In The Court Of Shri Naresh Kumar … vs ) M/S. Furncraft on 18 December, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA, SCJ/RC(WEST) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI S-229/2013 M/s. RMR Marmo Pvt. Ltd. D-11, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110015. (Through the AR Shri Virender Kumar Saini) ....Plaintiff Versus 1) M/s. Furncraft 125, Shahpurjat, Second Floor, New Delhi-49. 2) Mr. Nitin Kohli (Partner) M/s. Furncraft 125, Shahpurjat, Second Floor, New Delhi-49. 3) Mr. Ashok (Manager) M/s. Furncraft 125, Shahpurjat, Second Floor, New Delhi-49. ....Defendants Date of institution of the suit : 19.07.2013 Date of reserving Judgment : 18.12.2013 Date of pronouncement : 18.12.2013 EX-PARTE JUDGMENT 1.
Vide this judgment I shall dispose off the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,74,085/- filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
2. Essential facts necessary for disposal of the present suit as per the plaint are as that the plaintiff is having its registered office at the above mentioned address and the plaintiff company is registered under the Companies Act. The plaintiff company is engaged in the business of supply and trading of the imported marbles, composite marbles, marbles granites and other kinds of stones/flooring etc. The plaintiff company has passed a board resolution dated 02.04.2013 in favour of Shri Virender Kumar Saini authorizing him to file the present suit. The defendant no.1 is a partnership firm and defendants no.2 and 3 are partner and manager of the firm. The plaintiff supplied the goods to the S229/2013 Page….. 1/3 defendants. As per the terms and conditions agreed upon between the plaintiff and the defendants, the payment of the goods supplied was to be made soon on delivery of goods to the defendants. The defendant has made some payments on account of payments against the goods supplied and the plaintiff has given credits to the defendant in its books of accounts for the same. The defendant had furnished inward challan in Form No.38 issued by department of ‘Excise and Taxation’, Government of Haryana to the plaintiff for dispatching the goods in the territory of ‘State of Haryana’. The defendant had purchased the goods on concessional rate of 2% CST and represented the plaintiff that the defendant shall furnish the requisite ‘C’ forms to the plaintiff soon but in spite of repeated request and reminders, the defendants had not furnished the required ‘C’ form for the last bill no.0024 dated 02.05.2010. The assessment of plaintiff for the relevant period is in progress and taxation authorities may impose tax, interest and penalty on plaintiff due to non furnishing of statutory declaration in ‘C’ Form in time. As per the books of account regularly maintained by the plaintiff, the defendant is in arrears of Rs.84,624/- as principal and interest @ 24% per annum which comes to Rs.87,161/-. The plaintiff is also claiming Rs.1,566/- as sales tax liability, totaling a sum of Rs. 1,74,603/-. Legal notice dated 16.11.2011 was served upon the defendants for recovery of outstanding amount and ‘C’ Form and even after receipt of the legal notice, the defendants had not released the outstanding amount nor had furnished the ‘C’ Form. The defendants are intentionally and knowingly withholding the legal dues.
3. Notice of the suit was sent to the defendants and the defendants were S229/2013 Page….. 2/3 proceeded ex-parte on 19.10.2013.
4. In ex-parte evidence the plaintiff produced Shri Virender Kumar Saini, AR of the plaintiff as PW-1. This witness filed the extract of meetings of board of directors dated 24.07.2013 as Ex.PW-1/1. Copy of invoice and ‘C’ Form is proved on record as Ex.PW-1/2 (Colly). The plaintiff has also placed on record the invoice dated 02.05.2010 amounting to Rs.16,308/- and no other invoice has been placed on record. The plaintiff has also placed on record the statement of account as Ex.PW-1/3. The plaintiff has also proved on record the legal notice dated 16.11.2011 as Ex.PW-1/4. The plaintiff has also placed on record its registered AD receipt and acknowledgment. From the acknowledgment it is proved that the legal notice was served. The plaintiff has placed on record the ledger account which shows that a sum of Rs.89,624/- is due. Further, there is no reason to dis-believe the unchallenged and uncross- examined testimony of the PW-1. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and a decree for a sum of Rs.89,624/- is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The plaintiff has claimed interest @ 24% per annum but the plaintiff has not placed on record any document to show that it is entitled to interest @ 24% per annum. I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 12% per annum which is the reasonable rate of interest in usual market from the date of the filing of the suit till realization along with costs of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court (NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA) on 18.12.2013 SCJ/RC(WEST), THC, DELHI S229/2013 Page..... 3/3