Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: Commercial Suit No.125/2019 ..1.. Judgment
Presented on: 19.03.2019
Received on : 01.11.2019
Decided on : 28.02.2020
Duration : 03 Months, 27 Days
CNR No.MHCC01-007537-2019
Exh.21
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.125 OF 2019
Unity IT Technology Private Limited Company
registered under the Companies Act, 1956
having its registered office at 109, Desai Chambers,
127/129, Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. .. Plaintiff
Versus
Yogesh Mudrale
a sole proprietor of M/s. Ankit Computers
having his office at Shop No.3, Minin Villa,
near Vimla Talav, Uran Kamtha Road,
Uran, Navi Mumbai and also having residential
address at A/204, Mahalaxmi CHS Ltd., Anand Nagar,
Uran, Navi Mumbai 400 702. .. Defendant
Appearance :-
Advocate Kiran Mohite for the plaintiff.
Defendant proceeded ex-parte
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
Sunil T. Soor.
(COURT No.: 2)
DATED : 28th February, 2020
JUDGMENT
Suit is for recovery of Rs.13,74,562/- alongwith pendente-lite
and future interest.
2. Plaintiff's case is that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of
buying and selling computers, laptops, allied accessories and other
electronic goods ( “goods”) both in wholesale and retail. Defendant
Yogesh Mudrale is one of the director of the plaintiff company. He is
-- 1 of 6 --
Commercial Suit No.125/2019 ..2.. Judgment
also a sole proprietor of M/s. Ankit Computers and carrying on business
of buying and selling computers and allied accessories. Defendant is
regularly purchasing goods from the plaintiffs over the past few years.
3. In the course of business, directors of the plaintiff company used
to place orders in respect of the goods directly with the
suppliers/vendors of the Plaintiff and delivery of the goods and/or
materials, so purchased is also accepted directly at the individual
business office and address of the respective directors.
Suppliers/vendor thereafter raises invoices in the name of the plaintiff
and the plaintiff in turn raises invoices in the name of director/it’s firm/
proprietary concern name/entity in respect of the said good and or
material purchased by such director. Main objective of the plaintiff is to
purchase large quantity products at a better rate for it’s
clients/directors, which in turn are sold at cost price plus 0.5% to 1%.
Accordingly the respective directors make payment to the plaintiff who
in turn makes payment to it’s respective suppliers/vendors.
4. Facts leading to filing of the suit are that defendant placed
several orders of the goods and/or materials directly with various
suppliers/vendors of the plaintiff as per requirements. Said goods
and/or material were directly delivered to the defendant’s office or the
place informed by the defendant to the supplier’s/vendor’s to meet his
requirements from time to time. Accordingly plaintiff raised invoice in
defendant’s name as follows:
Sr. No. Details of invoice (Date and invoice no.) Amount payable
1. U&IT/14-15/JAN/113 dated 22nd
January 2015.
31,25,222
Total 31,25,222/-
-- 2 of 6 --
Commercial Suit No.125/2019 ..3.. Judgment
5. By email dated 23.01.2015, plaintiff informed the defendant to
collect the said goods/material from the supplier/vendor and further
requested to carry stamp of the plaintiff while pick up from
supplier/vendor. Amount under the said invoice was payable by the
defendant immediate after due date. Defendant received the said goods
of the plaintiff and made payments against the aforesaid invoice as
follows :
Sr. No. Date of payment Amount received.
1. 18.02.2015 Rs. 660/-
2. 23.02.2015 Rs. 11,00,000/-
3. 27.02.2015 Rs. 3,00,000/-
4. 19.09.2015 Rs. 2,50,000/-
5. 21.03.2016 Rs. 1,00,000/-
Balance payment Rs. 13,74,562/-
6. The plaintiff through their other Directors orally requested the
defendant to clear the outstanding amounts due for long time but he
failed and neglected to make the payment. Hence plaintiff issued notice
dated 16th May 2017 through its advocate calling upon the defendant to
pay Rs.13,74,562/- along with accrued interest. Defendant received the
notice but neither replied nor made any payment to the plaintiff. Hence
the suit.
