CELEBI DELHI CARGO TERMINAL MANAGEMENT INDIA PVT LTD v. DECCAN CARGO & EXPRESS LOGISTICS PVT LTD

1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for recovery of Rs.21,09,554/with future interest and costs from the defendant. Suminons ol the suit issued to the defendant were returned unserved with the report that the office of the defendant of whieh address had been given by the plaintiff was lying closed for two or three months. The defendant was again ordered to be served including by registered post as well as through affixation. Ihe order dated 29* May, 2012 records that the summons sent to the defendant for 26* Mareh, 2012 thiough ordinaiy proeess had been served on one Kdi*. Vijay K.C. for and on behalf of the defendant. However, since none CS(OS) No.2342/2011 ' "f* 2013:DHC:6695 appeared for the defendant, the defendant was vide order dated l?"" October, 2012 ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte and the plaintiff directed to lead ex-parte evidence.

2. The plaintiffhas filed the affidavit by way ofexamination-in-chiefof its Company Secretary Mr. Rohit Shadija who has deposed that the plaintiff company is a special purpose vehicle, incorporated to implement the concession granted by Delhi Intemational Airport Limited (DIAL) for upgradation, modemization, fmancing, operation, maintenance and management of the Cargo Terminal of the Delhi Airport; that the plaintiff accordingly started operating the Cargo Terminal including by providing semcespursuant to the handing over ofthe Cargo Terminal byDIAL, from 25"" November, 2009; that the defendant had a contract with DIAL and which contract under the concessiongranted, stood assigned by DIAI. to the plaintiff; that the defendant was accordingly informed so vide letters dated 29"" December, 2009 and 25^'' November, 2009 proved as Ex. PWl/B and \ix. PWl/C respectively; that the plaintiff company accordingly started raising bills/invoices on the defendant for the services rendered, at the beginning of the subsequent month, for the previous month; that though the defendant started making payment to the plaintiff but stopped making CS(OS) No.2342/2011 Page 2of[4] )) V payments from the month of October, 2010; letters/communications dated 10^*^ December, 2010 (Ex. PWl/E), 21 December, 2010 (Ex. PWl/f), 28 December, 2010 (Ex. PWl/G), 29"" December, 2010 (Ex. PWl/H), 3 January, 2011 (Ex. PWl/I) and 4"^ January, 2011 (Ex. PWl/J) were sent to the defendant; that tough the defendant vide its communication dated 5'^ January, 2011 (Ex. PWl/K) assured that it would make the payment but did not do so; that again reminders dated 17^^ January, 2011 (Ex. PWl/M), 20 January, 2011 (Ex. PWl/N) and 25^ January, 2011 (Ex. PWl/0) were sent th to the defendant; in response to further commrmication dated 25 January, 2011 (Ex. PWl/P) and if" Januaiy, 2011 (Ex. PWl/Q & PWl/R), the defendant again vide email dated 27 January, 2011 (Ex. PWl/S) assured that all pending dues will be cleared but failed to do so save for two interim payments ofRs.5,00,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/-; that invoices ibr the months of January and Febmary, 2011 were also raised by the plaintiff on the defendant and another reminder dated 15^"^ February, 2011 (Fi-x. PWl/J) sent; that the defendant however made interim payments of Rs.[5] lakhs, Rs.2.[5] lakhs and Rs. 15 lakhs; that as on date of filing of the plaint, a sumof Rs.20,52,631/- besides electricity charges i.e. a total sum of Rs.21,09,554/was due from the defendant to the plaintiff. CS(OS) No.2342/2011 3of[4],th rd

3. The plaintiff, besides the documents mentioned above, has also proved other communications exchanged as well as resolution ofthe Boaid ofDirectors of theplaintiff company authorizing theinstitution ofthe suit as Ex-PWl/A and the Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Ex.PWl/13).

4. The counsel for the plaintiffhas been heard.

5. There is no reason to doubt the un-rebutted evidence aforesaid of the plaintiffand which proves the claim ofthe plaintiffagainst the defendant.

6. The suit is accordingly decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for recoveiy of Rs.21,09,554/-. The plaintiffhowever has not lead any evidence as to the rate of interest; however considering the commercial nature ofthe transaction, the interest claimed of 18% per annum is found to bejustified. Theplaintiffshall also be entitled to interest at 18% per annum onthe said amount of Rs.21,09,554/- from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realization. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs as per law. Decree sheet be drawn up.

MARCH 19, 2013/bs.. CS(OS) No. 2342/2011 RAJTV SAHAIENDLAW, J Page 4 of[4]