Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: cpt :: VAT Audit :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: empanelment :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: form 3cd :: due date for vat payment :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: VAT RATES :: TDS
 
 
From the Courts »
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21

SATISH BANSAL Vs. CITY CAPITAL FOUNDATION LIMITED
September, 29th 2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                       Date of Decision: 6 th August, 2014

                      CS(OS)3282/2011

 SATISH BANSAL                                .... Plaintiff

                    Through: Mr.Sandeep Sharma,
                             Advocate

                        Versus

CITY CAPITAL FOUNDATION LIMITED .... Defendant
                Through

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV
     SACHDEVA

     SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J (ORAL)

1.   In terms of order dated 15.5.2014, the details have
     been produced in the form of a chart.

2.   The Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery
     of a sum of Rs.43,56,483/- as against the Defendant.
     It is contended that the principal amount due is
     Rs.29,03,500/- and interest @ 18% per annum has
     been claimed from 31.03.2009 till the date of filing
     of the suit.

3.   As per the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has been supplying
     electrical     equipments,   fittings   and   electrical


========================================================
CS(OS) 3282/2011                               Page 1 of 5
     accessories from time to time to the Defendant as per
     their orders.

4.   The electrical goods have been supplied to the
     respondent against their invoices raised. As per the
     Plaintiff, the Plaintiff in the regular course of its
     business was maintaining the running account of the
     Defendant in respect of the purchases made by the
     Defendant and the payments made. It is submitted
     that running account was being maintained in the
     ordinary course of business and for every supply
     made a debit entry was made and for any payment
     received a corresponding credit entry was made.

5.   It is the case of the Plaintiff that as per the running
     account   there   was   an   outstanding   balance   of
     Rs.29,03,500/- payable by the Defendant to the
     Plaintiff as on 31.3.2009.   As per the Plaintiff, the
     Defendant had made a payment of Rs.1,00,000/- on
     31.12.2008 and acknowledgement dated 31.12.2008
     was issued by the Defendant whereby the Defendant
     had stated that it was paying a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
     in cash on account of the material supplied and the
     balance payment was promised to be made shortly.
     The said letter has been exhibited as EX.PW-1/4.




6.   The Plaintiff had sent a legal notice to the Defendant


========================================================
CS(OS) 3282/2011                               Page 2 of 5
     dated 20.9.2011 (Ex.PW-1/5).                 The notice was
     received back unserved with the report that there was
     no such person available at the address.

7.   In the above circumstances, the Plaintiff filed the
     present suit for recovery.

8.   The summons in the suit were directed to be issued
     to the Defendant on 23.12.2011. Since the Defendant
     could    not   be    served    in    the    ordinary    manner,
     substituted service of the Defendant was permitted
     by order dated 07.05.2012. The Defendant was
     served    through        publication.      The   citation   was
     published in "Hindu" (English Chennai edition and
     Delhi edition) of 14.07.2012 for 20.07.2012. None
     appeared for the Defendant and the Defendant was
     proceeded ex parte by order dated 06.08.2013. The
     Plaintiff was permitted to lead ex parte evidence.

9.   The Plaintiff has filed his own affidavit.                In the
     affidavit Plaintiff has deposed that he is the sole
     proprietor of M/s M.S.Electricals and supplier of
     electrical equipments. He has deposed that the
     Defendant       had        been      purchasing        electrical
     equipments from the Plaintiff for many years. The
     office   copy       of   the   tax    invoices     have     been
     collectively exhibited as Ex.PW-1/1.





========================================================
CS(OS) 3282/2011                               Page 3 of 5
10.   The    Plaintiff    has   deposed    that   he   has   been
      maintaining a running ledger account in the name of
      the Defendant from the year 2007. The certified
      running    ledger    account   has   been    exhibited   as
      Ex.PW-1/2. As per the running ledger account, the
      balance payable by the Defendant as on 31.3.2009 is
      Rs.29,03,500/-. The Plaintiff has also exhibited the
      bank statement of J & K Bank to prove the receipt of
      various cheques from the Defendants as EX.PW-1/3.

11.   The letter dated 31.12.2008 issued by the Defendant
      evidencing the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and
      admitting and acknowledging to pay the balance
      amount to the Plaintiff has been exhibited as Ex.PW-
      1/4.

12.   The Plaintiff has deposed that Defendant had assured
      that the balance payment would be cleared at the
      earliest, however, the same was not done.          He has
      further deposed that various requests and reminders
      have been sent to the Defendant, however, the same
      have not been complied with.

13.   The Plaintiff had issued legal notice dated 20.9.2011
      claiming the balance amount and the interest accrued
      thereon. A copy of the notice has been exhibited as
      Ex.PW-1/5.         The original envelopes that were


========================================================
CS(OS) 3282/2011                               Page 4 of 5
      returned back have been exhibited collectively as
      EX.PW-1/6.

14.   None has appeared for the Defendant to controvert
      the case of the Plaintiff. By the uncontroverted and
      unrebutted testimony and the evidence, the Plaintiff
      has established that the Plaintiff had supplied goods
      to the Defendant and the defendant despite receipt of
      the   goods has failed to pay for the same. The
      Plaintiff has been able to establish that a sum of Rs.
      Rs.29,03,500/-    was    due   and    payable    as      of
      31.03.2009. The Plaintiff has also established that
      the Defendant has failed to pay the due amount to
      the Plaintiff for the goods supplied by the Plaintiff.

15.   In view of the above the suit is decreed in favour of
      the Plaintiff and against the Defendant in the sum of
      Rs. 29,03,500/- (Rupees twenty nine lakhs three
      thousand and five hundred only) along with interest
      @ 15% per annum from 31.3.2009 till the date of
      payment in full. The Plaintiff shall also be entitled to
      the costs of the suit.

16.   Decree Sheet be drawn up accordingly.



                                SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

      AUGUST 06, 2014/sv

========================================================
CS(OS) 3282/2011                               Page 5 of 5

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Custom Software Development Outsourcing Custom Software Development Offshore Cus

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions