Bangalore District Court Sapthagiri Panel Products Private ... vs M/S Iiwa Properties And Interiors on 6 July, 2024 KABC170009082024 IN THE COURT OF LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH85) (COMMERCIAL COURT), BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF JULY 2024 PRESENT SRI.RAMAKANT CHAVAN, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl) LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. Com.O.S.No.446/2024 PLAINTIFF: M/s Sapthagiri Panel Products Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Director Mr.Mahesh Babu D. Having its registered office at No.275/8, New Timber Yard Layout, Mysore Road, Byatranpura, Bengaluru 560 026 (By Sri.Anish P. Bhojani, Adv.) AND DEFENDANT: M/s IIWA Properties and Interiors, Proprietor Mr. Yashwanth Thokala Ground Floor, No.1722, 19th Main HSR Layout, Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka 560 102 (By Smt.Pooja Barik, Adv.) 2 Com.O.S.No.446/2024 Date of Institution 22.03.2024 Nature of suit For recovery of money Date of First Case 14.06.2024 Management Hearing Date of commencement of 19.06.2024 recording of evidence Date on which judgment 06.07.2024 pronounced Time taken for disposal Years Months Days 1) From the date of First Case 00 00 23 Management Hearing 2) Total duration 00 03 14 LXXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH85) Commercial Court, Bengaluru JUDGMENT This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.13,23,328/ with future interest at 1% per day from the date of legal notice till realization and cost of the suit 2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case are that, the plaintiff company is involved in the business of Trades of Plywood, Veneered Panels and similar laminated Wood. The Proprietor of the defendant approached the plaintiff for supply of material as per the requirement of the defendant to the office address, and 3 Com.O.S.No.446/2024 the plaintiff supplied the same as per the orders raised by the defendant. The orders were delivered within the stipulated time to the satisfaction of the defendant without any delay or defect. The plaintiff company raised invoices for the products accepted by the defendant. The plaintiff company possess all the invoices bills. It is further pleaded that, during the usual course of business the defendant had requested the plaintiff company to supply materials on credit basis and persuaded the plaintiff company to maintain a running account of the defendant. In the initial days of the business, the defendant cleared the invoice amount partly, and for the balance payment it pleaded that, it requires further time and promised to settle the balance payments along with interest. But, the defendant has been delaying the payments. The defendant has to pay the invoice amounts of Rs.10,63,153/ for the invoices from 19.04.2022 to 22.07.2022. The defendant was willfully not paid the balance amount. The defendant has to pay the interest also on the due at the rate of 18% p.a. and the interest amounts to Rs.2,60,172/. Hence, the defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.13,23,328/. The plaintiff company has issued legal notice also on 09.10.2023. But, the defendant has not cared for the repayment. The plaintiff company has filed PIM No.2780/2023 before filing the suit, there also the defendant did not appeared. The DLSA has issued Non Starter Report. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file this suit. 4 Com.O.S.No.446/2024 3. After service of summons, the defendant put its appearance through its counsel and filed its written statement. It has denied most of the plaint averments. It is further contended that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. It is pleaded that the defendant knows the plaintiff since several years through business. The defendant, operating under the Trade name M/s IIWA Properties and Interiors approached the plaintiff for purchase of plywood, veneered panels etc. During the course of usual business, the defendant placed multiple orders with the plaintiff and they were always settled on cash on deliver basis and also through online basis. The plaintiff delivered goods and the defendant made prompt payments. It is further stated that, the plaintiff provided delivery notes, but, the defendant did not sign any invoices presented by the plaintiff, as it was not the e