Rahul Gupta vs M/S Paharpur Cooling Tower Ltd.

V.K. Jain, J.—This is a suit for recovery of Rs.21,16,204/-. The case of the plaintiff is that he has been supplying plastic granules to the defendant as well as undertaking job works for it for reprocessing plastic scrap into granules and compounding. This is also the case of the plaintiff that a sum of Rs.13,45,024/- is due to him from the defendant for the plastic granules supplied and the job work done by him for the defendant during the period ending 31st March 2008. According to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.46316/- is due to him for the job work for reprocessing of granules done by him for the defendant company in the year 2008-09. The plaintiff has claimed a principal sum of Rs.13,91,340/- (Rs.13,45,024/- + Rs.46,316/-) along with interest on that amount @ 20% per annum. He has also sought mandatory injunction directing the defendant to supply C Forms for the year 2007-08.

The defendant was served with the suit summon on 23rd February 2011. One Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Advocate on behalf of the defendant appeared before the Joint Registrar on 1st March 2011, but thereafter there was no appearance on behalf of the defendant. No one appeared for the defendant company on 25th May 2011, 9th August 2011, 26th August 2011 and 2nd September 2011 and no written statement has been filed it.

The plaintiff has filed his affidavit by way of ex parte evidence. In his affidavit the plaintiff has reaffirmed on oath the case setup in the plaint. He has stated that a sum of Rs.13,45,024/- is due to him at the end of the year 2007-08 for the supply made to the defendant and the job work done for it. He has further stated that some job work was assigned to him in the year 2008-09 for reprocessing of granules @ Rs.6.15 per kg. According to him a sum of Rs.46316/- is due to him for the job work done in the year 2008-09 in respect of 7531 kg of granules.

Ex.P-1 is the statement of account for the year ending 31st March 2009 which shows that a sum of Rs.13,45,024.20 was due to the plaintiff from the defendant as on 26th February 2008. The statement of account also shows that the last payment was made by the defendant on 22nd February 2008, by way of cheque drawn on United Bank of India. Since a fresh period of limitation commenced from the date on which last payment was made by cheque, as provided in Section 19 of Limitation Act, the suit having been filed on 18th November 2010 is well within limitation.

Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-36 are various documents, including invoices, challan and gate pass evidencing the supply made and work done by the plaintiff for the defendant company for the period ending 31st March 2008. Ex.P-41 to Ex.P-44 are the challans whereby the job work is alleged to have been done by the plaintiff for the defendant company in the year 2008. In para 12 of his affidavit the plaintiff has stated that at the time of the assignment of the job work for reprocessing of granules. The rate was agreed at Rs.6.15 per kg and therefore the amount due to him for reprocessing 7531 kg of granules comes to Rs.46316/-.

It has come in the affidavit of the plaintiff that on payment being raised by him, the defendant raised an objection that the material supplied by him was not working and therefore they could not release payment. He has further stated that on visiting the factory of the defendant, he found that material was mixed up with other materials. He identified his product and successfully tested the material in presence of the officials of the company. This exercise was, according to him, carried on 15th April 2008 and same was recorded in the minutes of the meeting which are Ex.P-37. Similar exercise, according to the plaintiff, was carried out on August 20, 2008 in the presence of the officials of the defendant company and it was appreciated by them that the material supplied by him was in good running condition.

It does appear from the minutes of the meeting dated 15th April 2008 that as per the assessment of the officials of the defendant company, the material supplied by him was expected to be consumed @ 25 to 33 %, though the defendant company had purchased it on the basis of 100% consumption. The case of the plaintiff is that when similar exercise was carried out on August 20, 2008, the material supplied by him was found to be in good running condition. Though there is no record of minutes of the exercise alleged to have been carried out on August 20, 2008. I see no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted testimony of the plaintiff in this regard and therefore hold that the material supplied by him was in good running condition as is claimed by him.

The plaintiff therefore is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.13,45,024/- for the goods supplied and the job work done by for the period ending 31st March 2008 and a sum of Rs.46,316/- for the job work undertaken by him in the year 2008-09, thereby making a total sum of Rs.13,91,340/-. A perusal of the invoice in respect of supply of goods as also invoice in respect of the job work undertaken by the plaintiff would show that it was agreed between the parties that interest @ 20% per annum shall be charged if payment was not received within 30 days of the supplies. The plaintiff has according claimed interest @ 20% per annum. I, therefore, hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.7,06,138/- as principal sum and interest @ Rs.18,526/- as interest. The plaintiff is thus entitled to recover an aggregate sum of Rs.21,16,004/- from the defendant. Though the plaintiff has also claimed mandatory injunction directing the defendant to supply C Form to him. This relief is not pressed since the C Forms are stated to have been delivered during pendency of the suit.

A decree for recovery of Rs.21,16,004/- with proportionate costs and pendente lite future interest @ 10% per annum is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.