CS COMM--410/2016. Case: SEO PAL Vs. QUALITY RICE EXPORTS PVT LTD. High Court of Delhi (India)

Case NumberCS COMM--410/2016
CitationNA
Judgement DateAugust 29, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Delhi (India)

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CS(COMM) 410/2016

SEO PAL ..... Plaintiff

Through: Mr. Sanjay Relan with

Mr. Sushant Dahiya,

Advocates.

versus

QUALITY RICE EXPORTS PVT LTD ..... Defendant

Through: Mr. Aslam with Mr. Balbir

Singh, Advocates.

% Date of Decision: 29th August, 2017

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN, J:

I.A. No. 3621/2017

  1. Present application has been filed under Order XIII-A read with Section 151 CPC.

  2. The relevant facts of the present case are that the plaintiff is running a sole proprietorship firm under the name and style of “Banarsi Dass & Sons” as a grain merchant and commission agent from its office at 2376, Mandi Extension, Narela, Delhi-110040.

    CS (COMM) 410 /2016 Page 1 of 6

  3. The defendant is a registered company having its registered office at Nial Bye-Pass Road, Patran, Distt. Patiala, Punjab.

  4. On 5th April, 2014, the plaintiff/applicant filed the present suit for recovery of money due against the supplies of paddy made between 11th May, 2014 and 10th August, 2014 to the defendant company. It is the plaintiff’s case that the defendant company has paid a sum of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- against the total supplies of Rs. 2,87,51,689.05, thus leaving a balance of Rs. 1,62,51,689.05/- as due and payable by the defendant. The plaintiff also claims interest @Rs.1.80% per month that is 21.6% per annum on the amount due.

  5. The defendant was duly served on 17th June, 2016 but as it failed to file the written statement within the prescribed period, this Court struck off the right of the defendant to file the written statement vide order dated 2nd February, 2017.

  6. The defendant also neither sought inspection of the documents nor filed the affidavit of admission and denial as contemplated under Order XI Rule 4 CPC as applicable to the commercial disputes.

  7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/applicant states that the plaintiff/applicant has filed the copies of the invoices raised against the defendant and GR receipts. He further states that the defendant was served with a legal notice dated 10th March, 2016, i.e., prior to filing of this suit. He contends that the defendant has acknowledged its liability vide a statement of account duly signed on defendant’s behalf by one of its Director, Sh. Vineet which shows a debit balance of Rs. 1,62,51,689.05/-.

    CS (COMM) 410 /2016 Page 2 of 6

  8. He lastly states that as per knowledge of the plaintiff/applicant, State Bank of Patiala has taken over the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT