Allowed

Imperial Marktrade (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Rdmk Impex Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC14 Aug 2015S/358/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a suit filed by Imperial Marktrade (I) Private Limited against RDMK Impex Private Limited for recovery of an inter corporate deposit of Rs. 32 crores with interest, theBombay High Court, sitting as a Single Judge, heard the matter ex-parte due to the defendant's failure to file a written statement despite substituted service.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed for Rs. 44,59,11,233.00 (principal + interest) plus further interest at 12% p.a. from suit filing date; defendant to pay costs.

Imperial Marktrade (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rdmk… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1 / 7

¶2

Nitin

¶3

924-S-358-2014

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

SUIT NO. 358 OF 2014

¶6

Imperial Marktrade (I) Private Limited,
A Private Limited Company
incorporated in India under the
Companies Act, 1956 having its
registered office at Office No. 36,
Shrinaman Plaza, behind Shoppers
Stop, Kandivali (W), Mumbai– 400067

¶7

…Plaintiff

¶8

Versus

¶9

RDMK Impex Private Limited,

¶10

A Private Limited Company
incorporated in India under the
Companies Act, 1956 having its
registered office Flat No. 101 / 102,
Triveni Cooperative Housing Society
Limited, Mitt Chowki, Marve Road,
Malad (W), Mumbai – 400064 and City
Office at 311, Commerce House,
Nagindas Master Road, Fort,
Mumbai – 400001

¶11

…Defendant

¶12

Ms. Bharati Narichania i/b. Vibha Jurisconsult Company for the Plaintiff.
None for the Defendant.

¶13

CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATED : 14TH AUGUST, 2015

¶14

: ORAL JUDGMENT

¶15

1.The above Suit is filed by the Plaintiff - Imperial Marktrade (I) Private
Limited against the Defendant - RDMK Impex Private Limited for an order and
decree against the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff, a sum of Rs.44,59,11,233.00
being the principal plus interest @ 12% thereon ( as per the Particulars of Claim at

¶16

2 / 7 924-S-358-2014

¶17

Nitin

¶18

Exhibit-F) together with further interest @ 12% p.a. on the principal sum of
Rs.32,00,00,000.00/- from the date of filing of the Suit till payment and / or
realization.

¶19

2.Despite repeated attempts being made by the Plaintiff to serve the Writ of
Summons on the Defendant, the packets containing the Writ of Summons were
returned with the remarks 'left / unknown”. In view thereof, the Plaintiff was
allowed to serve the Writ of Summon on the Defendant through Substituted
Service. Despite service of the Writ of Summons on the Defendant through the
Substituted Service, the Defendant has not filed its Written Statement to the above
Suit and is also not represented before this Court. The Suit is therefore taken up for
ex-parte hearing.

¶20

3.The Plaintiff has filed the Affidavit of Evidence in lieu of Examination-in-
Chief of its Director – Mr. Yatin Shah ( PW-1) and has also filed the Compilation of
Documents relied on by the Plaintiff.

¶21

4. The PW-1 has deposed in his Affidavit in lieu of Examination in Chief as

¶22

follows :

¶23

4.1. That PW-1 is the Director of the Plaintiff and is fully conversant with the facts of the case on the basis of his personal knowledge as well as from the documents available with the Plaintiff.

¶24

4.2.That the Plaintiff is a Private Limited Company registered under the
provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and carrying on business as Traders. The
Defendant is a Private Limited Company registered under the provisions of the
Companies Act, 1956 carrying on business inter alia as Importer and Exporter.

¶25

3 / 7

¶26

Nitin

¶27

924-S-358-2014

¶28

4.3.That the Plaintiff has filed the above Suit for recovery of outstanding dues
payable by the Defendant in respect of the Inter Corporate Deposit given by the
Plaintiff to the Defendant.

