Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: 1
Presented on : 11-07-2019
Registered on : 27-08-2019
Decided on : 30-01-2021
Duration : 1Y, 6M, 19 D
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 91 OF 2019
(CNR No.MHCC01-007224-2019)
M/s. Mammoth Media,
a partnership firm duly registered under the
provisions of Indian Partnership Act,1932 having
its office at 17, U.B. Co-op Hsg. Soc. Ltd,
Masrani Lane, Hall Road, Kurla (W),
Mumbai-400070 through its partner namely
Shri Satyendra Chaturvedi ….Plaintiffs
V/s
1. Krishnai Hospital Pvt. Ltd.,
a company duly registered under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956
having its address at M.J. Hospital Building,
Plot No. 51, Maratha Bhawan Road, Krishna Kunj,
Sector-15, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703
2. Dr. Ketan Anant Raj (Managing Director)
Age: Not known, Occ: Doctor
Krishnai Hospital, M.J. Hospital Building,
Plot No. 51, Maratha Bhawan Road,
Krishna Kunj, Sector-15, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-4000703
3. Dr. Raajul Ketan Raj (Director)
Age: Not known, Occ: Doctor
Krishnai Hospital, M.J. Hospital Building,
Plot No. 51, Maratha Bhawan Road,
Krishna Kunj, Sector 15,
Vashi, Navi Mumbai-4000703. ....Defendants
-- 1 of 7 --
2
APPEARANCE:-
Ld. Adv. Neelam Gupta h/f Adv. S.R. Gupta for plaintiffs.
None for defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR ADDL.SESSIONS
JUDGE SHRI. SANJAY N. YADAV
(C.R.No.32).
DATED : 30th January, 2021.
Claim : Suit for recovery of Money.
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
(Dictated in Open Court)
The plaintiff by this suit seeks judgment and decree,
directing the defendants to pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 5,10,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakh and Ten Thousand Only) at the rate of 24% per
annum from the date of filing of suit till payment or realization of entire
decreetal amount.
2. The facts giving rise to the suit in short can be stated as
follows:
The plaintiff is a partnership firm, registered under Indian
Partnership Act, 1932. The plaintiff has engaged in business of
facilitating the Advertisement for their clients for the Event, Newspaper
and other social events.
The defendant is the Private Limited Company. The
defendant No. 1 is a Multi Specialty Hospital. The defendant No. 2 is
the Managing Director and defendant No. 3 is the Director of defendant
No.1, Company. The plaintiff had approached the defendants for the
advertisement with Loksatta Vruttant, Navi Mumbai for the event
“Arogyaman Bhava Event”, schedule took place in September, 2017 at
“Vishudas Bhae Natyagruha”, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. The proposal was
-- 2 of 7 --
3
sent to plaintiff vide Mail dated 10.08.2017 (Exh.06). The defendants
was given two options as option (i) Associate Partner and option (ii)
Powered by Partner.
3. In the discussion, the defendants proposed for option No. 1.
The investment cost for the advertisement of option (i) by E-mail dtd.
30.08.2017 was Rs. 6,00,000/-. The plaintiffs agreed for the sum of Rs.
5,10,000/- for the advertisement and informed the defendants that
billing will be start from 31.08.2017 vide E-mail dtd. 30.08.2017
(Exh.08). The plaintiff raised invoice (Exh.09) for sum of Rs.
5,10,000/-. The agreement was completed by the plaintiff in
September, 2017 [the event took place in October ,2017]. Inspite of
several requests of the plaintiffs, the defendants have failed and
neglected to make payment of Rs. 5,10,000/-. The plaintiff had issued
demand notice on 01.12.2018 (Exh.11) which was received by the
defendants but was not replied. The defendants had failed to make the
repayment. The plaintiff had instituted the present suit and had prayed
for decree and judgment, directing the defendants to pay the plaintiffs a
sum of Rs. 5,10,000/-(Rupees Five Lakh and Ten Thousand Only) at the
rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing of suit till payment or
realization of entire decreetal amount.
4. The defendants though served with suit summons did not
appear in the suit. The suit is proceeded exparte against defendants.
5. The following points arise for my determination with my
findings thereon and the reasons to follow :-
-- 3 of 7 --
4
SR.
NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
recovery of sum of Rs. 5,10,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakh and Ten Thousand
Only) at the rate of 24% per annum
from the date of filing of suit till
payment or realization of entire
decreetal amount?
'In Affirmative'
2 What order and decree? As per final order below.
REASONS
AS TO POINT NO. 1:
6. The plaintiffs in support of its case had examined
Satyendra Chaturvedi at Exh. 03. The plaintiffs had filed following
documents:
Sr. No. Date Particulars Exh.
1 10.08.2017 Copy of Proposal sent by plaintiffs to the
defendants vide Mail
6
2 30.08.2017 Copy of Mail sent by defendants to the
plaintiffs
7
3 30.08.2017 Copy of mail sent by the plaintiffs to the
defendants
8
4 31.08.2017 Original Invoice raised by the plaintiffs
to the defendants
9
5 Between
the year,
2017
to2018
Copy of relevant correspondence entered
into between the plaintiffs to the
defendants through Email.
10
(colly)
6 1.12.2018 Office copy of Advocate’s Demand Notice
sent by the plaintiffs to the defendants
11
7 03.12.2018 Original postal receipt of Speed Post
A/D.
12
(colly)
8 04.12.2018 Original Postal Acknowledgment of 13
-- 4 of 7 --
5
Speed Post A/D. taken out from the
official website of Indian Post.
(colly)
It is not in dispute that the cost for the advertisement was
agreed between the plaintiff and defendants for Rs. 5,10,000/- for
option (1) Associate Partner to be published in “Loksatta Vruttant”.
There were exchanged of E-mail between the plaintiffs and defendants.
The plaintiff in his evidence had relied upon e-mail dated 30.08.2017
(Exh.07). The defendants had opted for option (1) as Associate Partner.
The plaintiff also had relied upon e-mail dated 30.08.2017 (Exh. 08)
and the original invoice (Exh.09). The plaintiff also had relied upon e-
mail by the defendant that billing was to start from 31.08.2017.
Further, by e-mail dated 31.08.2017, the defendant had approved the
proposal of the plaintiffs by answering as ‘Ok’.
7. There is evidence to show that the advertisement was
published in September 2017. The cost of the advertisement was not
paid by the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiffs had issued notice
(Exh.11) to the defendants. The notice was served on the defendants
by postal receipt (Exh.12 and 13 colly). The defendants had not repaid
the amount, inspite of demand notice. There is no dispute that
advertisement is published. The plaintiffs accordingly had issued notice
calling upon the defendants to make payment. Inspite of the notice, the
the payment is not made by the defendants. The plaintiffs therefore
had instituted the present suit. The contentions raised by the plaintiff
are gone unchallenged. The documents on record shows that there
were exchange of e-mails. The defendants have failed to appear in the
suit and had not contested the suit. The defendants had not cross-
examined the plaintiffs nor had raised any defense. The plaintiff,
-- 5 of 7 --
6
therefore, had successfully proved that defendants have failed to pay
the amount of Rs. 5,10,000/- to the plaintiff.
So far as interested part concerned, in facts and
circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to direct the
defendants to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date
of filing of this suit till payment and/or realization of the entire
decreetal amount. Hence, I answer point No. 1 is
“in Affirmative.”
In the result, following order is passed.
ORDER
1. Suit is decreed with costs.
2. The defendants are directed to pay to the plaintiffs, the sum of Rs.
5,10,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh and Ten Thousand Only) with further
interest on the said sum of Rs. 5,10,000/-at the rate of 10% per
annum from the date of filing of this suit till payment and/or
realization of the entire decreetal amount.
3. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(SANJAY N. YADAV)
Additional Sessions Judge
Dt.: 30.01.2021 Gr.Bombay at Mumbai.
Dictated on : 30.01.2021
Transcribed on : 04.02.2021
Signed by H.H.J.on :06.02.2021
-- 6 of 7 --
7
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
06.02.2021 at 5.25 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(Mrs. K.S.Bhosale)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI S.N.Yadav
(COURT ROOM NO.32)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
30.01.2021
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 06.02.2021
Judgment/order uploaded on 06.02.2021
-- 7 of 7 --