M/s. Ajanta Offset and Packaging Ltd. vs M/s. Head Start Advertising and Marketing (P) Ltd.

M.L. Mehta, J.—The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 20,35,213/- with interest @ 21% p.a. from the defendant. There does not appear to be any serious contest on behalf of the defendant. The admitted facts of case are that the defendant and the plaintiff had been having business dealings. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of printing and other allied services such as scanning, processing etc. The plaintiff has averred that it is rendering different kinds of specialized services through its different divisions, including that of M/s. Chromocom Colorgraphics and A.P.T.C. The defendant has availed the different services from the plaintiff directly as also through its aforesaid divisions. The details of those services, which are not disputed by the defendant, are given in para 4 of the plaint. The plaintiff has set up the claim of recovery as outstanding of Rs. 4,34,111.98/- to itself, Rs. 7,68,663/- and Rs. 91,456/- to its divisions M/s. Chromocom Colorgraphics and A.P.T.C. respectively. In addition, the plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 6,83,876/- as towards the interest on the outstanding principal amount and a sum of Rs. 57,106/- on account of TDS deducted by the defendant. In this way, the plaintiff has sought recovery of Rs. 20,35,213/-. It is alleged that the defendant has failed to pay the aforesaid amount despite demands and also issue of legal notice dated 16.03.2004. The plaintiff has claimed the aforesaid amount with interest @ 21% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit. The defendant, while admitting that it has been dealing with the plaintiff and M/s. Chromocom Colorgraphics and A.P.T.C., has stated that all the transactions were independent of each other and that whatever was due, has been paid to the plaintiff as also to M/s. Chromocom Colorgraphics and A.P.T.C., and that, nothing was due from it (defendant). It was also the defendant''s case that all the three are independent and separate legal entities, having separate dealings with the defendant, and thus, the suit as filed by the plaintiff was bad for mis-joinder of the causes of actions and mis-joinder of the parties. It was specifically denied that the amounts as alleged by the plaintiff were due to the plaintiff as also M/s. Chromocom Colorgraphics and A.P.T.C.

The suit was set for trial on the following issues vide order dated 11.05.2006:

(1) Is the plaint liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC?

(2) Is the suit bad for mis-joinder of causes of action and mis-joinder of parties? If so, should the suit be presented before the District Judge?

(3) Is the plaintiff entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 20,35,213/- towards the service provided by the plaintiff to the defendant?

(4) What payment, if any, had the defendant made to the plaintiff?

(5) Is the plaintiff entitled to interest? If so, at what rate and for what period?

(6) Is any part of the suit barred by limitation?

(7) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to?

Issue Nos. 1 and 2

These issues were framed on the plea of the defendant that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and that the suit was bad for mis-joinder of causes of actions. As is noted above, it was the case of the plaintiff that M/s. Chromocom Colorgraphics and A.P.T.C. are its divisions engaged in providing processing, scanning and other allied services related to the printing etc. The plaintiff''s witness Mr. Sanjay Mishra (PW1) has categorically stated and maintained that both M/s. Chromocom Colorgraphics as also A.P.T.C. are the divisions of the plaintiff company. While M/s. Chromocom Colorgraphics is engaged in rendering specialized printing services like processing, scanning etc., A.P.T.C. is engaged in rendering allied printing services. He also maintained that both are the divisions of plaintiff company and are not the separate legal entities. In his cross examination, while maintaining that the defendant had placed separate orders on the plaintiff and M/s. Chromocom Colorgraphics and A.P.T.C., and based on which, separate supplies were made vide separate invoices, he denied that these are separate and independent entities. He maintained both these to be the divisions of the plaintiff company. In the various invoices raised by M/s. Chromocom Colorgraphics, it is conspicuously mentioned to be the division of the plaintiff. There is no reason to doubt the testimony of PW1 Sanjay Mishra that M/s. Chromocom Colorgraphics as also A.P.T.C. are nothing, but the divisions of plaintiff company. On the other hand, the defendant has not led any evidence to disprove the claim of the plaintiff, showing that M/s. Chromocom Colorgraphics and A.P.T.C. were separate legal entities. The defendant having failed to discharge the onus in this regard, both the issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue No. 6

This issue was also framed on the plea of the defendant. Nothing has been brought on record by the defendant to show as to how the suit was barred by limitation. The defendant having failed to discharge the onus placed upon it, the issue is decided against it and in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue Nos. 3 and 4

As is noted above, it was not denied by the defendant that it had been having dealing with the plaintiff as also M/s. Chromocom Colorgraphics and A.P.T.C. and had been placing separate orders and getting services. The defendant while denying that the amounts as mentioned above were due from it to the plaintiff and its divisions, stated that the payments had been made in respect of all the invoices whichever were received. All the pleas taken in this regard are not only vague, but remain unsubstantiated. The defendant has not led any evidence to disprove the claim that is set up by the plaintiff and which stands substantiated from the testimony of PW1 Sanjay Mishra. PW1 has specifically stated and maintained that a sum of Rs. 4,34,111.98/- remained unpaid and was outstanding from the defendant towards the plaintiff. The invoices of total sum of Rs. 7,68,663/- were raised on the defendant by M/s. Chromocom Colorgraphics for the services rendered and against which, no payment was made by the defendant. Likewise, the invoices of total sum of Rs. 91,456/- were raised on the defendant by A.P.T.C., against which also, no payment was made by the defendant. PW1 has also placed on record purchase orders and invoices collectively as Ex. PI. He stated and maintained that all the works were executed by the plaintiff by it and through its divisions vide the purchase orders and aforesaid invoices, and which were duly acknowledged by the defendant on the delivery challans, which are collectively proved as Ex. PII. PW1 has also placed on record the Statement of Accounts of the plaintiff collectively as Ex. PIII. He stated that all these accounts of the plaintiff''s company were duly audited. PW1 further stated and to which, there is no denial that legal notice dated 16.03.2004 was duly served upon the defendant, and that no payment was made by the defendant despite receipt of this notice. There is no reason to disbelieve the Statement of Accounts maintained by the plaintiff and its divisions in the ordinary course of businesses. The defendant has not brought anything on record to show that any payment towards any of the invoices, was made by it to the plaintiff or its divisions, as alleged by it. No evidence of any sort has been led in this regard by the defendant. In view of all this, it stands proved that the defendant had availed various kinds of services from the plaintiff directly and through its divisions, and for which, the invoices were raised, but the same remained unpaid by the defendant despite receipt of legal notice. Thus, these issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue Nos. 5 & 7

The plaintiff has claimed the interest @ 21% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree. Referring to various invoices of the plaintiff as also its divisions M/s. Chromocom Colorgraphics and A.P.T.C., the plaintiff has claimed interest @ 21% p.a. on the outstanding amount after the due dates. This could not be controverted by the learned counsel for the defendant. As is noted above, the plaintiff has already included in the claimed amount the interest amounting Rs. 7,68,663/- uptil the date of filing of the suit. However, having regard to the entire factual matrix, particularly the time taken in the trial, the plaintiff would be entitled to the pendente lite interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till today, and future interest at this rate till realization. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 20,35,213/- with interest @ 15% p.a. pendente lite from 08.04.2005 till today i.e. 15.04.2013 and future interest at this rate till its realization. Suit stands disposed of. Decree be drawn accordingly.