Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

September, 29th 2014

%                       Date of Decision: 6 th August, 2014


 SATISH BANSAL                                .... Plaintiff

                    Through: Mr.Sandeep Sharma,





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-

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

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 2023 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting