Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: Judgment in SC. Suit No.2583 of 2021 Exh.17
MHCC010110122019
Lodged on :24/10/2019.
Registered on:12/12/2019.
Decided On :25/07/2022.
Duration :03Y:09M:01D
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GR. BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO. 2583 OF 2021.
Exhibit 17.
Mahendra Pukhraj Mehta. ]
Son of Pukhraj Mehta, aged about 51 ]
Years, occupation : business, carrying ]
on business under the name and style ]
of 'STERLITE METAL & TUBES' at ]
408, Harharwala Building, Office No.15, ]
1st Floor, Patthe Bapurao Marg, Near ]
Alankar Cinema , Mumbai – 400 004 ] ....Plaintiff
Versus
(1) Bindu Tech Flow Solutions ]
Private Limited ]
A Private Limited Company ]
incorporated The Companies Act ]
1956. ]
(2) Pravin Parvatikar ]
full name, not known, adult, age : ]
not known, occupation : business ]
(3) Vithal Bindu Rao Parvatikar ]
1
-- 1 of 8 --
Judgment in SC. Suit No.2583 of 2021 Exh.17
full name : not known, adult, age: ]
not known, occupation : Business ]
All the Defendants commonly at Bindu ]
Tech Flow Solutions Private Limited ]
108A, 1 st Floor, Citi Mall, Apartment ]
Near Pendharkar College, MIDC ]
Dombivali (East) – 421 203. ]
Maharashtra. ] ....Defendants
Appearance:
Adv. K. S. Tripathi for the plaintiff.
Defendant Exparte.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY
Coram : His Honour Judge
Shri. S. B. Pawar.
CR No. :59.
Date : 25/07/2022.
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for recovery of an amount of
Rs.2,80,331.21/.
Case of the plaintiff in nutshell is as under :
2. Plaintiff is a proprietor of M/s. STERLITE METAL & TUBES.
He is carrying on the business as stockist and supplier of Ferrous and
NonFerrous metals including S.S./M.S. Materials. Defendant No.1 is a
Private Limited Company. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are having substantial
financial and business interest in Defendant No.1company.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that pursuant to the order
2
-- 2 of 8 --
Judgment in SC. Suit No.2583 of 2021 Exh.17
received from the defendants, the plaintiff from 05.04.2017 to
27.12.2017 has sold, dispatched and delivered S.S./M.S. material to the
defendants worth Rs.27,84,018/. The description of the goods sold to
defendants is as under:
Sr.
No.
Bill Date Bill No. Amount
1. 01.11.2017 36/20172018 20,63,372/
2. 06.11.2017 36/20172018 1,27,204/
3. 30.11.2017 43/20172018 91,922/
4. 14.12.2017 47/20172018 76,110/
5. 27.12.2017 51/20172018 1,25,596/
4. Plaintiff further pleaded that the defendants have duly
accepted, acknowledged and even consumed the goods, to their
satisfaction without raising any dispute of whatsoever nature about
quality, quantity and rates etc. The plaintiff delivered the goods with
five tax invoices in Motor Trucks/Vehicles arranged by the defendants.
The defendants had agreed to make payment of bills against 30 credit
days on receiving goods, otherwise defendants were liable to pay
interest at the rate of 24% p.m.
5. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the defendants
made delayed payment. Therefore, sum of Rs.2,80,331.21/ is due and
payable by defendants to the plaintiff towards interest. On 19.06.2019,
plaintiff issued demand notice calling upon the defendants to pay the
above amount. The notice was duly served upon the defendants. But
defendants failed and neglected to pay the due amount towards interest
on the delayed payment of bills. Therefore, the suit has been filed by
3
-- 3 of 8 --
Judgment in SC. Suit No.2583 of 2021 Exh.17
the plaintiff for recovery of the sum of Rs.2,80,331.21/
6. Writ of summons was served upon defendants by RPAD but
defendants failed to appear in the suit. Therefore, the suit proceeded
exparte against the defendants.
7. Heard advocate K.S. Tripathi for the plaintiff.
8. 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
defendants are liable to pay an
amount of Rs.2,80,331.21 to
the plaintiff?
Yes
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled
to recover the above amount
from the defendant? Yes
3. What order? Suit is decreed.
REASONS
As to Point No. 1 to 4.:
9. In order to prove the suit claim, PW1 Mahendra Pukhraj
Mehta has filed his affidavit in lieu of examinationinchief at Exh.6.
The documents annexed with list of Exh.7 which are duly proved in his
evidence are marked as exhibit. Except document at Sr.No.1, which is
master data of the defendant No.1 Company, all other documents are
proved in the evidence of P.W.1.
