Final Order 2

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: MHCC010088092019 Presented on 23/08/2019
Registered on 07/10/2019
Decided on 17/02/2025
Duration 05Y: 05M: 25D
Exhibit 27
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT MAZGAON, MUMBAI
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 974 OF 2019
Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd. ]
Having registered office at ]
Sun Paradise Business Plaza, ]
First Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, ]
Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. ]
Through its Assistant Manager Legal ]
Mrs. Neha Nachiket Kulkarni ]
Age: 28 years, Occupation: Service ]...Plaintiff
Vs. ]
1. Mr. Manoj Madhavrao Bangale (Founder) ]
Age: Not known, Occ: Not known ]
Godavari Public School, Plot No.10, ]
Shivajinagar, Gangapur Tal. Gangapur, ]
Dist.Aurangabad-431 109, Maharashtra. ]
2. Godavari Public School, ]
Age: Not Applicable, Occ: Not Applicable ]
Tal. Gangapur, Dist.Aurangabad ]
Navin Kaigaon- 431 110, Maharashtra. ]...Defendants
-- 1 of 8 --
2 Sum Su No.974/2019
Appearance :-
Ld. Advocate Jitendra Gupta i/b. J. R. Vakil and Associates for
plaintiff.
Defendants absent (Ex-parte).
CORAM : HHJ SHRI SANGRAM SHRIHARI SHINDE
C. R. NO.: 81
DATE : 17/02/2025.
JUDGMENT
( Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
01] This is the suit filed under Rule 2 of Order XXXVII of Code
of Civil procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) for recovery of amount of
Rs. 78,700/- alongwith further interest.
Brief facts of the plaintiff’s case may be summarized as under :-
02] The plaintiff is a Private Limited registered company and
carrying on business as educational publishers under name and style as
'Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd.' (previously known as Jeevandeep
Prakashan Pvt. Ltd.). Plaintiff company has authorized Miss. Neha
Nachiket Kulkarni, as its representative of plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 is
founder of defendant No. 2 school. As per plaintiff company they had
sold, supplied and delivered goods to defendants as per their verbal
purchase orders. The said goods are received by defendants through
delivery challans. They have never objected quality, quantity of the
goods. Accordingly, plaintiff raised invoices upon defendants bearing
No. PT64974 dated 11/06/2016 for sum of Rs. 90,595/- and invoice
No. PT70745 dated 09/09/2016 for sum of Rs. 2,884/-. The opening
balance on 01/04/2016 was Rs. 13,722/-. Thus, total amount of
Rs.1,07,201/- was due against defendants. Further, after several
requests defendants made payment of Rs. 13,700/- on 30/07/2016,
Rs. 20,000/- on 16/09/2016, Credit Note was raised vide Credit Note
-- 2 of 8 --
3 Sum Su No.974/2019
No. PR61511 dated 16/08/2016 for sum of Rs. 14,751/- and Credit
Note No. PD61230 dated 16/11/2016 for sum of Rs.7,873/-, total
amounting to Rs. 56,324/-. Thus, after giving credit of said amount to
the defendants, an amount of Rs. 50,877/- is due and payable by
defendants. The opening balance is squared off as it was received on
30/07/2016. It was agreed that if defendants fails to make the
payment, then interest at the rate of 18% p.a. will have to be paid on
principal amount. Therefore, issued legal notice dated 11/02/2019 by
RPAD and called upon defendants to make the payment of
Rs. 50,877/-. The said notice is received by defendants however, failed
to file their reply. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled for an amount of
Rs. 78,700/- including interest. Hence, this suit.
03] The writ of summons to defendant No. 1 is served on
him. Further, writ of summons sent to defendant No. 2 by RPAD is
served on him on 11/10/2022. They failed to appear in the matter.
Therefore, order was passed to proceed matter ex-parte against
defendants No. 1 and 2 on 16/06/2022 and 12/02/2024 respectively.
04] Further, on perusing contentions of the plaintiff and
documents on record, following points arose for my consideration, to
which my findings are recorded for reasons given below.
Sr.
No.
Points Findings
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled
to recover an amount of
Rs. 78,700/- from defendants?
If yes, at what rate of interest?
Yes, plaintiff is entitled for simple
interest on Rs. 50,877/- at the rate
of 7% p.a. from 06/05/2022, the
date of filing of suit till its full
realization.
2. What order and decree? As per final order.
-- 3 of 8 --
4 Sum Su No.974/2019
05] In support of claim, the plaintiff has filed affidavit of claim
of Ms.Swati Arvindkumar Kalatme as P.W.1, an authorized
representative of plaintiff at Exh. 9 and additional evidence at Exh. 9A
and reiterated her contention in the plaint for recovery of Rs. 78,700/-
along with the further interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from defendants.
The plaintiff has filed and relied upon the following documents vide
Exh.10. Plaintiff has filed evidence close pursis at Exh. 26.
Sr.
No. Exhibit Particulars
1 Exh. 12 Original Board Resolution dated 25.02.2019
2 Exh. 13 Original Board Resolution dated 05.08.2021
3 Exh. 14 Print out of Purchase Order dated 07.06.2016
(Supported by certificate u/s 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act)
4 Exh. 15 Print out of Purchase Order dated 06.09.2016
(Supported by certificate u/s 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act)
5 Exh. 16 Original Lorry Receipt Dated 11.06.2016.
6 Exh. 17 Original Lorry Receipt Dated 08.09.2016.
7 Exh. 18 Office copy of Invoice bearing No. T64974 dated
11.06.2016.
