Delhi District Court
Rcpl Logistics Private Limited vs Utkarsh Seth on 24 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELAM SINGH
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-02, SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS(COMM)-3808/24
In the matter of:
RCPL Logistics Pvt Ltd.
Through Mr. Nilesh Jain, General Manager
B-151, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-1, New Delhi-110020 .....Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Utkarsh Seth
Proprietor of M/s ATM Textiles
Address: 3rd Floor, C-84, Focal Point,
Jalandhar, Punjab-144004 ...... Defendant
Date of Institution of suit : 24.10.2024
Date of Reserving of judgment : 24.02.2025
Date of Judgment : 24.02.2025
Final Decision : Decreed
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit for recovery has been filed by the plaintiff
for a sum of Rs. 23,24,532/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Twenty
Four Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Two Only) against the
defendant.
2.1 Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff is one
of the leaders in multi model logistic solutions with an aim to
provide distinct logistic solutions across the nation. Plaintiff has
successfully committed to deliver cargo on time with safety from
the last 25 years. Further, with an intent to provide complete
CS(COMM) 3808/24 RCPL Logistics Pvt Ltd. vs. Sh. Utkarsh Seth Page 1 of 17
Digitally
signed by
NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.02.24
03:04:58
+0530
logistic solutions with over 100 delivery destinations, it has an
edge and is truly one of the fastest growing players in the arena
and Mr. Nilesh Jain has been duly authorised to contest the present
suit on behalf of plaintiff.
2.2 The defendant is the Proprietor of the defendant company
running and operating under the name and style of M/s ATM
TEXTILES. That the defendant had approached the plaintiff for
the purpose of availing/hiring the services of the plaintiff to
provide logistics support vis-à-vis the bookings and the delivery of
defendant’s consignments to relevant destinations. That an
agreement for the domestic distribution dated 20.02.2023
(hereinafter referred to as “Agreement”), was executed between
the parties according to which the defendant agreed to avail the
logistic services of the plaintiff vis-à-vis the booking and the
delivery of the defendant’s consignments to relevant destinations.
2.3 In furtherance of the business, the defendant after being
satisfied with the services provided by the plaintiff executed the
agreement for the logistics services, wherein all the terms and
conditions along with the rates applicable were agreed between
both the parties. That pursuant to execution of the agreement,
logistic services were provided to the defendant on his request and
accordingly several invoices were raised by the plaintiff on the
defendant.
CS(COMM) 3808/24 RCPL Logistics Pvt Ltd. vs. Sh. Utkarsh Seth Page 2 of 17
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
SINGH
NEELAM Date:
SINGH 2025.02.24
03:05:06
+0530
2.4 That as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the
Agreement the payment for the bill raised by the plaintiff had to
be made within 50 days from the date of the submission of
bills/invoices. If the payment was not made within the stipulated
period, the invoices will be incurring interest at the rate of 24%
per annum from the due date of full and final payment of each
invoice till the day of payment. That the plaintiff raised several
bills on the defendant for providing logistics services.
2.5 That the aforesaid invoices were duly raised and same were
also acknowledged by the defendant. Further, the defendant
assured to plaintiff that the outstanding amount will be paid
shortly. That plaintiff has on earlier occasion sent many reminders
to the defendant for the payment for the outstanding amount, but
to no avail.
2.6 That further, the plaintiff repetitively followed up with the
defendant through emails, telephone and even personally and
demanded the outstanding amount, but the defendant delayed it in
one or the other pretext and all the numerous requests of the
plaintiff were unheard. That being aggrieved by the above
mentioned unresponsive and irrational behavior on the part of the
defendant, the plaintiff was constrained to issue legal notice dated
14.05.2024, demanding the payment of the principal outstanding
amount along with the interest. That as per statement of account
an amount of Rs. 23,24,532/- is due and outstanding against the
CS(COMM) 3808/24 RCPL Logistics Pvt Ltd. vs. Sh. Utkarsh Seth Page 3 of 17
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
SINGH
NEELAM Date:
SINGH 2025.02.24
03:05:11
+0530
defendant. Hence, the present suit.
3. Summons of the suit were ordered to be issued upon the
defendant through all modes of communication on 24.10.2024 by
this court and on the next date of hearing i.e. 28.11.2024, Ld.
Counsel for defendant had appeared and filed memo of
appearance. However, no WS has been filed on behalf of
defendant within stipulated period despite being duly served on
05.11.2024. Hence, on 28.01.2025, the right of defendant to file
the WS was closed and thereafter, matter was fixed for PE.
