Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment in Exh.15
Suit No.3049 of 2019. 1
MHCC010101082019
Presented on : 03-10-2019
Registered on : 22-11-2019
Decided on : 24-11-2022
Duration : 3 Yr, 1 M, 21 D
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GR. BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO. 3049 OF 2019.
Exh.15
M/s. Jindal Traders, formed as HUF ]
Through its Karta Mr. Mukeshkumar Harmukhrai ]
Jindal, age 51 Years, having ]
its registered office at 614, 6th floor,B1,Kakad Market, ]
306, Kalbadevi Road. Mumbai 400 002. ] ....Plaintiff
V/s
1. M/s. Royal Textile Processors, ]
Lions School, Junagadh Road, ]
Jetpur, Dist. Rajkot, ]
Gujrat, pin . 360 370. ]
2.Mr. Kantilal Becharbhai Babariya. ]
age not known, ]
Proprietor of M/s. Royal Textile Processors, ]
Lions School, Junagadh Road, ]
Jetpur, Dist. Rajkot. ]..Defendants.
Appearance:
Adv. Mr. Dheeraj K.S.Rathore for the plaintiff.
Defendant Exparte.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY
-- 1 of 5 --
Judgment in Exh.15
Suit No.3049 of 2019. 2
Coram : His Honour Judge
Shri. S. B. Pawar.
CR No. : 59.
Date : 24/11/2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This is a suit for recovery of the sum of Rs.2,84,497/ with
interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 23.03.2018 till 30.08.2019 and
further interest at 18%p.a.
Brief facts of the case are as under :
2. Plaintiff is HUF carrying on business through Karta Mr.
Mukesh Kumar Jindal and is in the business to process gray cloth
purchased from various clients and deliver the finished goods to
customers in accordance with the orders placed by them. Defendants
were trading with plaintiff for more that three years. In December
2017, defendants placed order with the plaintiff to supply 'bleached
cambrik taxable' through agent Mr. Dineshbhai Doshi. The plaintiff
dispatched the goods on 19.12.2017 and raised invoice No.65 dated
22.01.2018 for an amount of Rs.2,25,899/. However, despite of
receipt of goods, defendants failed to pay the due amount mentioned in
the tax invoice. Plaintiff issued notice through advocate on 21.05.2019
calling upon defendants to make the payment. Defendants replied the
said notice denying their liability. Therefore, the suit is filed for
recovery of the amount.
-- 2 of 5 --
Judgment in Exh.15
Suit No.3049 of 2019. 3
3. Defendants are duly served with writ of summons but they
failed to appear in the suit. Therefore, suit proceeded exparte against
defendants.
4. Following points arise for my determination, to which I record my
findings for the reasons to follow:
Sr. No. POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether plaintiff proves that an
amount of Rs.2,84,497/ is due
and payable by the defendants to
the plaintiff ?
..Partly Affirmative..
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to re
cover the aforesaid amount from
the defendants ? ..Partly Affirmative..
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to in
terest ? If yes, what shall be the
rate of interest ?
Yes
at the rate of 7 % p.a.
4. What order and decree ? Suit is partly decreed.
R E A S O N S
5. Heard Ld. advocate for the plaintiff. To substantiate case
pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint, PW.1 Mr. Mukeshkumar
Harmukhrai Jindal, Karta of the plaintiffHUF filed his affidavit in lieu
of examinationinchief at Exh 7. The documentary evidence adduced
by the plaintiff is duly proved in the evidence of the above witness.
6. The document at Exh.9 is the tax invoice dated 22.01.2018.
-- 3 of 5 --
Judgment in Exh.15
Suit No.3049 of 2019. 4
The Challans at Exh 10 (colly) show that the goods described in tax
invoice are delivered to defendants. Exh.11 is the notice dated
21.05.2019 given by plaintiff to defendants and Exh.12 is the reply
dated 31.05.2019. Exh.13, is the clarification in the reply.
7. The documents tendered by the plaintiff show that the
plaintiff delivered goods worth Rs. 2,25,899/ to defendants and the
same are received by the defendants. In the reply Exh.12 and
clarification Exh.13 defendants have not disputed receipt of the goods
from the plaintiff. They have raised the grievance that the goods were
of substandard quality.
8. Defendants have not appeared in the suit. The oral as well
as documentary evidence of plaintiff has remained uncontroverted. The
defence raised in reply Exh.12 is neither pleaded nor substantiated
before the Court. In these circumstances, the plaintiff has established
the claim. The suit is within limitation. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to
recover the outstanding amount of Rs. 2,25,899/ from defendants.
9. Plaintiff is claiming interest at the rate of 18%. The tax
invoice Exh.9 does not provide for interest on delayed payment.
Therefore, there is no agreed rate of interest. In view of the transaction,
the interest can be fixed at 7% from the due date of tax invoice.
Therefore, point No.1 and 2 are answered as partly affirmative, point
No.3 is answered in the affirmative and following order is passed.:
-- 4 of 5 --
Judgment in Exh.15
Suit No.3049 of 2019. 5
ORDER
1. The suit is partly decreed with proportionate costs.
2. Defendants shall pay an amount of Rs.2,25,899/ to the
plaintiff with interest at the rate of 7 % p.a. from 23.03.2018 till
the entire amount is realised.
3. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
4. Suit No. 3049 of 2019 is disposed off.
(S.B. Pawar)
Judge,
Dated: 24/11/2022 City Civil and Sessions Court,
Greater Bombay (CR 59)
Declared on : 24.11.2022
Dictated on : 24.11.2022
Checked on : 29.11.2022
Signed on : 30.11.2022
IFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER”
02.12.2022 at12.05 p.m. Mrs. P.R.Wagh
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court
Room No.)
HHJ SHRI.S.B.Pawar,(C.R.No.59)
Judge.,City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date of pronouncement of /Order 24.11.2022
Order signed by P.O. on 30.11.2022
order uploaded on 02.12.2022
-- 5 of 5 --