Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2001 DAILYLAW 907 (DEL)

MEDIA VIDEO LIMITED v. VINOD KUMAR

2001-03-10

J D Kapoor

body2001
J. D. Kapoor ( 1 ) THIS is a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,00,500. 00 filed by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the companies incorporated under the Companies Act whereas plaintiff No. 3 is a registered partnership firm. Plaintiff No. 1 is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and sale of electronic consumer equipments like Video games, emergency lights etc. The plaintiff No. 2 is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and sale of dish antennas etc. The plaintiff No. 3 is carrying on the business of trading of video games, emergency light, dish antenna, video cassettes etc. ( 2 ) IT is averred that Defendant No. l, representing himself to be the sole proprietor of the defendants 2 and 3 approached Mr. Prem Adip Rishi, Managing Director of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and partner of plaintiff No. 3 at Delhi and requested for supply of various products of the Group companies and the terms and conditions were discussed between the parties at Delhi and it was agreed between the parties that the two proprietory firms of the defendant no. l would purchase the products of the plaintiffs No. l and 2 through their marketing firm and the accounts of the parties shall be maintained in such a manner so as to consider the plaintiffs as one Group of companies and the defendants as another group of companies. It was also agreed that the credit and debit entries of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants would be adjustable in each others group companies of the plaintiffs as well as of the defendants. Pursuant to the above arrangements the plaintiffs supplied goods to the defendants from time to time as per orders placed by them and forwarded their bills for- payments. The plaintiffs have been keeping books of accounts in the course of their business operations and have recorded all transactions with respect to goods supplied to the defendants and the payments if, any received from them. ( 3 ) AS per the books of account maintained by the plaintiffs, a sum of Rs. 2,19,587. 94 is due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs, as per statement of account filed with this plaint and marked as annexure a . ( 3 ) AS per the books of account maintained by the plaintiffs, a sum of Rs. 2,19,587. 94 is due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs, as per statement of account filed with this plaint and marked as annexure a . It is further averred that the defendants have also failed to furnish the C-Forms to the plaintiffs 2 and 3 against their various bills and invoices inspite of repeated demands. Since the sales tax assessment of the plaintiffs with respect to the years under reference was in progress, the plaintiffs, vide their legal notice dated 7/06/1994 asked the defendants to furnish the relevant C-Forms against the invoices raised on the defendants, but the defendants failed to provide the same to the plaintiffs. Non-production of "c" Forms to the Sales Tax authority further attracted a sum of sales tax of Rs. 1,11,797. 78 plus interest upto September, 1994 amounting to rs. 36,357. 65. Thus the defendants are also liable to pay the said amount of Rs. 1,48,155. 43 to the plaintiffs being the difference amount of sales tax and interest upto september, 1994 which is payable by the plaintiff to the sale tax authorities. Since defendants have withheld the aforesaid outstanding amount of Rs. 2,19,587. 94 without any reason or cause, the defendants are liable to pay interest on the on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. Despite service of legal notice of demand the defendants failed to make the payment of the outstanding amount. Hence this suit. ( 4 ) THE defendant was proceeded ex parte on 13. 2. 98. In support of its claim the plaintiff has proved following documents by way of affidavit as evidence: I) Ex. P1, the Memorandum and Articles of association of the plaintiff company; (ii) Ex. P2, the memorandum and Articles of Association of plaintiffs 2 and 3; (iii) Ex. P3, the form showing the defendant and plaintiff No. 3 as a partner; (iv) Ex. P4, the copy of statement of Account; (v) Ex. P5, the letter dated 30. 4. 94 written by the plaintiff to the defendant requesting the defendant to submit c form in case they are unable to send the demand draft towards balance sales tax @ 6 percent and penalty @ 24 per cent per annum; (vi) Ex. P6 dated 29. 4. P5, the letter dated 30. 4. 94 written by the plaintiff to the defendant requesting the defendant to submit c form in case they are unable to send the demand draft towards balance sales tax @ 6 percent and penalty @ 24 per cent per annum; (vi) Ex. P6 dated 29. 4. 94, a reminder sent by the plaintiff to the defendant; (vii) Ex. P7, the legal notice of demand sent by the plaintiff (viii) Ex. P8, the postal receipt. Statement of Account demonstrates that goods were supplied to the defendant from time to time as per the orders placed by the defendants and the bills were forwarded for payment. The evidence also shows that the plaintiff has been keeping books of account in the business operation regarding transactions with respect to the goods supplied and the payment, if any, received. As per the books of account a sum of Rs. 2,19,587. 94 was due towards the principal and Rs. 1,11,797. 78 towards the amount on account of non furnishing of the "c" form and rs. 36,357. 65 on account of interest. The Suit is decreed for a sum of Rs. 5,00,500. 00 together with future interest at the rate of 24 per cent till realisation of the decretal amount. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Suit and pending application (IA. No. 9344/94) stand disposed of.