- 1 - 21.sj.429.2010 ss.2284.10 skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 429 OF 2010 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.2284 OF 2010 Reuters India Pvt. Ltd. ..Plaintiff -Versus- Geometric Software Solutions Company Ltd. ..Defendant .......... Ms.Kavita Brid-Chavan a/w. Ms.Padmaja Dholakia i/b Dholakia Law Associates for the Plaintiff. Mr. Ravindra Kachare a/w. Mr. Dahibawkar i/b Dahibawkar & Co. for the Defendant. .......... CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 21ST DECEMBER 2011. P.C. 1 The suit is filed to recover the amounts due under the plaintiff’s service contract. The parties admittedly entered into the said contract in writing. Clauses 2.2, 3.6 and 4.8 thereof read as under : 2.2 Either of us may cancel any Service or access to any Service, by giving not less than: (a) 3 months’ notice for Hosted Services, (b) 6 month’ notice for domestic Services and (c) 12 months’ notice for all other Services. However, neither of us can give notice until you have been a client of ours for at least 9 months in the case of Hosted Services, 6 months in the case of domestic Services and 12 months in the case of all other Services. - 2 - 21.sj.429.2010 ss.2284.10 3.6 We may require a security deposit or irrevocable bank guarantee from you. We may use the security deposit or invoke the bank guarantee to recover any overdue Charges and / or / any liquidated damages payable under clause 4.8. 4.8 If you cancel all or any part of a Service other than when permitted by the Agreement and / or we terminate the Agreement due to any breach by you, we will be entitled to recover from you as liquidated damages 75% of the relevant Service Fees which would have been payable until the date the relevant Service may be cancelled under clause 2.2. We both agree that this constitutes a realistic pre- estimate of our loss and is not intended to be a penalty. (emphasis supplied) 2 The agreement is dated 22nd May 2006. The defendant by a notice dated 16th August 2007 terminated the agreement. The defendant stated that they had not used the services from 15th July 2007. Whether the services were availed of or not is entirely irrelevant. The defendant was entitled to avail of the same. Under the contract, the defendant is liable to pay the amounts due until the termination thereof. Under clause 2 of the customer order form notwithstanding the cancellation of any service, the defendant is liable to continue to pay for the reminder of the month in which the cancellation takes effect. Thus, though the defendant served a termination notice dated 16th August 2007, the defendant is liable to pay the amounts for the entire month. - 3 - 21.sj.429.2010 ss.2284.10 The amount claimed in the suit is for the months of July and August 2007. This is perfectly in accordance with the contract. 3 It is further contended that a security deposit was placed by the defendant with the plaintiff. However, that amount has been adjusted by the plaintiff in accordance with its rights under clauses 4.8 read with 3.6 set out above on account of the defendant having failed to give the three month’s notice as required by clause 2.2 of the agreement. 4 In the circumstances, there is no defence to the claim in the suit. Interest at 18% per annum is payable under clause 3.3 of the agreement. Even assuming that the plaintiff had on earlier occasions, demanded different amounts, it makes no difference so long as the amount claimed in the suit is in accordance with the contract. 5 In the circumstances, the suit is decreed as prayed. However, interest after the date of the suit shall be at 12% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs.1,13,709.29. Costs to be quantified as per Rules. Refund of court fees, if any, as per Rules. -