1 sj430.10.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 430 OF 2010 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 2191 OF 2009 Reuters India Pvt. Ltd., a company Incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered Office at 4th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower, B Wing, Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013, and has its Corporate Office at 3rd Floor, Construction House, 5 Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 ......Plaintiffs. Vs. Crossseas Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., a company Incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its office at 208, Veena Chambers, 21, Dalal Street, Mumbai 400 001. ......Defendants. Ms. Kavita Brid i/by M/s. Dholakia Law Associates for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Mehul A. Shah for the Defendants. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :- 25 AUGUST 2011 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :- 29 SEPTEMBER 2011. 2 sj430.10.sxw ssm JUDGMENT:- The Plaintiffs are news and information service provider worldwide. The present Summary Suit is filed against the Defendants to recover due and payable amount of `3,12,241/- read with interest @ 18% p.a. thereon, based upon the agreement dated 30 November 2006, thereby claimed for `3,91,291/- with interest. 2 The Defendants subscribed to certain services offered by the Plaintiffs for their business requirement and for that executed the Reuters Services Contract Agreement dated 30 November 2006 (for short, the Agreement) and Order Form dated 30 November 2006 was also signed. The Defendants thereby agreed for the terms and conditions referred in these documents. The Defendants agreed to make the payment of the subscription charges of the sum of 810 US$ per month towards the use of the said services, as per the invoices raised quarterly in advance. In pursuance to Order Form, the Defendants furnished a security deposit of `1,11,974/- for the services. The Defendants started using the services from 28 November 2006, by installing necessary softwares. A facility of delayed billing payment was only till March 2007. 3 sj430.10.sxw ssm 3 The billing services commenced from April 2007. The Defendants made payment in the quarters of April-June 2007 and July-September 2007. From the quarter of October 2007 the Defendants failed to make the payments for the invoices raised upon them though they were using the services provided under the agreement. Though communicated and intimated by the Plaintiffs specifically to the Defendants the revised rates, apart from the people at large by due notice/letter dated 28 September 2007, the ignorance was expressed of the same by the Defendants. The demand made by their email on 10 January 2008 and forwarded all the outstanding invoices. Letters dated 3 April, 2008 and 24 April 2008 were also sent as Defendants failed to make the payments. There was no response and payment made by the Defendants therefore, another demand notice dated 14 October 2008 was forwarded/ sent. Though received the Defendants neither replied nor made the payment. 4 The Plaintiffs therefore, in view of the agreement terminated the contract and removed their product services installed at the Defendants premises. The Defendants’ representative stamped the said removal report. 4 sj430.10.sxw ssm 5 The Plaintiffs, therefore, issued a notice dated 2 January 2009 and called upon to make the payment towards the invoices as well as liquidated damages by giving appropriate notice. The Defendants raised frivolous, false and contentious issues at the first time in their reply dated 13 January 2009 basically revolving around improper notice of price hike. The Plaintiffs replied again by rejoinder notice dated 14 February 2009 and reiterated their claim. The Plaintiffs however, claiming in the present Summary Suit the amount based upon the invoices only and no claim is raised towards any liquidated damages as contemplated under clause 4.8 and 3.6 of the Contract agreement. 6 Clause 3.3 provides 18% interest p.a. in case of non payment. Therefore, the claim of interest is made accordingly. 7 The Suit is within limitation. 8 The Summons for Judgment was taken out by explaining the reasons for delay. It was duly served on the Defendants as they filed Vakalatnama in September 2010. A Chamber Summons dated 22 July 5 sj430.10.sxw ssm 2010 was allowed thereby delay of 287 days for issuing the writ of Summons was condoned. 9 The Defendants resisted the Summons for Judgment by its reply dated 16 June 2011. A rejoinder is filed by the Plaintiffs and reiterated their main case. 10 The fact that the Defendants made payment of two bills itself shows that they were agreed and aware of the rates so fixed. There is no serious denial to the fact that the Defendants had been using the services till the date of termination of the contract. The defence of an intimation to stop the services in the year 2007, as contended, is not bonafide and genuine, specially in view of the fact that the Defendants had been using the said services till the date of termination/removal report. As claim is not made towards any liquidated damages in the present Suit, the defence in this regard is also of no assistance. 11 The Plaintiffs’ claim as described in particulars of the claim and as averred, is after deducting Defendants security amount. Based upon the undisputed invoices so far as utility of the services, the defence of enhanced rate/revised rate is also of afterthought defence. 6 sj430.10.sxw ssm In rejoinder, the Plaintiffs have made out the case that the alleged Defendants letter dated 4 August 2007 on which reliance is made, is a forged document even otherwise that in no way sufficient to deny the case/ crystalized claim of the Plaintiffs. It is also clear and not in dispute that the Defendants had accessed the services till 22 August 2008 which is endorsed and recorded by the Defendants on the removal report. 12 In so far as rate of interest as claimed @ 18% p.a., which is agreed rate of interest, therefore, the claim so raised with regard to the same is also within the purview of agreed terms. The Plaintiffs, are therefore, entitled for the same as claimed and also till the realization from the date of the Suit. 13 Resultantly, the Summons for Judgment is allowed and the same is disposed of. Decree be drawn accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)