¶29

4.4.The Board of Directors of the Plaintiff Company have at their meeting
held on 8th February, 2014 passed a resolution authorizing PW-1 to represent the
Plaintiff in the present Suit. That PW-1 has tendered the certified true copy of the
extract of the minutes of meeting of the Board of Directors of the Plaintiff Company
held on 8th February, 2014, wherein the resolution was passed authorizing the PW-1
to represent the Plaintiff in the above Suit. The same is taken on record and marked
Exhibit-P-1.

¶30

4.5.That in or about August and September-2010, various meetings were held
by the Plaintiff's Directors including PW-1 and the Defendant's Directors Mr.
Banwar Singh Rajpurohit and Mr. Sanjay Nagvanshi, who had approached the
Plaintiff seeking financial assistance of Rs.45 Crores. The Defendant had agreed to
pay interest thereon. At the meeting held on 3rd September, 2010 with the
Defendant, the Plaintiff agreed to extend financial assistance in the sum of Rs. 32
Crores in 10 installments. The Defendant agreed to accept an amount of Rs. 32
Crores in 10 installments from the Plaintiff by way of Inter Corporate Deposit (ICD)
and agreed to repay the amount of Rs. 32 Crores with interest @ 12% p.a. within a
period of six months from the date of disbursal of the last ICD installment and pay
the interest quarterly to the Plaintiff.

¶31

4.6 That vide a letter dated 9th September, 2010 addressed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, PW-1 inter alia recorded and confirmed the Plaintiff's understanding

¶32

Nitin 4 / 7 924-S-358-2014

¶33

and agreement to advance financial assistance of Rs. 32 Crores to the Defendant as
well as the Defendant's agreement to repay Rs.32 Crores with interest @ 12% p.a.
within a period of six months from the date of disbursal of the last ICD installment
and also recorded that the interest shall be paid quarterly. PW-1 has tendered the
original office copy of the Plaintiff's letter dated 9th September, 2010 duly signed by

¶34

PW-1. The same is taken on record and marked Exhibit-P-2.

¶35

4.7That thereafter the Plaintiff on ten occasions instructed to its banker /
HDFC Bank Limited, Fort Branch, Mumbai to transfer from time to time an amount
aggregating to Rs. 32 Crores from its current account to the Defendant's account
with Axis Bank Limited, P.M. Road Branch, Mumbai, the details of which are set out
in paragraph 5 of Affidavit of Evidence in lieu of Examination in Chief of PW-1. PW-

¶36

1 has tendered the office copies of 10 RTGS Transfer Applications. The same are taken on record and marked Exhibit-P-3 collectively.

¶37

4.8That the relevant entries were effected in the Plaintiff's books of accounts.
PW-1 has tendered the original office copies of the relevant ledger entries of the ICD
transactions with the Defendant in the Plaintiff's books of accounts as well as the
ledger copies thereto duly certified by the Chartered Accounts. The same are taken
on record and marked Exhibit-4- collectively.

¶38

4.9That the Plaintiff's banker - HDFC Bank Limited had transferred a total
amount of Rs. 32 Crores to the Defendant's current account with Axis Bank Limited,
P.M. Road Branch, Mumbai and debited the Plaintiff's account for the
corresponding amount of transfer evidencing payment of Rs. 32 Crores to the
Defendant. PW -1 has tendered the original office copies of eight bank statements

¶39

5 / 7

¶40

Nitin

¶41

924-S-358-2014

¶42

issued by HDFC Bank Limited in respect of the ICD transactions, which are duly
certified as true copy by HDFC Bank Limited. The same are taken on record and
marked Exhibit-5 collectively.

¶43

4.10That the repayment of Rs. 32 Crores by the Defendant was to commence
from 22nd August, 2011 i.e. after six months from the date of disbursement of the last
ICD installment on 21st February, 2011 and the interest was payable quarterly. Since
the Defendant failed to make the said payment, the Plaintiff vide letter dated 30th
August, 2011 called upon the Defendant to repay the total amount of Rs. 32 Crores
together with accrued interest @ 12% per annum. PW-1 has tendered the original
copy of the Plaintiff's letter dated 30th August, 2011 duly signed by him. The same is
taken on record and marked Exhibit-P-6.

