AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears for the respondent.
The matter is being heard ex-parte because the respondent even after valid service of notice has chosen not to appear since the very beginning
of the proceedings. It has not filed any reply or affidavit of evidence.
The Petitioner has pleaded that it is a service provider by virtue of license granted by the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India
under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The respondent is also a company having ISP license and authorised to provide internet
services. On pleadings it is clear that this Tribunal has jurisdiction over the matter.
Initially petitioner had claimed a money decree for Rs. 8,51,580/- alongwith pendentilite and future interest and also relief on account of non
furnishing of TDS certificates by the respondent for the financial year 2017-18. Subsequently, by filing an additional affidavit on 4.7.2019,Â
petitioner has reduced its claim to Rs. 7,99,373/-. The statement of account as well as details of receipts including an amount of Rs. One lakh
received during the pendency of the petition have been furnished through Annexure 'B'. The same also contains calculation of interest amounting to
Rs. 64,161/- @ 10% per annum against each pending invoice from due date till 15.2.2019. Another amount of Rs. 47,793/- has been claimed
because respondent did not furnish TDS certificates for that amount. To these figures, petitioner has added Rs. 6,87,419/- as the principal dues
arising from invoices for the months of May, June and July (part), 2018.  The total of the principal amount, the interest and the TDS amount has
been claimed as the final outstanding indicated in the additional affidavit. It is falling for consideration whether the aforesaid claim should be allowed or
not. The materials on record show that parties had entered into business relationship through a Capacity Agreement dated 12.12.2015 (Annx. P/1).Â
Earlier the Purchase Order was for a lesser capacity but through its Purchase Order dated 15.3.2017, the respondent became entitled to avail
service of three GBPS Point to Point lease-line capacity against annual recurring charges of Rs. 33 lakhs. The Purchase Order is Annexure P-2.
The correspondences between the parties have also been annexed to support the pleadings that the respondent failed to perform its payment
obligations for which reminder and telephone calls were issued. In respect of the then outstanding, the respondent sent an email on 9.7.2018 to pay
the dues which were, in terms of the agreement, payable quarterly in advance, within 10 days from the date of the invoice. However, as per Purchase
Order, it was payable in advance but monthly. The case of the petitioner is that on the request of the respondent, the service was withdrawn and
the link was looped back on 18.7.2018. Since dues remained unpaid, the capacity allocated to the respondent under the agreement was brought to an
end on 3.8.2018 on the request of the respondent itself. After various reminders for the dues as contained in Annx. P-9 (colly), a legal notice was
issued on 9.1.2019Â Â and the present petition was ultimately filed on 27.2.2019.
In the additional affidavit filed on 4.7.2019, an e-mail received from competent authority of the respondent dated 15.4.2019 has been annexed as
Annx. 'A' to show that as per subject of the email, the respondent for some reasons was unable to appear before this Tribunal in April 2019, but in the
context of legal notice, the respondent accepted the amount demanded by the petitioner and sought time to repay the same.
Considering all the materials on record of this petition, and also the additional affidavit, there is no difficulty in holding that the petitioner is entitled
to the amount claimed by it as dues lawfully realisable from the respondent in terms of the agreement and Purchase Order. Hence, the amount of
Rs. 7,99,373/- is decreed in favour of the petitioner.
The petitioner has also claimed for pendentilite and future interest. No doubt from March 2019 onwards, the petitioner is entitled for interest
over the amount decreed above, but its claim of interest @ 18% per annum is unacceptable. Following several recent judgments of this
Tribunal rendered in similar money claims, the prayer for interest from March 2019 onward is allowed but only at the rate of 9% p.a. The claim
on account of TDS certificate not being furnished has already been included in the principal claim allowed above and hence, no separate order is
required in respect of the same. Since the respondent has chosen not to contest the claim, no order shall be made as to costs.
The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent and disposed of alongwith pending M.A., if any.  The respondent is directed to pay the decretal
amount including the interest as allowed within six weeks. The Registry is directed to prepare a decree on the basis of this judgment at an early
date, preferably within four weeks.  In case, the respondent fails to pay the decretal amount including interest within the time granted, the
petitioner would be at liberty to realise the same by preferring an Execution Application in accordance with law.  Â