7. Summons is duly served on the defendant on 05.10.2019 but he
remained absent. Hence on 21.12.2019, suit is proceeded ex-parte
against the defendant.
8. Plaintiff examined (i) Nitin Phadatare (PW-1), one of the
Director of plaintiff's company at Exh.3, (ii) Rakesh Shah (PW-2), one of
the Director and Head of Accounts Department of plaintiffs company at
Exh.5, (iii) Kunjan Patel (PW-3), Chief Manager of Corporation Bank,
-- 3 of 6 --
Commercial Suit No.125/2019 ..4.. Judgment
Branch Ghatkopar East, Mumbai at Exh.17 and closed its evidence vide
pursis (Exh.20).
9. Nitin Phadatare (PW-1) reiterated contents of the plaint. He
proved resolution dated 20.08.2016 (Exh.10) issued by plaintiff's
company in his favour. He proved Tax Invoice dated 22.01.2015
(Exh.11) issued by plaintiff's company in favour of defendant, Tax
Invoice (Exh.12) raised by supplier/vendor, Kay Kay Overseas
Corporation to defendant's company, ledger account (Exh.8) of Kay Kay
Overseas Corporation maintained by the plaintiff, office copy of notice
(Exh.14 colly.) dated 16.05.2017 alongwith postal acknowledgment .
10. Rakesh Shah (PW-2) proved email dated 22.01.2015 and
23.01.2015 (Exh.9 colly.), Ledger account (Exh.13) of defendant's
company maintained by the plaintiff and certificate (Exh.7) under
section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of ledger account of
plaintiff's company, defendant's company and M/s. Kay Kay Overseas
Corporation.
11. Kunjan Patel (PW-3) proved bank statement (Exh.18 colly.) of
plaintiff's company and certificate (Exh.19 colly.) under section 65(B) of
the Indian Evidence Act and section 2(A) of the Bankers Book Evidence
Act.
12. From the oral testimony of plaintiff's witnesses and documentary
evidence on record, it is evident that plaintiff supplied goods of
Rs.31,25,222/- to the defendant vide invoices (Exh.11 and Exh.12).
Defendant paid amount of Rs.660/- on 18.02.2015, Rs.11,00,000/- on
23.02.2015, Rs.3,00,000/- on 27.03.2015, Rs.2,50,000/- on 19.09.2015
and Rs.1,00,000/- on 21.03.2016 to the plaintiff. Thus Rs.13,74,562/- is
due against the defendant. Hence plaintiff issued notice (Exh.14 colly.)
-- 4 of 6 --
Commercial Suit No.125/2019 ..5.. Judgment
to the defendant calling upon to pay balance amount of Rs.13,74,562/-.
Defendant received the notice but neither replied the same nor repaid
amount of the plaintiff.
13. Inspite of due service of summons, defendant remained absent
and hence suit is proceeded ex-parte against him. Contention of the
plaintiff remained unchallenged. So also plaintiff proved its case
through oral testimonies supported with documentary evidence. Since
21.03.2016, defendant failed to pay balance amount of Rs.13,74,562/-
to the plaintiff. Transaction between the plaintiff and defendant is
commercial. Plaintiff claimed 18% per annum interest on due amount.
However there is no written contract between the parties regarding rate
of interest. Under the circumstances, plaintiff is entitled for interest at
the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till its realization. In
the result, following order :
ORDER
1. Suit is decreed with costs.
2. Defendant shall pay Rs.13,74,562/- along with interest at the
rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till its realization.
3. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(Sunil T. Soor)
Judge
Date : 28.02.2020 Gr. Mumbai.
Typed on : 28.02.2020
HHJ signed on : 28.02.2020.
-- 5 of 6 --
Commercial Suit No.125/2019 ..6.. Judgment
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
28.02.2020, 5.30 a.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME Mrs. V. N. Rajgole.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
H.H.J. Shri. S. T. Soor
C.R.No.02
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
28.02.2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
28.02.2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 28.02.2020
-- 6 of 6 --