M/S R.K. PROFILES PVT LTD v. M/S VENTE INDUSTRIES PRODUITS SERVICES & ANR

1. Present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking to recover a sum of Rs.1,10,26,364/- from defendants No.1 and 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 is a limited company registered under the provisions of laws of France. Defendant No.2 is the single Director and shareholder of defendant No.1 and is actively engaged in the management and day to day affairs of defendant No.1 company and is also personally responsible for the dealings with the plaintiff. It has been pleaded that the plaintiff has been engaged in the business dealings with the defendants for a period of about 12 years and has been exporting/supplying EPDM Rubber Profiles to the defendant. The plaintiff is manufacturer of the said EPDM Rubber Profiles and other auto products. The defendants had been making payments to the plaintiff for the supply made till 2013. Though the defendants had evaded to make the payment. Reference is made to a purchase order issued by the defendants on 7.6.2013. It is pleaded that goods were supplied for the 2018:DHC:439 purchase order and the plaintiff received payment. Subsequently, in the interregnum during the pendency of said supply of the goods regarding the said purchase order dated 7.6.2013 another purchase order dated 13.8.2013 was sent by the defendants with the same specifications as that of the earlier purchase order dated 7.6.2013.

2. Plaintiff started manufacturing pursuant to the said purchase order dated 13.8.2013 and supplied/exported the first consignments vide invoice dated 17.9.2013 for Euro 37362 vide bill of lading dated 24.9.2013, the second consignment was sent vide invoice dated 7.10.2013 for Euro 37236 vide bill of lading dated 17.10.2013 and the third consignment was despatched vide invoice dated 29.10.2013 for Euro 37194 dispatched vide bill of lading dated 16.11.2013.

3. It is pointed out that the consignment which was sent vide invoice dated 29.10.2013 reached the port of delivery at Le Havre Port at France on 1.12.2013 but the defendants evaded and refused to take delivery of the original documents sent through the concerned courier for release of the goods. Thereafter the defendants through Mr.M.Benamou, father of defendant No.2 wrote an e-mail dated 4.12.2013 to the plaintiff stating therein that primer on the rubber profile was not the requirement of the defendants. It was also pleaded by the defendants that the buyer is upset over the same as the primer is highly inflammable. The plaintiff sent a reply on 4.9.2013 stating that all the goods manufactured are as per specifications and as per purchase order raised by the defendants. Hence, it is pleaded that the defendants have become liable to pay a total outstanding of Euro 111792 equivalent to Rs.93,90,884.40. In addition, it is submitted that the defendants also became liable to pay to the plaintiff the value of 11000 pieces of item No.20730650 which stood manufactured by the plaintiff when the defendant had requested for stopping of further production. The goods manufactured as per purchase order dated 13.8.2013 are lying in the premises of the plaintiff and are custom made material and cannot be further sold in the market as finished goods and can be sold only as a scrap. Hence, it is pleaded that the defendants are also liable to pay the value of the said items which amounts to Euro 19800. On 31.12.2013 the plaintiffs sent through counsel a legal notice demanding Euros 111792 plus Euros 19800. The defendants refused to accept the legal notice. Plaintiff also sent the legal notice through email.

4. Despite service defendants did not appear before this court on 20.4.2017 and were proceeded ex parte.

5. The plaintiff has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Mohit Mendiratta, who has reiterated the contentions in the plaint. He also filed an affidavit under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. He has exhibited various documents filed by the plaintiff. The purchase order dated 13.8.2013 is exhibited as Ex.PW1/17. Similarly, notice dated 17.9.2013 is exhibited as Ex.PW1/18, the original bill of lading dated 17.9.2013 is exhibited as Ex.PW1/19; the invoice dated 7.10.2013 is exhibited as PW1/22; the bill of lading dated 7.10.2013 is exhibited as Ex.PW1/23; the invoice dated 29.10.2013 is exhibited as PW1/26 and; original bill of lading dated 29.10.2013 is exhibited as PW1/27. Original shipping bills have also been exhibited. The legal notice dated 31.12.2013 is exhibited as Ex.PW1/33.

6. It is quite clear that plaintiff has proved dispatch of goods to the defendants. There is no evidence on record to show that the defendant made any payment or that the goods that were dispatched by the plaintiff were defective. Earlier also in June 2013 itself purchase order with similar specifications have been placed by the defendants for which payments have been made on supply of goods. Accordingly, the plaintiff has proved that defendants remain liable to pay for the dues claimed in the plaint.

7. A decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for a sum of Rs.1,10,26,364/-. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till recovery of the amount. The plaintiff is also entitled to costs.

8. Suit stands disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

JAYANT NATH, J. JANUARY 17, 2018