Plaintiff in order to substantiate its claim has filed evidence by
way of affidavit and examined Mr. Nilesh Jain as PW-1 who
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and proved
the following documents:-
1. Board resolution dated 01.10.2024 is Ex.PW1/1.
2. GST record of the defendant is Ex.PW1/2.
3. Agreement for Domestic Distribution dated
20.02.2023 is Ex.PW1/3.
4. Invoices are Ex.PW1/4 (Colly.).
5. Ledger maintained by the plaintiff qua the defendant
is Ex.PW1/5.
6. Proof of delivery of services are ExPW1/6 (Colly.).
7. Legal notice dated 14.05.2024 alongwith original
postal receipts are Ex.PW1/7 (Colly.).
8. NSR dated 31.08.2024 is Ex.PW1/8.
9. E-mail communication between the defendant and
the plaintiff is Ex.PW1/9 (Colly.).
CS(COMM) 3808/24 RCPL Logistics Pvt Ltd. vs. Sh. Utkarsh Seth Page 4 of 17
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
SINGH
NEELAM Date:
SINGH 2025.02.24
03:05:17
+0530
10. Ledger maintained by defendant is Ex.PW1/10.
11. Interest sheet prepared by plaintiff is Ex.PW1/11.
12. Cancelled cheque displaying bank account details of
the plaintiff is Ex.PW1/12.
13. Certificate under Section 63 of Bhartiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023 is Ex.PW1/13.
4. The said witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for
defendant on legal points. The relevant portion of his cross
examination is reproduced as under:
“I am General Manager with the plaintiff company. I have been authorised by
Mr. Manish Gupta i.e. Managing Director of the plaintiff company to appear
in depose in the present matter. It is correct that I have not produced the
extract of board meeting vide which I have been authorised to depose in the
present case. It is correct that I have also not produced the original register
containing the extract of the board meeting wherein I was authorised. It is
correct that I am not carrying my ID card to show that I am working with
plaintiff company as General Manager. It is wrong to suggest that I am not
duly authorised to file the present suit and also to appear as a witness on
behalf of plaintiff company. The address mentioned in the memo of parties i.e.
B-151, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi is the corporation office of
the plaintiff company. It is correct that the plaintiff is in the business of door to
door logistic services. Plaintiff supervise the services of all the branches which
are in the various parts of India from this place. It is correct that as per
document Ex.PW1/4 the services were provided from Jalandhar to the
defendant. It is correct that as per document placed on record i.e. Ex.PW1/4
(colly) document at page 45 to 132, the address of plaintiff is of Jalandhar.
It is correct that the address of defendant is at Jalandhar, Punjab. It is wrong
to suggest that this court has not territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the
present suit. It is correct that POD Ex.PW1/6 (colly) also mentions the
location from Jalandhar to Ahmedabad. It is correct that in the POD there are
different locations of as per the requirement of defendant. It is correct that
there is no delivery location of Delhi.
It is wrong to suggest that plaintiff has filed the present suit within the
territorial jurisdiction of this court only to harass the defendant. It is wrong to
suggest that no cause of action has accrued in favour of plaintiff and against
the defendant within territorial jurisdiction of this court. It is wrong to suggest
that I am not authorised properly to depose in this case and I have no authority
to file the present case. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely”.
CS(COMM) 3808/24 RCPL Logistics Pvt Ltd. vs. Sh. Utkarsh Seth Page 5 of 17
Digitally
signed by
NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.02.24
03:05:25
+0530
Thereafter, PE was closed and matter was listed for final
arguments.
5. Final arguments heard from both sides. Record perused
carefully.
6. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that this
court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present
suit as no cause of action has been arisen within the territorial
jurisdiction of this court. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for
the defendant that even in the cross examination, the witness of
the plaintiff company had admitted that as per document
Ex.PW1/4, the services were provided to the defendant from
Jalandhar City by the plaintiff. It is further submitted that even
PW-1 has admitted that as per document at page 45 to 132, the
address of the plaintiff is of Jalandhar city only. It is further
submitted that PW-1 has also admitted the fact that the address of
plaintiff is of Jalandhar. It is further argued that Ex.PW1/6 (colly)
which are PODs and these also mention the location of the
transaction between plaintiff and the defendant from Jalandhar to
Ahmedabad. It is further submitted that the witness has admitted
that there is no delivery location of the goods at Delhi. It is argued
that the present suit has been filed in order to harass the defendant
and it should be dismissed with costs.
7. Per Contra, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that this
court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present
CS(COMM) 3808/24 RCPL Logistics Pvt Ltd. vs. Sh. Utkarsh Seth Page 6 of 17
Digitally
signed by
NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.02.24
03:05:34
+0530
suit. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that as per Section
20 CPC, a part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial
jurisdiction of this court and hence, this court has territorial
jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. It is submitted that
all the payments have been received by the plaintiff within the
territorial jurisdiction of this court. It is further argued that the
present suit falls within the jurisdiction of this Court as the terms
and conditions of the invoices raised stipulate that the jurisdiction
for disputes shall be at Delhi. Furthermore, the cause of action has
arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and this Court
is authorized to adjudicate upon the same as the outstanding
payments are to be made by the Defendant in the Bank Account
maintained by the Plaintiff located within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court. It is argued that even the terms of
payments mentioned in the invoices Ex. PW1/4 (Colly.) shows
that this Court has territorial jurisdiction. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
has shows the terms of payment on Ex.PW1/4 (Colly.) which is
reproduced as under:
“Terms of Payment
2. Please pay by Cheque/Draft only in favour of
RCPL Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
5. All disputes Subject to Delhi Jurisdiction.”
8. It is further argued that the plaintiff has specified the name of
the account wherein money is payable by virtue of the term
CS(COMM) 3808/24 RCPL Logistics Pvt Ltd. vs. Sh. Utkarsh Seth Page 7 of 17
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.02.24
03:05:42
+0530
“Please pay by Cheque/Draft only in favour of RCPL Logistics
Pvt. Ltd.” which is the only single bank account maintained by the
plaintiff details of which is already provided in Exhibit PW1/12
and the defendant has himself agreed to the jurisdiction of this
Court by acknowledging and acting upon the terms in Ex. PW1/4.
9. It is further argued that the account maintained by the plaintiff
at HDFC Bank Ltd., branch: No 248, Upper Ground Floor, East
Of Kailash Sant Nagar 110065 which falls within territorial
jurisdiction of this Court and it is settled law that cause of action
consists of the place where money is payable under the contract. It
is argued that the Ledger of the plaintiff i.e. Ex. PW1/5 makes it
clear that even previously payments have been received from the
defendant within the Jurisdiction of this Court. Furthermore, Ex.
PW1/10 is the duly signed ledger of the defendant qua the plaintiff
for the period of 01-04-2023 to 31-03-2024 wherein the defendant
has himself admitted his liability further supports the case of the
plaintiff as the receipt of payment in both the Exhibits is the same.
The details of payment is produced as under:
Serial Ex. PW1/5 Ledger Maintained Ex. PW1/10 Ledger
No. by the Plaintiff maintained by the
Defendant
1. Entry 3 dated 05.04.2023: Entry 2 dated
Cheque No. 000633 for Rs. 10.04.2024: Cheque
1,50,000/- No. 000633 for Rs.
CS(COMM) 3808/24 RCPL Logistics Pvt Ltd. vs. Sh. Utkarsh Seth Page 8 of 17
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.02.24
03:05:49
+0530
1,50,000/-
2 Entry 11 dated 11.04.2023: Entry 3 dated
Cheque No. 000440 for Rs. 13.04.2023: Cheque
2,00,000/- No. 000440 for Rs.
2,00,000/-
3 Entry 21 dated 27.05.2023: Entry 7 dated
Cheque No. 000461 for Rs. 25.05.2023:: Cheque
1,00,000/- No. 000461 for Rs.
1,00,000/-
4 Entry 25 dated 08.06.2023: Entry 11 dated
Cheque No. 000464 for Rs. 16.06.2023: Cheque
1,00,000/- No. 000464 for Rs.
1,00,000/-
5 Entry 35 dated 28.06.2023: Entry 14: Cheque
Cheque No. 000465 for Rs. No. 000465 for Rs.
1,00,000/- 1,00,000/-
10. It is further argued that the registered/corporate office of the
plaintiff is also within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and
the various e-mails communications have also been sent on behalf
of the plaintiff from the jurisdiction of this Court to the defendants
i.e. Ex. PW1/9 Colly.
11. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has relied upon the following
judgments:
A. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2682 of
CS(COMM) 3808/24 RCPL Logistics Pvt Ltd. vs. Sh. Utkarsh Seth Page 9 of 17
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.02.24
03:06:00
+0530
1982; (1989) 2 SCC 163 as A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P.
Agencies, Salem.
B. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in RSA No.40/2013 titled
as Satyapal Vs. Slick Auto Accessories Pvt. Ltd. decided on 5th
March, 2014 by the Hon’ble High Court bearing citation 2014
SCC OnLine Del 998;AIR 2014 Del 115
C. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CM(M) 604/2020 titled
M/s Auto Movers V. Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
D. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CS(COMM) 690/2021
TKW Management Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Sherif Cargo & Anr.
12. I could lay my hand on a judgment passed by Hon’ble Delhi
High Court in RSA No.40/2013 titled as Satyapal Vs. Slick Auto
Accessories Pvt. Ltd. decided on 5th March, 2014 bearing citation
2014 SCC OnLine Del 998;AIR 2014 Del 115. The Hon’ble High
Court has held as under:
“22. It is a well established principle of law that where, under
a contract no place of payment is specified, the debtor must
seek his creditor and therefore a suit for recovery is
maintainable at the place where the creditor resides or works
for gain, because a part of the cause of action arises at that
place also with the contemplation of section 20 (c) of the
Code of Civil Procedure. Reference may be made to the
judgments titled as “State of Punjab V. A. K. Raha” reported
as AIR 1964 CALCUTTA 418 (DB), “Jose Paul v. Jose”
reported as AIR 2002 KERALA 397 (DB), “Rajasthan State
Electricity Board V. M/s Dayal Wood Works” reported as
AIR 1998 ANDHRA PRADESH 381, “Munnisa Begum V.
Noore Mohd.” Reported as AIR 1965 ANDHRA PRADESH
231 and “State of U.P. v. Raja Ram” reported as AIR 1966
ALLAHABAD 159.
24. In the judgment titled as Sreenivasa Pulvarising vs. Jal
CS(COMM) 3808/24 RCPL Logistics Pvt Ltd. vs. Sh. Utkarsh Seth Page 10 of 17
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.02.24
03:06:10
+0530
Glass & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. reported as AIR 1985 Cal 74 it
was “…… In also held:-a contract of the nature now under
consideration performance of the contract consists not only of
delivery of the goods but also of payment of the price.
Therefore, cause of action for a suit on breach of such a
contract would arise not only where the goods were to be
delivered but also where the price It would be payable on such
delivery…..” was further held:-
“…….9. Therefore, the law continues to remain the
same and in a suit arising out of a contract, a part
of the cause of action arises at the place where in
performance of the contract any money to which
the suit relates in payable….” Adverting to the facts
of the present case office/factory of the Plaintiff is
situated at Jwala nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32. No
place of payment has been specified in the
contract/bills/invoices. The defendants are liable to
make the payment for the goods supplied to them.
No application was made by the defendants to the
plaintiffs for fixing a place of payment and Sec. 49
of the Indian Contract Act cannot apply to the facts
of the case. Therefore, the payment was to be made
at the office of the plaintiff. Further the purchase
order was placed at Jwala Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-32 and the goods were supplied from Jwala
nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 Therefore a part of the
cause of action definitely arises at Jawala Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi-32. Hence the present suit for
recovery of the sale price can be filed before this
court as the office of the plaintiff is situated within
the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the court.
25. I therefore hold that this court has the territorial
jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. This issue is
therefore decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendants.”
“6. I completely agree with the conclusion of the trial court
because it is settled law that the debtor has to seek the creditor
and since no place of payment was agreed upon, payment
would have been made to the seller/appellant who is residing
and working for gain at New Delhi. Trial court has also
rightly relied upon Section 49 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872 that it was upon the respondent no.1/defendant no. 1 to
fix the place of payment and which has not been done, and
therefore payment would have been made by the debtor to the
creditor at the place of the creditor/plaintiff/appellant. As
already stated the first appellate court has not even bothered toCS(COMM) 3808/24 RCPL Logistics Pvt Ltd. vs. Sh. Utkarsh Seth Page 11 of 17
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.02.24
03:06:16 +0530
refer to the analysis and reasoning of the trial court for
holding that the courts at Delhi have jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the findings of the first appellate court are set
aside and it is held that the courts at Delhi have territorial
jurisdiction.”
13. I could also also lay my hand on a judgment passed by
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CM(M) 604/2020 titled M/S AUTO
MOVERS V. LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT.
LTD, Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held as under:
“22. When, in the present case, the part cause of action has
arisen also on account of the payments made by the
petitioner/defendant directly into the bank account of the
respondent/plaintiff, even if these were not on regular basis,
since there is nothing to show that the place of payment had
been fixed, even without following the principle that the
‘debtor must seek out the creditor’, it is clear that the Delhi
Courts have jurisdiction to try the suit and the invoice does not
vest jurisdiction in a court which had no jurisdiction at all.”
