendant’s product. Plaintiff conducted advertisement
campaign for defendant on Flipkart from July 2015 to October 2015. It
was an advertisement campaign for an application (App). After
completion of the campaign, plaintiff issued various invoices. However,
defendant failed to make payment, as agreed. Details of unpaid invoices
are as follows :
Sr. No. Exh. No. Invoice No. Amount (Rs.)
1 22 IABGR/INV/NOV/15-16/001785 1,94,364/-
2 23 IABGR/INV/DEC/15-16/001903 3,39,050/-
3 24 IABGR/INV/DEC/15-16/001901 44,003/-
4 25 IABGR/INV/DEC/15-16/001900 1,95,998/-
5 26 IABGR/INV/DEC/15-16/001902 1,64,237/-
6 27 IABGR/INV/JAN/15-16/002142 1,08,962/-
7 28 IABGR/INV/JAN/15-16/002145 1,24,393/-
8 29 IABGR/INV/JAN/15-16/002144 3,71,895/-
9 30 IABGR/INV/JAN/15-16/002143 4,71,954/-
Total 20,14,856/-
-- 2 of 8 --
CS No. 691 / 2021 Interactive Vs. Wooplr
Judgment (Exh.37) 3 of 8
3. Hence, plaintiff raised this suit. Writ of summons was issued.
Defendant appeared. Plaintiff has taken out Summons for Judgment.
The then Presiding Officer dismissed the same on 19.01.2022 and
unconditional leave to defend was granted to defendant. Defendant
filed Written Statement on record.
Crux of Written Statement of defendant is as follows :
4. Defendant vehemently disputed each and every content of
plaint. It is submitted that in fact plaintiff never provided services as
agreed to defendant. There are several technical discrepancies in the
services provided by plaintiff. Defendant conducted internal inquiry into
tech logs and found that there are numerous installations of the App
from a device with same Universally Unique Identifier multiple times. At
the same time, with a gap of 5 to 10 minutes App was installed on a
single device.
5. In fact, defendant availed plaintiff’s services during April 2015
to November 2015 for provision of online marketing services for the
App. Plaintiff was supposed to provide services which includes
marketing of App and encourage customers/ users to install App.
However, the invoices which plaintiff raised is based on technically
unsound data. Thus, denying entire contention of plaintiff, defendant
prayed for dismissal of suit. The then Presiding Officer framed issues
Exh.7 on 06.10.2022.
6. In order to prove its case, plaintiff examined Mr. Nilesh Mishra
- Commercial Controller and authorized signatory of plaintiff. Plaintiff
placed reliance on 7 Work Orders Exh.14, various emails exchanged
between parties Exh.15 to 18, letters Exh.19 to 21, invoices Exh.22 to
-- 3 of 8 --
CS No. 691 / 2021 Interactive Vs. Wooplr
Judgment (Exh.37) 4 of 8
30 and certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act with copy
of Board Resolution. Plaintiff closed its evidence vide pursis Exh.35.
Defendant not offered any evidence on its behalf. I have heard Learned
Advocate for plaintiff. None appeared on behalf of defendant to argue
the matter.
7. In view of issues Exh.7 Dt.06.10.2022, I have recorded my
findings for the reasons discussed as follows:
Sr.
No.
Issues Findings
1 Whether plaintiff proves that it executed
work orders namely the media work order
internet and media marketing services to be
provided by plaintiff for defendant?
In the Affirmative.
2 Whether plaintiff proves that the work for
which they have invoiced the defendant the
work has been carried out in accordance
with work order?
In the Affirmative.
3 Whether plaintiff proves that an amount of
Rs.29,19,857.21/- is outstanding from
defendant?
Partly Affirmative to
the extent of Rs.
20,14,856/-
4. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant
through their co-founder and CEO namely
Arjun Zacharia assured plaintiff that entire
outstanding dues will be paid?
In the Affirmative.
5. Whether plaintiff proves that he carried out
several campaigns on install basis for the
defendant on different platforms during
period from July 2015 to Oct 2015?
In the Affirmative.
6. Whether suit is maintainable? In the Affirmative.
7. Whether defendant proves that plaintiff
raised invoices against services that were
never provided to defendant?
In the Negative.
8. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover an
amount of Rs.29,19,857.21/- from
Partly Affirmative to
the extent of Rs.
-- 4 of 8 --
CS No. 691 / 2021 Interactive Vs. Wooplr
Judgment (Exh.37) 5 of 8
defendant? If yes at what rate of interest? 20,14,856/- with
9% interest per
annum from
19.02.2016 till
realization of entire
amount.
