Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: MHCC010094172019
Presented on 13092019
Registered on 30112019
Decided on 20-09-2022
Duration Yrs. M. Days
03 00 07
CNR No. MHCC010094172019
EXH.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMARY SUIT NO.1196 OF 2019
Ms. Rosalind Pereira,
carrying on business as a Sole Proprietor
in the name and style of “Mayabazaar”,
having her office at 5th floor,
Behramji Mansion, Sir, P.M. Road,
Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. ...Plaintiff.
V/s.
Direct Create Pvt. Ltd.,
a company incorporated under therefor
Companies Act, 1956,
having its Registered Office at
Flot No.5/42, 2nd Floor,
Kanishka Complex, 'K' Block,
Kalka Ji, South Delhi,
New Delhi – 110 019. ....Defendant.
Appearances:
Ld. Adv. Mr. Pratik Pai for plaintiff.
None present for defendant.
M
-- 1 of 5 --
Suit 1196 of 2019 .. J/2 .. Judgment
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. R.K. KSHIRSAGAR
(C.R.No.13)
DATED : 20th September, 2022
J U D G M E N T
(Exparte)
1. The present Summary Suit is filed by plaintiff for recovery
of sum of Rs.98,108/ alongwith interest from the date of filing of the
suit till the actual realization.
2. The facts in brief are as follows:
The plaintiff is engaged in the business of design,
manufacture and sale of handcrafted jewellery and accessories. The
defendant is the Company claiming to be a platform which connects
artisans, designers, retailers and consumers. On the strength of the
representations and assurances of the defendant, the plaintiff agreed to
supply its jewellery for the event at Udaipur. The plaintiff supplied the
54 pieces of jewellery / accessories by courier to the defendant. As
agreed between plaintiff and defendant, the defendant was to return
the jewellery which was not selected for the event. The defendant had
received the jewellery on 20.10.2018, 13.11.2018, 15.11.2018 and
19.11.2018. The defendant acknowledged the said challans. However,
after the event the defendant failed to return back the jewellery. Thus
the plaintiff had not received 39 pieces of the jewellery and it went to
missing on the part of defendant. The defendant assured the plaintiff to
pay for the missing jewellery or locate it and return the same. On
failure of the defendant, to make the payment the plaintiff issued legal
notice to the defendant. The defendant however, failed to acknowledge
-- 2 of 5 --
Suit 1196 of 2019 .. J/3 .. Judgment
the same and therefore, plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of
amount and prayed to decree the suit.
3. The defendant was duly served but he failed to appear and
further failed to file the appropriate proceedings and hence the
defendant was proceeded Exparte.
4. The plaintiff in support of the contention filed the affidavit
of evidence vide Exh.2 and the documents vide Exh.4. The plaintiff
filed the printout of material on social media, the printout of emails
exchanged of both the parties, delivery challans, delivery receipt, list of
missing articles. Demand notice and particulars of claim alongwith the
Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act vide Exh.6 to 22.
5. Heard the argument advanced by Learned Advocate for
plaintiff. From the documentary evidence filed by the plaintiff, it
seems that by virtue of the emails the defendant placed purchase order
to the plaintiff. Accordingly plaintiff supplied the goods to the
defendant. The goods were delivered to the defendant as per the
delivery challan and delivery receipt. There are series of emails
exchanged between both the parties wherein defendant acknowledged
his liability to either relocate the missing jewellery or to make the
payment regarding he same. There is no protest raised by the
defendant at the time of the receiving of the jewellery as agreed
between plaintiff and defendant, the defendant was bound to make
good all the losses incurred by the plaintiff. However, the defendant
failed to do so. The defendant also failed to appear and challenge the
oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff. The evidence of plaintiff
has therefore, gone unchalenged. The defendant had choosen to
-- 3 of 5 --
Suit 1196 of 2019 .. J/4 .. Judgment
remain absent. The defendant was having knowledge of the pendency
of the suit but still he failed to raise any defence as per law. It was
therefore seems that the defendant admitted the claim of plaintiff. The
plaintiff has proved that in support of orders placed by the defendant,
the plaintiff supplied the pieces of jewellery to the defendant. The
defendant acknowledged the receipt of the same, however, failed to
make the payment or return the goods. And therefore, plaintiff has
proved that he is entitled for the decreetal amount as prayed.
6. The plaintiff is also seeking the interest. It seems that the
interest at the rate of 9% per annum would meet the ends of justice. I
therefore, proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
1. The Summary Suit No.1196 of 2019 is decreed with costs.
2. Defendant shall pay the amount of Rs.98,108/ (Rupees Ninety
Eight Thousand One Hundred and Eight Only) to the plaintiff
along with interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the
date of filing suit till its actual realization.
3. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
4. Court fee if any be refunded as per rules to the plaintiff.
5. Judgment is dictated and pronounced in open court.
6. R and P be sent to Record Department.
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
Dt.: 20092022 City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
Dictated on : 20092022
Transcribed on : 22092022
checked on : 22092022
Signed on : 22092022
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
-- 4 of 5 --
Suit 1196 of 2019 .. J/5 .. Judgment
ERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
22.09.2022 at 05.15 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(VARSHA U. PAWAR)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge ( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
20.09.2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 22.09.2022
Judgment/order uploaded on 22.09.2022
-- 5 of 5 --