TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivil Suit No. 84 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 11-6-2019 - Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, J. For the Plaintiff : Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate. For the Defendant : Ex-parte. ORDER Vivek Singh Thakur, J. The plaintiff, M/s Mahou India Private Limited, a company formerly Arian Breweries and Distilleries Pvt. Limited, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of beer, has filed present suit under Order 37 CPC against defendant M/s Aradhna Wines, the sole proprietor concern engaged in business of selling beer from outlets situated at several locations in Himachal Pradesh, to recover a sum of ₹ 3,09,59,430/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 2 The suit has been filed through Director of plaintiff company by placing on record certified true copy of resolution passed in the meeting of Board of Directors of plaintiff company held on 23.9.2016. 3 As per plaint, plaintiff company had been supplying beer products after procuring the same from brewery at the outlet of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued to defendant were also received back with report that Mr. Anil Dogra, owner of the defendant company, was not residing in his house since long and his house as well as office had been sealed and his whereabouts were not known. Notices issued through registered AD were not received back. Therefore, plaintiff was permitted to serve defendant by way of publication/advertisement in two newspapers as well as by way of affixation and accordingly, service by way of affixation was effected on 29.8.2017 and publication in newspapers was made on 29.8.2017 in the Divya Himachal and 31.8.2017 in The Tribune. Despite that, none appeared for the defendant. However, one more notice was issued to the defendant on the address mentioned in plaint as well as another address of defendant procured by plaintiff. Thereafter, again there was no representation on behalf of the defendant on 4.10.2017 the date fixed for hearing. However, on perusal of record, it transpired that service upon the defendant was effected through affixation and publication, but copy of plaint and annexures thereto were not sent for affixation as required under Order 37 Rule 3(1) CPC. Therefore, defendant was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hotocopies of import permits issued by Excise and Taxation Department Government of H.P. during this period. Photocopies of import permits along with bility and GRs issued for transportation have also been placed on record with receipts. The details containing invoice no., date, amount etc. which are related to the defendant has also been placed on record. Original invoices books containing carbon copy of invoices with respect to goods supplied against the order placed by defendant at various times have been placed on record. Plaintiff has also placed on record original cheques issued by Mr. Anil Dogra, sole proprietor of the defendant concern bearing Nos. 266439, 266440, 266441, 266442 and 266443 dated 31.12.2016 for ₹ 10 lacs each. Information given by bankers of plaintiff i.e. ICICI Bank with regard to dishonour of cheque for insufficient funds has also been placed on record in original. Copy of legal notice dated 22.4.2016 along with receipt of courier company has been placed on record. Print of ledger record of running account of defendant maintained by the plaintiff company showing the receipt and outstanding amount has also been placed on record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s passed by Delhi High Court in Dura Line India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bpl Broadband Network Pvt. Ltd 111(2004)DLT 736; 2004(74)DRJ 266and M/s Flint Group India Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Good Morning India Media Pvt. Ltd in CM(M) No. 369 of 2017 and CM Nos. 13049-50/2017. 17 I am in agreement with the plea raised on behalf of the plaintiff and also with the findings returned on relevant issue in aforesaid judgments cited in support thereof. 18 Import permits placed on record, on Form L-34 issued by the Excise and Taxation Department, Government of H.P. contains the details of licence number, Firm s name, Licensee s name and address of not only the importer (consignee) but also of the exporter (consignor) along with complete description of goods i.e. beer therein. The said import permits were submitted by the defendant to the plaintiff for supply of goods and vide corresponding invoices placed on record, the goods prescribed in the export permits were supplied by plaintiff to the defendand and invoice also contains the name of importer(consignee), exporter(consignor), description of goods with complete identity of seller, purchaser, quantity, rates and price of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o him through these invoices and by making part payment against the said supply. Invoices may not have been signed by defendant, but the same have been signed by the authorized signatory of plaintiff and it is not necessary for a valid contract that it must be signed by both the parties. A contract signed by one party is also a valid contact particularly when there is ample evidence on record that same was accepted and acted upon by the concerned party/parties. Outstanding amount ₹ 3,09,59,430/- has been duly established from ledger account of plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled for recovery of ₹ 3,09,59,430/- as claimed. 20 Amount involved in present case pertains to business transaction and definitely, by withholding the payment due to plaintiff which may have been utilized by plaintiff in the business of plaintiff for non-availability of funds to be poured in the business activities so as to grow further. Therefore, the plaintiff is also entitled for interest @ 12% per annum on the amount to be recovered from the defendant. 21 In view of aforesaid discussion, suit of the plaintiff succeeds and accordingly, a decree for recove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