14. Furthermore, in CS(COMM) 690/2021 TKW
MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. SHERIF CARGO
& ANR., Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held as under:
“18. In the present case, the plaintiff has correctly invoked the
doctrine of ‘the debtor must seek creditor’. The defendant has
not denied the fact that the registered office of the plaintiff is
in New Delhi and the various e-mails and WhatsApp
communications have also been sent on behalf of the plaintiff
from New Delhi to the defendants, calling upon the
defendants to pay the outstanding amount. Nor is there any
dispute over the fact that payment under the invoices was to
be made by the defendants in New Delhi.
19. In the judgment dated 14th May, 2012 passed in RFA(OS)
64/2007 titled Union Bank of India v. Milkfood Ltd., a
Division Bench of this Court held that in the absence of any
covenant in the agreement settling a place of payment, theCS(COMM) 3808/24 RCPL Logistics Pvt Ltd. vs. Sh. Utkarsh Seth Page 12 of 17
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.02.24
03:06:27
+0530
debtor must seek the creditor to pay at the place where the
creditor is located.
20. The aforesaid doctrine has also been invoked in the
context of suits filed under Order XXXVII of the CPC in IUP
Jindal Metals & Alloys Ltd. v. M/s. Conee Chains Pvt. Ltd.,
2013 SCC OnLine Del 1454 and Shradha Wassan & Ors. v.
Anil Goel & Ors., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1285 and it has been
observed that where the plaintiff has called upon the
defendants to pay the outstanding amounts from a particular
place, it would be the Courts having jurisdiction over such a
place that would be the appropriate forum to adjudicate the
dispute on the basis of the doctrine ‘debtor must seek creditor’.
21. In Shradha Wassan (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this
Court has observed that while considering an application
seeking leave to defend, where leave is sought solely on the
ground of challenge to the territorial jurisdiction, unless a
clear case of ouster of jurisdiction is made out, leave ought not
to be granted on such a plea. Observations of the Court in
paragraph 17 of the judgment are set out below:
“17. Reference in this regard be also made to
L.N.Gupta v. Smt. Tara Mani MANU/DE/0159/1983:
AIR1984 Delhi49 where also after a review of the
entire case law including the judgments of the other
courts it was held that the principle of “Debtor must
seek creditor’ is applicable to India. However, an
exception was carved out with respect to the
promissory notes. Another thing which is relevant is
that the plea of territorial jurisdiction in this case is
raised in an application for leave to defend. The criteria
for determining the said plea in an application for leave
to defend would be different from the criteria when
such a plea is raised otherwise. While the ground by
challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the court,
unless a clear case of ouster of jurisdiction is made out,
leave ought not to be granted on such a plea. In the
present case on the applicability of the general doctrine
aforesaid, no case for granting leave to defend is made
out.”
22. The judgment in Shradha Wassan (supra) has been
followed by me in Transasia Private Capital Limited and
Another v. Parmanand Agarwal and Others, 2022 SCC
OnLine Del 1185, wherein the application seeking leave to
defend as well as the application seeking rejection of the
CS(COMM) 3808/24 RCPL Logistics Pvt Ltd. vs. Sh. Utkarsh Seth Page 13 of 17
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.02.24
03:06:33 +0530
plaint filed on behalf of the defendant no.1 therein, solely
premised on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, were
dismissed.
15. During the hearing, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff had submitted
that the case of the plaintiff stands duly proved by virtue of the
unchallenged testimony of plaintiff and therefore, plaintiff should
be granted the decree, as prayed for.
16. After perusing the record of the Court file and considering
the submissions of Ld. Counsel for both the parties, I find that the
suit of the Plaintiff has been filed on 24.10.2024 and is well within
the prescribed period of limitation. Further, I find that this Court
has the territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present suit
as plaintiff is having its office at Okhla Industrial Area, New
Delhi and the payment has been duly received by the plaintiff
from the defendant in the sole account of the plaintiff which is
situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. The account
maintained by the plaintiff at HDFC Bank Ltd., branch: No 248,
Upper Ground Floor, East Of Kailash Sant Nagar 110065 falls
within territorial jurisdiction of this Court and payment has been
made by the defendant to the plaintiff in this account only,
furthermore as per the affidavit of the plaintiff, this is the only
account of the plaintiff.