¶44

4.11That the Plaintiff has also addressed letters dated 4th December, 2011, 4th
October, 2012 and 24th January, 2013 calling upon the Defendant to honour their
commitments and assurances given in the various meetings held. PW-1 has tendered
the office copies of the Plaintiff's letters dated 4th December, 2011, 4th October, 2012
and 24th January, 2013 addressed to the Defendant duly signed by him and Mr. Ram
Ratan Khandelwal, Directors of the Plaintiff. The same are taken on record and
marked Exhibit-P-7 collectively.

¶45

4.12That despite receipt of the said letters, the Defendant failed to make any
payment. However, the Defendant time and again personally re-assured PW-1 that
the Defendant would honour all its commitments and promises. PW-1 therefore by
his letter dated 4th December, 2015 addressed to the Defendant once again
demanded the outstanding payment from the Defendant and also recorded their

¶46

6 / 7

¶47

Nitin

¶48

924-S-358-2014

¶49

commitment to make payment on 15th January, 2014. PW-1 also informed the
Defendant that if they fail to pay the said amount as promised, the Plaintiff would
initiate legal action against the Defendant. The same is taken on record and marked
Exhibit-8.

¶50

4.13.That since the Defendant has failed and neglected to make any payment to
the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has filed the present Suit for reliefs sought therein.

¶51

4.14That the Defendant has not replied to a single letter addressed by the
Plaintiff to the Defendant and there is no dispute or denial of liability by the
Defendant to repay an amount of Rs.32 Crores plus Rs.12,59,11,233.00 towards
interest @ 12% per annum as agreed. It is submitted by the Plaintiff that therefore the
Suit be decreed as prayed.

¶52

5.I have perused and considered the facts set out in the Plaint, annexures
and the evidence of PW-1. I have also perused and considered the documents which
are marked as Exhibits-P-1 to P-8.

¶53

6.From Exhibits-P-1 to P-8, it is established that an amount of Rs.32 Crores
is advanced by the Plaintiff to the Defendant in ten installments. The Defendant had
agreed to repay the said amount of Rs.32 Crores along with interest 12@ per annum
to the Plaintiff within a period of six months from the date of disbursal of the last
ICD installment on 21st February, 2011. However, the Defendant failed and
neglected to pay the principal as well as interest accrued thereon. Despite several
letters written by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, the Defendant has not responded to
the same. The Defendant has not disputed and denied its liability to pay the dues of
the Plaintiff as claimed. The Defendant has not filed its Written Statement and has

¶54

Nitin 7 / 7

¶55

924-S-358-2014

¶56

also not come forward to oppose the reliefs sought in the Suit. In the circumstances,
I pass the following order :

¶57

i. The above Suit is decreed in terms of prayer Clause (a), which is
reproduced hereunder :

¶58

“(a) that the Defendant be ordered and decreed to pay to the Plaintiff,
a sum of Rs.44,59,11,233.00 being the principal plus interest @ 12%
thereon (as per the Particulars of Claim at Exhibit-F), together with
further interest @ 12% p.a. on the principal sum of
Rs.32,00,00,000.00/- from the date of filing of the Suit till payment
and / or realization”.

¶59

ii.The Defendant to pay costs of the Suit to the Plaintiff.

¶60

iii.The Suit is accordingly disposed of.

¶61

( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )

Imperial Marktrade (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Rdmk Impex Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imperial Marktrade (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Rdmk Impex Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Natixis a Banking Company Vs M.V. Malaviya Sixteen Imo NO.9249415 and 2ORS and Vision Projects Technologies Pvt.Ltd. (Respondent

M/S. Chandansagar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Alka Ashok Mehta and Ors.

Ipca Laboratories Limited Vs Bloom Pharma Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Parle Agro Private Ltd. Vs Praveen Kumar and 4 Ors.

Ganesh Mahadev Jadhav Vs Berggruen Car Rentals Pvt.Ltd.

Parle Agro Private Ltd. Vs Praveen Kumar and 4 Ors.