Allowed

Skyfield India P Ltd., v. S. Bharathi Rajan

Madras HC19 Dec 2013CS/377/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this ex-parte suit for recovery, the plaintiff proved its claim regarding unpaid dues for shipping services via documentary evidence and self-examination. The court decreed the suit with costs in the absence of the defendant.

What did the court decide?

The suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs. 1,39,41,440/- including principal and interest. Addition of further documents and duplicate exhibits were ordered.

Skyfield India P Ltd., Vs S. Bharathi Rajan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19.12.2013

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI

¶6

C.S.No.377 Of 2008

¶7

Skyfield India P Ltd.,
Rep. By its Managing Director ... Plaintiff
Vs.
S.Bharathirajan
Proprietor
Megaa Enterprises ... Defendant
Civil suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 CPC r/w
Order IV rule 1 XXXVII Rule 1 and Order IV rule 1 of the
O.S.Rules to pass judgment and decree against the
defendant a) for a sum of Rs.1,39,41,440/- together with
further interest on Rs.94,18,100/- from the date of suit
till date of realization at 24% per annum b) for cost of
the suit; and c) for such other reliefs.

¶8

For Plaintiff: Mr.Sri Ram for M/s A.S.Kailasam Advocate for plaintiff. JUDGMENT

¶9

The suit is filed by the plaintiff for the above said relief.

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

¶12

The case of the plaintiff is as follows:-

¶13

a. The plaintiff is carrying on business of shipping

¶14

and clearing agents and are an approved agent of IATA and

¶15

is a valid licence holder and have requisite infrastructure to do the clearing and forwarding business. The defendant is an exporter of fresh vegetables and fruits to Singapore. The defendant approached the plaintiff with their letter dated 03.05.2001 introducing themselves as a leading exporter

¶16

of fresh vegetables and fruits and sought a quotation to

¶17

air lift fresh vegetables and fruits to Singapore. The

¶18

plaintiff responded vide their letter dated 05.05.2001 and on the acceptance of the same by the defendant, the plaintiff commenced the work. The fresh vegetables and

¶19

fruits to be air lifted from Chennai and the Defendant

¶20

used to grade the fresh vegetables and fruits at Koyambedu and thereafter deliver the same to be sent in

¶21

containers to Singapore. There was continuous stream of business between the plaintiff and the defendant. The consignments were handed over to the plaintiff at Chennai for export and the Airway bills along with respective invoices would be handed over to the defendant and the defendant used to make adhoc payments by cheques and the cheques were encashed by clearing at Chennai.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

¶24

b. The defendant was having a running account with the

¶25

plaintiff and made on account payments and periodically statement of accounts were dispatched by the plaintiff to the defendant. The business was going well and smoothly

¶26

and there was no problem at the initial stage. Thereafter the defendant defaulted in payment of the amounts due under various invoices and inspite of repeated demands, the defendant was due a sum of Rs.94,18,100/- besides interest. Though the defendant defaulted in payments to the plaintiff, the charges of the respective airlines had to be paid by the plaintiff, since all the goods were actually dispatched. The defendant made payments on 20.07.2006 for a sum of Rs.2.0 Lakhs by demand draft bearing No.975670 dated 20.07.2006, on 07.08.2006, for a sum of Rs.1.80 Lakhs by telegraphic transfer; on 08.08.2006, a sum of Rs.1.0 Lakh by demand draft bearing no.126051 daed 08.08.2006 drawn on ICICI bank. On 14.08.2006 a sum of Rs.2.0 Lakhs by way of

¶27

demand draft bearing no.126120 dated 12.08.2006 drawn on ICICI bank and lastly on 18.08.2006 for a sum of Rs.1.0 lakh by demand draft bearing no.681737 dated 17.08.2006

¶28

drawn on ICICI Bank payable at Chennai. Thereafter, the plaintiff have been reminding the defendant for payment of the balance sum of Rs.94,18,100/- besides interest.

