This judgment decrees a civil suit filed by a subcontractor for recovery of contract payments. The court held that since the defendant failed to file a written statement or contest the suit, and the court records established the plaintiff's case, the suit was liable to be decreed as prayed for.
The suit is decreed as prayed for.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 01.12.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
CS.No.364/2015
B.M.Sanitations [Private] Limited rep.by its Managing Director Mr.B.Murali Flat B-2, Thiruvallurvar Kudil No.2, Brindavan Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600033. .. Plaintiff
Versus
M/s.East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd represented by its Managing Director No.4, Moors Road, Chennai 600 006. .. Defendant
Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S. Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 and 2 CPC.
For Plaintiff : Mr.M.Kosala Raman For Defendant : No appearance
JUDGMENT
The suit has been laid for recovery of a sum of Rs.44,15,751/- along
with interest.
2
2 The plaintiff is a Sub-Contractor of the defendant. The
plaintiff is dealing with sanitation and plumbing work. The defendant has issued a Work Order / Service Order dated 23.12.2009 under Ex.P.2. This was followed by the original Letter dated 14.06.2011 under Ex.P.3. As the plaintiff has concluded his part to the contract, payment has been sought for from the defendant, who has received his payment from the Government. As the said amount was not forthcoming, the plaintiff issued two Legal Notices dated 21.12.2013 and 23.01.2014 respectively under Exs.P.11 and 13. These notices have been acknowledged. One more Legal Notice dated 10.12.2014 was issued under Ex.P.15. Thus, after exhausting the procedure, the present suit has been laid.
3 Despite notice having been served, the defendant did not come forward to file any written statement. Accordingly, he was set ex-parte on 07.12.2015. Even today, there is no representation, though the name of the defendant is printed in the Cause List.
4 On behalf of the plaintiff, the Managing Director has been examined as P.W.1. Exs.P.1 to 17 have been marked.
3
5 Considering the above said documents and in the light
of the averments made in the plaint, which are not controverted, this Court is of the view that the suit is liable to be decreed, in particular, when the defendant has not chosen to contest the same.
6 Accordingly, the suit is decreed as prayed for.
01.12.2016
AP
Plaintiffs' side Exhibits:-
| 1 | Ex.P.1 | 18.12.2014 | Board Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Ex.P.2 | 23.12.2009 | Work Order/Service Order issued by the defendant. |
| 3 | Ex.P.3 | 14.06.2011 | Letter sent by the defendant to the plaintiff. |
| 4 | Ex.P.4 | Minutes of Meeting between the plaintiff and the defendant |
|
| 5 | Ex.P.5 | 30.06.2011 | Final Bill/Abstract raised by the plaintiff to the defendant |
| 6 | Ex.P.6 | 29.07.2011 | Letter by the defendant to the plaintiff |
| 7 | Ex.P.7 | 07.12.2011 | Letter sent by the plaintiff to the defendant with acknowledgment [original] |
| 8 | Ex.P.8 | 24.12.2011 | Letter sent by the defendant to the plaintiff |
| 9 | Ex.P. 9 | 07.12.2011 | Reply sent by the plaintiff to the defendant |
| 10 | Ex.P.10 | 29.12.2011 | Courier Receipt of reply letter dated 07.12.2011 |
4
Plaintiff's side witness:-
P.W.1 Mr.B.Murali
Defendant's side Exhibits:- Nil Defendant's side witness:- Nil
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No AP
5
M.M.SUNDRESH, J., AP
CS.No.364/2015
01.12.2016
6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaint filed for recovery of contract payment should be decreed upon no-contestation.
Whether the defendant's failure to file a written statement warrants an ex-parte decree.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M.M. SUNDRESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