17.1 PW-1 has categorically deposed that the defendant is the
proprietor of the defendant company running and operating under
the name and style of M/s ATM TEXTILES. That the defendantCS(COMM) 3808/24 RCPL Logistics Pvt Ltd. vs. Sh. Utkarsh Seth Page 14 of 17
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.02.24
03:06:40 +0530
had approached the plaintiff for the purpose of availing/hiring the
services of the plaintiff to provide logistics support vis-à-vis the
bookings and the delivery of defendant’s consignments to relevant
destinations. That an agreement for the domestic distribution dated
20.02.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “Agreement”), was executed
between the parties according to which the defendant agreed to
avail the logistic services of the plaintiff vis-à-vis the booking and
the delivery of the defendant’s consignments to relevant
destinations.
17.2 That in furtherance of the business, the defendant after
being satisfied with the services provided by the plaintiff executed
the agreement for the logistics services, wherein all the terms and
conditions along with the rates applicable were agreed between
both the parties. That pursuant to execution of the agreement,
logistic services were provided to the defendant on his request and
accordingly several invoices were raised by the plaintiff on the
defendant.
17.3 That as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the
Agreement the payment for the bill raised by the plaintiff had to
be made within 50 days from the date of the submission of
bills/invoices. If the payment was not made within the stipulated
period, the invoices will be incurring interest at the rate of 24%
per annum from the due date of full and final payment of each
invoice till the day of payment. That the plaintiff raised several
bills on the defendant for providing logistics services.
CS(COMM) 3808/24 RCPL Logistics Pvt Ltd. vs. Sh. Utkarsh Seth Page 15 of 17
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
SINGH
NEELAM Date:
SINGH 2025.02.24
03:06:48
+0530
17.4 That the aforesaid invoices were duly raised and same were
also acknowledged by the defendant. Further, the defendant
assured to plaintiff that the outstanding amount will be paid
shortly. That plaintiff has on earlier occasion sent many reminders
to the defendant for the payment for the outstanding amount, but
to no avail.
17.5 That further, the plaintiff repetitively followed up with the
defendant through emails, telephone and even personally and
demanded the outstanding amount, but the defendant delayed it in
one or the other pretext and all the numerous requests of the
plaintiff were unheard. That being aggrieved by the above
mentioned unresponsive and irrational behavior on the part of the
defendant, the plaintiff was constrained to issue legal notice dated
14.05.2024, demanding the payment of the principal outstanding
amount along with the interest. That as per statement of account
an amount of Rs. 23,24,532/- is due and outstanding against the
defendant. The testimony of PW-1 has gone unrebutted and
uncontroverted without any challenge as Defendant has chosen
not to appear or contest the suit. As far as liability of Defendant is
concerned the same stands proved in view of the unrebutted
testimony of the PW-1.
18. As regards the rate of interest claimed by the Plaintiff is
concerned, I am of the considered opinion that as per the
Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Vs.
Ravindra AIR 2001, Supreme Court 3095, the grant of pendente-
CS(COMM) 3808/24 RCPL Logistics Pvt Ltd. vs. Sh. Utkarsh Seth Page 16 of 17
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.02.24
03:06:55 +0530
lite and future interest is a subject matter of the discretion of the
Court and not to be governed by the agreement between the
parties. Accordingly in exercise of the discretionary power of this
Court, I have granted pendente-lite and future interest at the rate
of 6% p.a. to the Plaintiff because Section 34 of CPC, 1908 as
well as the provisions of the Interest Act, 1978, contemplate grant
of interest at the rate of 6% per annum and because in the past
decade, the nationalized banks have also granted interest at the
rate of 5-6% per annum, on terms deposits.
19. Thus, as a net result of the aforesaid, the suit of the Plaintiff
is decreed for an amount of Rs. 23,24,532/- (Rupees Twenty
Three Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty
Two Only) along with the interest pendente-lite and future interest
@ 6% p.a. till its realization. The Suit of the Plaintiff is decreed
accordingly.
20. Decree sheet be drawn by the Reader of this Court and file
be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
SINGH
NEELAM Date:
Announced & dictated in the SINGH 2025.02.24
03:07:01
open Court on this
+0530
24th February, 2025 (NEELAM SINGH)
District Judge
(Commercial Court-02)
South-East, Saket Courts, ND
24.02.2025 jm
CS(COMM) 3808/24 RCPL Logistics Pvt Ltd. vs. Sh. Utkarsh Seth Page 17 of 17
