Mac Decor Limited vs . Furncraft Private Limited on 24 February, 2012

Mac Decor Limited vs . Furncraft Private Limited on 24 February, 2012
Author: Sh. Inderjeet Singh
Mac Decor Limited vs. Furncraft Private Limited


 IN THE COURT OF SHRI INDER JEET SINGH, ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE­03, 
       SOUTH DISTRICT, ROOM NO. 309, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI

In the matter of ­ 


                                                                   Suit No. 245/2011

        Mac Decor Limited,
        Acting through its authorized representative :
        Shri Vinod Bisht,
        5, Community Centre, 
        East of Kailash, New Delhi­65.       
                                                                   ...... Plaintiff

                    Versus 



        Furncraft Private Limited,
        Acting through its Director / Authorized representative 
        Having its office at : 
        125, Second Floor, Shahpurjat,
        New Delhi­110049. 

        Also at : 
        11th Floor, Paras Twin Tower,
        Golf Course Road, Near Suncity,
        Gurgaon, Haryana. 
                                                                   ...... Defendant 


Plaint Presented on           : 29.07.2011
Date of Institution           : 30.07.2011
Decision Reserved on          : 07.02.2012
Date of Decision              : 24.02.2012
 Mac Decor Limited vs. Furncraft Private Limited



                                  JUDGMENT

(on Suit for Recovery of Rs. 5,57,000/­) 1.1 The plaintiff M/s. Mac Decor Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, it is in the business of trading, supplying and installation of venetian, vertical and decorative blinds / curtains, roller blinds and rod components. Its Account Assistant Shri Vinod Bisht, author of the plaint, has been authorized by Board Resolution dated 18.07.2011 (now Ex. PW­1/1), to sign and verify the plaint and to institute the suit. The defendant Furncraft Pvt. Ltd. is also a registered company, who placed purchase order dated 25.03.2009 (now Ex. PW­1/2) to the plaintiff; although, the defendant has been placing purchase orders from time to time orally and / or in writing.

1.2 The plaintiff has been supplying requisite material as per specifications to the defendant and also carrying out the installations of the same, from time to time. The plaintiff has also been raising necessary invoices / bills in the name of defendant, which were duly accepted by the defendant and in discharge of its liability of said bills / invoices (now Ex. PW­1/3­A to Ex. PW­1/3­H) part payments were also made by the defendant, the computer generated invoices / bills have also been maintained (now Ex. PW­1/3­I to Ex. PW­1/3­J). Besides, the defendant also endorsed acceptance of delivery challans (now Ex. PW­1/4­A to Ex. PW­1/4­J) issued by the plaintiff at the time of handing over of the material over to the defendant as well as execution of installation work. Mac Decor Limited vs. Furncraft Private Limited The plaintiff maintains running account / statement of account (for period 01.04.2008 to 26.07.2011 is now Ex. PW­1/5), in respect of transaction carried between them and part payment tendered has been credited in the said account, the last part payment of Rs. 48,584/­ was made to the plaintiff on 10.06.2009, which has also been shown in the statement of account. The remaining amount is outstanding and as on 31.03.2010, there was outstanding liability of Rs. 4,02,623/­ (also shown in statement of account Ex. PW­1/5) which defendant failed to pay, despite request by the plaintiff and its assurances turned futile, therefore, the plaintiff through its Advocate, sent registered / speed post demand notice dated 25.09.2010 (now Ex. PW­1/6, Ex. PW­1/7­A to Ex. PW­1/7­D) and the defendant had received / acknowledged (now AD Cards are Ex. PW­1/7­E and Ex. PW­1/7­F), the demand notice but no result, that is why, the present suit for recovery of Rs. 5,57,000/­ (i.e Rs. 4,02,623/­ + interest Rs. 1,54,377/­)

2. The summons were sent to the defendant by speed post and ordinary way, the ordinary summons and registered cover were refused on 12.08.2011 by the defendant, but information was delivered to him and as per tracking report of speed post, the article / envelope containing summons was delivered to the defendant on 16.08.2011.

3. Neither the defendant appeared nor prosecuted the case, therefore, considering the reports of refusal, which amounts to sufficient service and also of delivery of articles by speed post, it was proceeded ex­ parte on 01.10.2011.

Mac Decor Limited vs. Furncraft Private Limited

4. Then, PW­1 Shri Vinod Bisht, author of the plaint, stepped into the witness box and concluded the plaintiff’s evidence. Shri Sumit R. Sharma, Advocate for plaintiff argued finally.

5. FINDINGS ­ The contentions are assessed in the light of record. PW­1 Shri Vinod Bisht deposed on the lines of plaint and documents, which has already been compiled in paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2, above. The testimony of PW­1 remained unchallenged but proved.

The plaintiff has established that there was a purchase order and plaintiff supplied the material under retail invoices, there was also installation of material asked for, as per the description and instruction of the defendant and statement of account (Ex. PW­1/5) consolidate all the transactions carried between the parties and last payment was of Rs. 48,584/­ on 10.06.2009. Therefore, the suit filed on 29.07.2011 is within the prescribed period of limitation. The plaintiff is entitled for decree of suit amount. However, the retail invoices prescribes interest @ 24% per annum but plaintiff claims pendent­lite and future interest @ 18% per annum and the suit has been filed for outstanding amount of Rs. 4,02,623/­ + interest of Rs. 1,54,377/­ upto date of suit. The principal sum adjudged is Rs. 4,02,623/­ and pendent­lite and future interest @ 18% per annum, would be computed on such principal adjudged sum.

Mac Decor Limited vs. Furncraft Private Limited Accordingly, the plaintiff’s suit is decreed for Rs. 5,57,000/­, coupled with cost of suit and interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till realization of the amount, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, however, the interest would be computed on Rs. 4,02,623/­, the principal adjudged sum.

Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

File is consigned to record room.

Announced in the open Court                                                        (INDER JEET SINGH) 
     th
on 05  Phalguna, Saka 1933                                                   Additional District Judge ­03, 
                                                                              South District, Saket Courts,
                                                                                   New Delhi / 24.02.2012

N

Mac Decor Limited vs. Furncraft Private Limited CS No. 245/2011 24.02.2012 Present : Proxy counsel for plaintiff.

Defendant is ex­parte.

Vide separate judgment, announced today, the plaintiff’s suit is decreed for Rs. 5,57,000/­, coupled with cost of suit and interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till realization of the amount, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, however, the interest would be computed on Rs. 4,02,623/­, the principal adjudged sum.

Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

File is consigned to record room.

                                                             (INDER JEET SINGH)
                                           Addl. District Judge­03, South District,
N                                                               Saket/24.02.2012

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *