Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: Presented on 04.05.2018
Registered on 04.06.2018
Decided on 12.11.2018
Duration Yrs. M. Days
05 08
CNR No.
EXH.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMARY SUIT NO.567 OF 2018
PRAKASHMAL HASTIMAL MEHTA
son of Hastimal Mehta, aged 50 years,
Occupation : Business carrying on business
under name and style of 'CHIRAG STEEL' at
B6, Haji Allarakhia Building, 9 th Khetwadi,
Mumbai400004.
Mobile No.09869505619 ...Plaintiff.
V/s.
1. SHARP KNIFE COMPANY PRIVAET
LIMITED, a Private Limited Company.
2. AVINASH DYANESHWAR GAIKWAD
Full name not known, adult age not known,
occupation Business/Director.
3. MANISHA AVINASH GAIKWAD
Full name not known, adult age not known,
occupation Business/Director.
All the defendants commonly at Registered
office of Defendant No.1 i.e Sharp Knife
Company Private Limited At C13, NICE
Area, M.I.D.C., Satpur, Nashik, Nashik
422007. ...Defendants.
MHCC01-006107-2018
-- 1 of 7 --
.. j/2 .. Summary Suit No.567/2018
Appearances:
Ld. Adv Mr.Krishnagopal Tripathi for plaintiff.
None for defendants. Hence, suit proceeded exparte against
defendants.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI ABHIJEET A.
NANDGAONKAR
(C.R.No.20)
DATED : 12th November,2018
J U D G M E N T
(Exparte)
This is a suit for recovery of Rs.2,43,518.87 with interest.
2. In short, plaintiff came with a case that, plaintiff is carrying
proprietary business under name and style as “Chirag Steel” having his
address as mentioned in the title clause and engaged in business of
Ferrous and NonFerrours including Stainless Steel materials. Plaintiff
is a registered dealer. Defendant No.1 is a private limited company
duly registered under Companies Act,1956. Defendant No.1/company
is a closely family held company by defendant Nos.2 and 3. Defendants
are engaged in the busienss of manufacturing of Indoor and outdoor
switch gears/control panels, package (compact) substations.
3. Plaintiff submitted that, during the period from 21.05.2016 to
27.07.2016 plaintiff sold, dispatched and delivered “Copper strip/GM
Rod/Copper Flat/Aluminium Sheet/M.S. Square Rod” materials to
defendants under 16 invoices total sum of Rs.3,14,970/ plaintiff
maintained the books of accounts in that respect. Defendants were also
made part payment of sum of Rs.1,46,217/ during from 09.10.2015 to
19.07.2016 leaving behind balance sum of Rs.1,68,753/ and
-- 2 of 7 --
.. j/3 .. Summary Suit No.567/2018
defendants still due and payable the amount of following invoices :
sr. Tax Invoice No. Date Amount (Rs)
1 13 11.04.2016 49,435/
2 23 21.04.2016 11,331/
3 29 25.04.2016 27,214/
4 48 09.05.2016 2,916/
5 99 23.06.2016 29,014/
6 129 20.07.2016 47,527/
7 140 26.04.2016 3,293/
4. The materials supplied and delivered under above invoices were
acknowledged by defendants and therefore, defendants were still
outstanding and due to pay Rs.1,68,753/ along with interest 2 24% per
annum on delayed payment. Defendants are wrongfully withholding
the plaintiffs due amount. Therefore, plaintiff, his agents and servants
repeatedly called upon defendants to pay the dues of unpaid invoices.
But defendants failed and neglected pay the same. Therefore, plaintiff
issued demand notice dt.14.09.2017 to defendants, of which defendant
No.1 refused to accept, defendant No.2 willfully avoided to
acknowledge and defendant No.3 despite of receipt of demand did not
make reply. Plaintiff again sent final legal demand notice through
Advocate dt.05.12.2017 called upon defendants to pay the sum of
Rs.1,68,753/ along with interest. However, defendants neither replied
the notice nor paid the amount. Therefore, plaintiff is approaching
before this Court and filed the present suit against defendants for
recovery of outstanding dues against the unpaid invoices.
5. Writ of summons came to be issued against defendants. Plaintiff
filed service affidavit at Exh.5. In spite of service of writ of summons,
-- 3 of 7 --
.. j/4 .. Summary Suit No.567/2018
none of the defendants appeared to contest the suit. Hence, suit
proceeded exparte against defendants.