8 Exh. 19 Office copy of Invoice bearing No. T70745 dated
09.09.2016.
9 Exh. 20 Office copy of Credit Note dated 16.08.2016
10 Exh. 21 Office copy of Credit Note dated 16.11.2016
11 Exh. 22 Office copy of sales ledger dated 01.04.2016 to
31.03.2018 (Supported by certificate u/s 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act)
12 Exh. 23
colly.
Office copy of notice dated 11.02.2019 along with
Original Postal Receipt and A. D. Card.
-- 4 of 8 --
5 Sum Su No.974/2019
R E A S O N S
As to points No. 1 and 2 :-
06] Perused plaint, oral and documentary evidence on record.
Heard Learned counsel for the plaintiff. As per the contention of the
plaintiff, they had supplied goods to the defendants as per orders
placed by them. Further, they raised invoices and claimed amount due
against defendants however, they failed to pay the outstanding
amount. The plaintiff in order to support their contention that
Ms. Neha Nachiket Kulkarni was authorized to file suit, plaintiff has
filed Extract of Board Resolution dated 25/02/2019 at Exh.12.
Further, to substantiate their contention that Ms. Swati PW.1 is
authorized to depose in the present case has filed Extract Board
Resolution dated 05/08/2023 at Exh.13. On perusing both these
resolutions, it appears that its substantiate the contentions of the
plaintiff.
07] As per the contention of plaintiff, defendants have placed
verbal purchase orders. Swati PW 1 by way of additional evidence on
affidavit at Exh. 9A has stated that defendants had placed purchase
order through email however, inadvertently it was not stated in earlier
evidence on affidavit. The plaintiff to support its contention that as per
the purchase orders placed by defendants has filed on record print out
of such purchase order received by email along with certificate u/s.
65B (4) of Indian Evidence Act at Exh. 14. On perusing said document,
it appears that defendants have placed orders as per Exh. 14. Further,
as per the contention of plaintiff that they have supplied goods and
delivered it to defendants by courier and accordingly raised invoices
against defendants. Plaintiffs have filed office copies of invoices at
Exh.18 and 19 and office copies of Lorry Receipts are at Exh. 16 and
17. On perusing these documents, it appears that plaintiff has raised
-- 5 of 8 --
6 Sum Su No.974/2019
invoices against defendants and same has been delivered vide Exhs. 16
and 17. However, Lorry Receipts at Exh. 16 and 17 does not bear
signatures of defendants. Further, invoices at Exh.18 and 19 bears
signatures of defendants.
08] As per the plaintiff, he had supplied goods to the tune of
Rs. 1,07,201/-. Defendants have made part payment of Rs. 56,324/-.
The plaintiff has given credit note at Exh. 20 and 21 to the defendants
and balance amount is Rs. 50,877/-. Further, plaintiff has also filed
ledger statement at Exh. 22 to substantiate said contention. As per the
plaintiff, as defendants have not made payment within time therefore,
as per terms and conditions in invoices at Exh. 18 and 19, it appears
that if amount is not paid in due date then it will charge 18% interest.
Therefore, plaintiff issued Letter dated 11/02/2019 at Exh. 23 by
RPAD to defendant No. 2. It appears from record, the same notice is
received by defendants. However, defendants have neither filed reply
nor paid outstanding amount. Therefore, as per plaintiff, they are
entitled for interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on principal amount.
09] Thus from oral and documentary evidence on record, it
appears that plaintiff has proved that they are entitled for an amount
of Rs. 50,877/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a., total
amounting to Rs. 78,700/-. Further, so far as further interest is
concerned, plaintiff has claimed further interest at the rate of 18% p.a.
However, I am of the view that said rate of interest is excessive as
compared to rate of interest of Nationalized Banks. Therefore, having
regard to the provision of section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code, I am
of the view that granting interest at the rate of 7% p.a. on the
principal amount would be just, proper and reasonable. Hence, I hold
that the plaintiff is entitled to further interest at the rate of 7% p.a on
the principal amount, from the date of filing the suit till its full
-- 6 of 8 --
7 Sum Su No.974/2019
realization. Further, as discussed above defendant No. 2 is a School
and defendant No. 1 is founder of defendant No. 1. Therefore, they are
jointly and severally are liable to pay outstanding amount with interest
to the plaintiff. Hence, I answer point No. 1 accordingly. In the result,
in answer to point No. 2, I proceed to pass following order.
O R D E R
1) Summary Suit No. 974 of 2019 is hereby decreed with the costs.
2) The defendants shall jointly or/and severally pay an amount of
Rs. 78,700/- (Rupees Seventy Eight Thousand Seven Hundred
only) to the plaintiff.
3) The defendants shall pay to the plaintiff simple interest on
Rs. 50,877/- at the rate of 7% p.a from 23/08/2019, the date of
filing of suit till its full realization.
4) The plaintiff may be entitled to get refund the court fees paid, if
provided for in Rules.
5) The decree be drawn up accordingly.
(Sangram S.Shinde)
Ad-hoc Judge,
City Civil Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai.
Dated: 17/02/2025 C.R.No.81
Dictated on: 17/02/2025
Corrected & signed on: 20/02/2025
-- 7 of 8 --
8 Sum Su No.974/2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
21/02/2025 Mrs. V. V. Malgaonkar
Name of the Judge
(with Court Room No.)
Shri S. S. Shinde
C.R. No.81
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGMENT/
ORDER 17/02/2025
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P. O. on 20/02/2025
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 21/02/2025
-- 8 of 8 --