9. What Order and Decree? As per final order.
R E A S O N S
Reasons as to Issue Nos. 1 to 9
As all issues are interconnected with each other, so they are discussed
together as under :-
8. I have gone through oral and documentary evidence on
record. Entire controversy revolve around 9 invoices, which are placed
on record vide Exh.22 to 30. On the strength of Board Resolution
Exh.33, Mr. Nilesh offered his evidence affidavit wherein he had spoken
about nature of transaction and the campaign which plaintiff carried
out for defendant. In Written Statement, defendant has not specifically
denied fact of carrying out campaign by plaintiff. It is stand of
defendant that services provided by plaintiff was not technically sound.
This stand impliedly says that service was provided by plaintiff.
9. On this line, Nilesh PW1 has proved Work Orders 20.07.2015,
07.08.2015, 20.08.2015, 31.08.2015, 14.09.2015, 28.09.2015 and
30.10.2015, which are collectively marked as Exh.14. As defendant
failed to conduct cross examination of plaintiff’s witness, so said fact is
neither controverted nor rebutted. As deposed by plaintiff’s witness,
plaintiff proved 9 invoices Exh.22 to 30. Sum of said invoices is Rs.
20,14,856/-. Details of these invoices are specifically mentioned in para
-- 5 of 8 --
CS No. 691 / 2021 Interactive Vs. Wooplr
Judgment (Exh.37) 6 of 8
no. 2 of this Judgment. Plaintiff also proved copy of letter 28.02.2017
Exh.19, defendant’s reply Dt.06.04.2017 Exh.20 and plaintiff’s rejoinder
Dt. 26.04.2017 Exh.21. These documents are more than sufficient to act
upon oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff.
10. In spite of having opportunity, defendant failed to contest the
claim on merit. Only because Summons for Judgment is turned down,
on one can assume fate of suit. Though defendant filed Written
Statement, but failed to challenge oral and documentary evidence of
plaintiff. Defendant failed to step into witness box. Suit is filed well
within limitation in a Court having jurisdiction. Hence, on the basis of
above referred oral and documentary evidence, plaintiff is entitled to
get principal amount Rs.20,14,856/-. In plaint, plaintiff claimed an
amount Rs.29,19,857.21/-. Said amount includes amount of interest
Rs.9,05,001/-. It appears such an exorbitant amount of interest is
calculated taking into consideration interest @ 24% per annum.
11. Invoices placed on record shows that there was a credit limit
of 30 days. However, invoices are silent about 24% rate of interest in
case of default in making payment within specified time. Even
otherwise 24% interest per annum is really very high and amounts to
penal interest. So, such an exorbitant rate of interest cannot be awarded
like a bonanza. Last invoice Exh.30 bears date 19.01.2016 and due date
for payment was 18.02.2016. So, plaintiff is entitled to 9% interest per
annum on Rs.20,14,856/- from 19.02.2016 till realization of entire
amount.
12. Thus, unchallenged oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff
can very well be acted upon. Thus, plaintiff proved its case. Suit
-- 6 of 8 --
CS No. 691 / 2021 Interactive Vs. Wooplr
Judgment (Exh.37) 7 of 8
deserves to be partly decreed with cost. Hence, I answer issue no. 1, 2,
4, 5 and 6 in Affirmative, issue no. 7 in Negative. Issue No. 3 as Partly
Affirmative to the extent of Rs.20,14,856/-, issue no. 8 as Partly
Affirmative to the extent of Rs.20,14,856/- with 9% interest per annum
from 19.02.2016 till realization of entire amount and as answer to issue
no.9 following order is passed :
ORDER
1. Commercial Suit No. 691/2021 is partly decreed with cost.
2. Plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.20,14,856/- (Rs. Twenty
Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Six only)
from defendant with 9% interest per annum from 19.02.2016
till realization of entire amount.
3. Defendant shall pay above referred amount and interest to
plaintiff within three months from date of this Judgment.
4. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
5. Judgment is dictated and pronounced in open Court.
6. After compliance and period of Appeal, Sheristedar and AS to
consign Record of the suit, to Record Room.
Mumbai
Dated : 31.01.2026
(Prasad P. Kulkarni)
Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court,
Court Room No.31 - Commercial Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
-- 7 of 8 --
CS No. 691 / 2021 Interactive Vs. Wooplr
Judgment (Exh.37) 8 of 8
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
31.01.2026 5.00 p.m. Prachi Y. Potdar
Stenographer - Grade I
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri. Prasad. P. Kulkarni
(C.R.NO. 31)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
31.01.2026
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 31.01.2026
Judgment/order uploaded on 31.01.2026
-- 8 of 8 --