¶29

The commercial rate of interest for this type of

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

¶32

transaction as per the Invoice is 24% and calculated on that basis, the defendant is due as on date of filing of this suit Rs.94,18,100/- towards principal amount and Rs.45,23,340 towards accrued interest, aggregating in all to Rs.1,39,41,440/- . However defendant issued cheques

¶33

for a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- and requested and requested the plaintiff not to present the cheques. Inspite of repeated reminders and demands for the amount due to the plaintiff, the defendant is carrying on business in the name of his wife and son apart from other relatives, hence , the Plaintiff has approached this Court by way of filing this civil suit for the reliefs as stated above.

¶34

3.Though defendant was served through paper publication as early as on 22.04.2008, there was no

¶35

appearance for the defendant and hence, the defendant is

¶36

set ex-parte and ex-parte evidence was ordered by this court vide order dated 24.01.2011. On the application

¶37

taken up by the defendant in A.No.2978 of 2011, the exparte decree dated 24.01.2011 was set aside by this

¶38

Court on 30.06.2011. Though exparte decree was set aside

¶39

at the instance of the defendant, for the several hearings, there was no representation for the defendant and hence the defendant is set exparte. Mr.S.Malairajan, who is the Managing Director of the Plaintiff firm has

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶41

¶42

filed the proof affidavit for his chief examination and receipt of 14 documents as documentary evidence to prove his claim. In the Ex-parte Evidence, Mr.S.Malairajan, who is the Managing Director of the Plaintiff firm examined himself as PW.1 and marked the following documents Exs.P1 to P14 as documentary evidence in order to prove the suit claim:-

¶43

Ex.P5 is the letter from the defendant to the

¶44

plaintiff dated 12.07.2005.

¶45

Ex.P.7 is the xerox copy of the cheque dated

¶46

10.10.2005.

¶47

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶48

¶49

Ex.P.9 is the xerox copy of the cheque dated

¶50

10.12.2005

¶51

Ex.P.10 is the xerox copy of the cheque dated

¶52

10.01.2006.

¶53

Ex.P.11 is the Copy of the letter sent by the

¶54

plaintiff to the defendant dated 25.04.2007.

¶55

Ex.P.12 is the copy of the invoice raised on the

¶56

plaintiff dated 01.04.2001.

¶57

the view that the plaintiff has proved the suit claim and hence, the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for. Accordingly, the suit is decreed as prayed for with costs.

¶58

1)List of Witnesses Examined on the side of the Plaintiff:-

¶59

2)List of Exhibits Marked on the side of the Plaintiff:-

¶60

Ex.P1 is the Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Directors dated 26.02.2008.

¶61

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶62

Ex.P2 is the xerox copy of the letter sent by the defendant to the plaintiff dated 03.05.2001.

¶63

Ex.P3 is the xerox copy of the letter sent by the

¶64

plaintiff to the defendant dated

¶65

05.05.2001.

¶66

Ex.P4 is the letter from the defendant to the

¶67

Ex.P.9 is the xerox copy of the cheque dated

¶68

10.12.2005

¶69

Ex.P.10 is the xerox copy of the cheque dated

¶70

plaintiff to the defendant dated 25.04.2007. Ex.P.12 is the copy of the invoice raised on the

¶71

defendant dated 03.08.2005.

¶72

Ex.P.13 is the copy of the invoice raised on the

¶73

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶74

¶75

defendant dated 09.09.2005.

¶76

Ex.P.14 is the copy of the ledger account of the plaintiff dated 01.04.2001.

¶77

3)List of Witnesses Examined on the side of the defendant:- Nil

¶78

4)List of Exhibits Marked on the side of the defendant:- Nil

¶79

sd/.G.M.A.J
19.12.2013
//Certified to be a true copy//
Dated this the day of 2016
R.s/07.03.2016 COURT OFFICER
From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies
of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.

¶80

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Skyfield India P Ltd., v. S. Bharathi Rajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Skyfield India P Ltd., v. S. Bharathi Rajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarala Vasu Vs M/S. Belair Corporation

Senthil Vs State by the Inspector of

Marimuthu Vs the Inspector of Police

Minor B. Dharaniya Vs a Chandran

The New Inidia Assurance Co. Vs Periyasamy

Dr.P.Manorama Vs Mrs.Shaila Samuel