4
-- 4 of 8 --
Judgment in SC. Suit No.2583 of 2021 Exh.17
10. Plaintiff claims that there is delayed payment by defendants
against five invoices (Exh.10 collectively) dated 01.11.2017,
16.11.2017, 30.11.2017, 14.12.2017 and 27.12.2017 for an amount of
Rs.20,63,372/, Rs.1,27,204/, Rs.91,922/, Rs.76,110/ and
Rs.1,25,596/ respectively. He has claimed that the 30 days credit was
given to the defendants and thereafter defendants were liable to pay
interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on the delayed payment as provided in
the terms and conditions of the plaintiff's tax invoices.
11. To substantiate the case, plaintiff has produced registration
certificate at Exh.9. Above five tax invoices are produced at
Exh.10(colly). Exh.11(colly) is the Bank statement of the plaintiff with
Bank of Baroda for the period from 01.01.2018 to 31.05.2018 and
thereafter from 01.08.2018 to 30.08.2018. Plaintiff is admitting that he
has received the amount against the invoices. However, he is
complaining it as a delayed payment. In debit note at Exh.12, plaintiff
has given the details of receipt of amount from the defendants against
the aforesaid five tax invoices. The entries in the debit note (Exh.12)
correspond with the entries in Bank statement (Exh.11).
12. Document at Exh.13 is the demand notice sent by the
plaintiff on 19.06.2019 to defendants claiming an amount of
Rs.2,80,331.21/ as interest against the delayed payment. The RPAD
acknowledgments annexed with the notice indicate that the notice was
served upon the defendants. The copy of reply dated 19.07.2019 is at
Exh.14. In the reply, the defendants have disputed the liability claimed
5
-- 5 of 8 --
Judgment in SC. Suit No.2583 of 2021 Exh.17
by the plaintiff and have raised defence that the supplies under one of
the invoice No.36 dated 1/11/2017 was substandard and defective
which plaintiff agreed to replace on urgent basis, but did not comply,
because of which, defendants had to incur huge costs and plaintiff had
agreed to bear the expenditure of Rs.5.10 lakhs towards rectification
and to this effect had agreed to issue a credit note which was never
issued with malafide intention and ulterior motives.
13. After receipt of reply dated 19.07.2019, plaintiff sent
another notice dated 16.08.2019 at Exh.15 denying the defence of
defendants in reply and again raised the demand of Rs.2,80,331.21/
towards the interest for delayed payment. The RPAD acknowledgments
along with notice Exh.15 show that the said notice was duly received by
the defendants. However, there is nothing on record to show that the
defendants replied or complied the said requisition.
14. The defendants have not appeared and contested the suit
claim. The tax invoices at Exh.10 collectively provides the payment
terms of 30 days and further provides that 24%. p.a. interest will be
charged if the amount is not paid within time. The entire oral as well as
documentary evidence of the plaintiff has remained unconverted and
unchallenged, as the defendants failed to contest the suit claim. In debit
note at Exh.12, plaintiff has provided in detail the calculation of the
interest on the due amount. The amount received from the defendants
from time to time against the invoices is reflected in the debit note.
Therefore, calculation made by the plaintiff cannot be faulted with.
6
-- 6 of 8 --
Judgment in SC. Suit No.2583 of 2021 Exh.17
15. The above evidence adduced by the plaintiff is sufficient to
establish that for delayed payment of the amount against the tax invoice
at Exh.10(Colly), defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay an
amount of Rs.2,80,331.21/ to the plaintiff. The suit is filed within
limitation. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to recover the aforesaid
amount from the defendants. Accordingly, Point No.1 and 2 are
answered in the affirmative and following order is passed :
ORDER
1. Suit No.2583 of 2021 is decreed with costs.
2. Defendant shall, jointly and severally, pay an amount of
Rs.2,80,331.21/ to the plaintiff.
3. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
4. Suit No.2583 of 2021 stands disposed of.
(S.B. Pawar)
Judge,
Dated: 25/07/2022 City Civil and Sessions Court,
Greater Bombay (CR 59)
Declared on : 25.07.2022
Dictated on : 25.07.2022
Transcribed on : 30.07.2022
Checked & Signed on :
7
-- 7 of 8 --
Judgment in SC. Suit No.2583 of 2021 Exh.17
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
04.08.2022 at 12.05 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 25.07.2022
Order signed by P.O. on 25.07.2022
order uploaded on 04.08.2022
8
-- 8 of 8 --