M/S PRABHATAM ADVERTISING PVT. LTD v. M/S GREEN CITY BUILDTECH PVT. LTD

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in Digest? V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs 24,21,320.05. The plaintiff is an advertising company and was engaged by the defendant to advertise its products and services. The plaintiff-company used to place advertisement in newspaper and various electronic channels on behalf of the defendant. A sum of Rs 24,21,320.05 was due to the plaintiff-company as on 31st March, 2008 towards unpaid amount for the 2011:DHC:4115 advertisements published/broadcast on behalf of the defendant-company. Since the defendant has failed to pay the aforesaid amount, the plaintiff is seeking its recovery along with interest.

2. The defendant filed written statement contesting the suit. It is alleged in the written statement that the defendant had paid all the dues to the plaintiff for the work done by it for the defendant. It was also alleged that the plaintiff had concealed that 50% of the payment of production job used to be made in advance.

3. The defendant was proceeded ex parte on 29th March, 2011. The plaintiff has filed affidavit of Mrs Neelam Khanna, General Manager of the plaintiff-company, by way of ex parte evidence. In her affidavit by way of evidence, Mrs Neelam Khanna has stated that the directors of the defendant-company, who were well known to the directors of the plaintiff-company, had approached the plaintiffcompany for getting their products advertised in various newspapers and media on different dates and the plaintiffcompany had agreed to get the advertisement published/telecast accordingly. She has further stated that the advertisement work was carried out by the plaintiff in terms of the requirement of the defendant-company, but the outstanding amount was not paid, despite repeated requests from the representatives of the plaintiff-company and a sum of Rs 24,21,320.05 was due to the plaintiff from the defendant.

4. A perusal of the statement of account Ex.P-1/2 would show the defendant made payments on various dates by way of cheques. The transaction between the parties started only on 06th June, 2006. The suit having been filed on 10th July, 2008 is well within time. Considering the statement of account, coupled with the deposition of Mrs Neelam Khanna, the plaintiff-company has been able to prove that a sum of Rs 24,21,320.05 was due to it from the defendant-company.

5. The defendant has not come forward to prove the allegation that 50% of the payment used to be made in advance. More importantly in its written statement, the defendant has not disputed any entry made in the statement of account filed by the plaintiff-company. This is not the case of the defendant that the plaintiff-company had not got advertisements published by it for the amount shown in the statement of account filed by it. This is also not the case of the defendant in the written statement that any payment made by it to the plaintiff-company has not been credited in the statement of account. In these circumstances, I hold that the plaintiff-company is entitled to recover a sum of Rs 24,21,320.05.

6. A decree for Rs 24,21,320.05 with costs and pendente lite and future interest @ 12% is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

(V.K. JAIN)

JUDGE AUGUST 12, 2011 bg