6. In support of his claim plaintiff tendered claim affidavit at Exh.6
with compilation of documents at Exh.7 and proved the following
documents :
Ex.08.
Ex.09.
Ex.10.
Ex.11.
Ex.12.
Ex.13.
Ex.14.
Ex.15.
Ex.16.
Ex.17.
Ex.18.
Ex.19.
Ex.20.
Ex.21.
Ex.22.
Ex.23.
Ex.24.
Ex.25.
Ex.26.
Ex.27.
Ex.28.
Ex.29.
Ex.30.
Ex.31.
Ex.32.
Ex.33.
Ex.34.
Ex.35.
Ex.36.
Ex.37.
D.sr.no.1, plff tax invoice no. 13 dt. 11/04/2016.
D.sr.no.2, purchase order.
D.sr.no.3, consignment note.
D.sr.no.4,deliver challan.
D.sr.no.5, tax invoice no. 23, dt. 21/04/2016.
D.sr.no.6, purchase order.
D.sr.no.7, consignment note.
D.sr.no.8, delivery challan.
D.sr.no.9, tax invoice no. 29 dt. 25/04/2016.
D.sr.no.10, purchase order.
D.sr.no.11, consignment note.
D.sr.no.12, delivery challan.
D.sr.no.13, tax invoice no. 48 dt. 09/05/2016.
D.sr.no.14, purchase order.
D.sr.no.15, consignment note.
D.sr.no.16, delivery challan.
D.sr.no.17, tax invoice no. 99 dt. 23/06/2016.
D.sr.no.18, purchase order.
D.sr.no.19, consignment note.
D.sr.no.20, delivery challan.
D.sr.no.21, Tax invoice no. 129 dt. 20/07/2016.
D.sr.no.22, purchase order.
D.sr.no.23, consignment note.
D.sr.no.24, delivery challan.
D.sr.no.25, tax invoice no. 140 dt. 26/07/2016.
D.sr.no.26, purchase order.
D.sr.no.27, consignment note.
D.sr.no.28, delivery challan.
D.sr.no.29, notice dt. 14/09/2017 alongwith postal
receipt and letter envelope acknowledgement card.
D.sr.no.30, notice dt. 05/12/2017 alongwith
registered postal receipt, letter envelop.
-- 4 of 7 --
.. j/5 .. Summary Suit No.567/2018
7. Heard learned Advocate for plaintiff. Perused record and
proceedings.
8. From perusal of record and particularly tax invoices, consignment
notes, purchase order it is clear that, plaintiff had supplied and
delivered the goods as per order of defendants and the goods were duly
received by defendants without any objection whatsoever nature.
Therefore, it is now duty of defendants to pay the sum of the goods.
Defendants had also made party payment leaving the outstanding
amount. Therefore, transaction between defendants and plaintiff is
admitted one.
9. In spite of service of writ and giving an opportunity none of the
defendants appeared to rebut the claim of plaintiff. Therefore, claim of
plaintiff remains unchallenged and unrebutted, so also the documents
proved by plaintiff are uncontroverted. 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 amount outstanding and due against defendants.
Being commercial transaction and as per agreed terms as mentioned in
the invoices, defendants are bound to pay interest @ 18% on unpaid
outstanding amount. In spite of repeated demand and opportunity
defendants have not paid the amount. Therefore, costs of this suit needs
to be saddled on defendant.
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
-- 5 of 7 --
.. j/6 .. Summary Suit No.567/2018
voucher, if prayed. In the result, suit deserves to be decreed with costs.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :
O R D E R
1. Suit is decreed with costs.
2. Defendant nos. 1, 2, 3 jointly and severally do pay
Rs.2,43,518.87 along with interest @ 18 percent per
annum on principal amount of Rs.1,68,753.00 to
plaintiff from the date of filing of this suit till realization
of entire decreetal amount.
3. Defendant nos. 1, 2, 3 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
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.:12/11/2018 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 12.11.2018
Transcribed on : 14.11.2018
Signed on : 14.11.2018
kps/
-- 6 of 7 --
.. j/7 .. Summary Suit No.567/2018
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
14.11.18 at 5.27 p.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 12.11.18
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 14.11.18
Judgment/order uploaded on 14.11.18
-- 7 of 7 --