Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 729 (CAL)

Skipper Limited v. Raja Kalidas Bardhan Roy

2024-04-04

KRISHNA RAO

body2024
JUDGMENT : KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff for a decree for a sum Rs. 28,30,011/- along with interim interest and interest upon judgment at the rate of 18% per annum. 2. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supply of various kinds of steel and PVC materials. 3. The defendant No. 1 is engaged in the business of organizing events and event management under the name and style “Konnect” as the sole proprietorship and the defendant No. 2 is an employee of defendant No. 1. 4. It is found from the records that the Writ of Summons was not served upon the defendants either by way of bailiff service or through postal service and accordingly the plaintiff has taken recourse of substituted service by way of publication in the daily Bengali Newspaper and English Newspaper and the publication was made. 5. As per the report of the Deputy Registrar (Ct. & J.) dated 14th December, 2022, it was found that even after the publication of notice, the defendants have not entered appearance and by an order dated 1st August, 2023, this Court had directed the matter to be treated as an “Undefended Suit.” 6. The plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement dated 19th January, 2015, through which the plaintiff had engaged the defendant no. 1 as an Event Manager for “Coupon Redemption Programme” and some of the relevant terms of the agreement are as follows: (i) The defendant no. 1 has to organize events in 14 locations in the State of West Bengal, 6 locations in the State of Jharkhand, 2 locations in Guahati and 6 locations in the state of Orissa on various dates and times on the basis of a list which was submitted to the defendant no. 1 by the plaintiff. (ii) The period of contract was one year and the terms thereof was to be reviewed after every six months. (iii) The defendant no. 1 was to collect data from the loyal and general influencers as per prescribed date provided to him and organize the ‘Coupon Redemption Scheme’ and Plumber Meet. (iv) The representative of the defendant was to be physically present at the time of events. (v) The defendant no. 1 was to collect coupons from the influencers and redeem the same at the rate of Rs. 20 per coupons. (iv) The representative of the defendant was to be physically present at the time of events. (v) The defendant no. 1 was to collect coupons from the influencers and redeem the same at the rate of Rs. 20 per coupons. (vi) The defendant no. 1 was to submit reconciliation statement regarding the details of coupons collected and money reimbursed against the coupons on a weekly basis. (vii) The defendant no. 1 was to be paid monthly remuneration of Rs. 1,11,916/-. 7. At the time of execution of the said agreement, the plaintiff had made a payment of Rs. 1,32,247/- to the defendant for the following work to be done: (a) Five canopies, Size 8 Ft. x 8 Ft. along with Flex Print. (b) Five Webcam (Logitech). (c) 5000 Loyalty Cards with lamination. 8. Thereafter, a sum of Rs. 11,500/- was again paid to the defendant No. 1 by the plaintiff for sending 50,000 messages on behalf of the plaintiff to the influencers and also a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs was deposited with the defendant as security which is to be refunded on termination of the contract. 9. The terms of the agreement dated 19th January, 2015 were revised by a letter dated 1st June, 2015, as issued by the plaintiff to the defendant no. 1. The relevant terms which were amended or added or revised by way of amendment to the agreement are as follows: (i) Defendant no. 1 and its representatives should ensure that they are carrying enough bearer cheques of S.B.I. (State Bank of India) as this would be the preferred and only mode of payment to the influencers coming in for redemption. (ii) Defendant no. 1 and its representatives should ensure that they also carry enough cash for the activity, as any amount below Rs. 500 should be distributed in cash. (iii) No post-dated cheques should be issued to anybody in any venue. (iv) The defendant no. 1 will be paid approximately Rs. 4,000/- per month per venue towards fees. (v) Failure to follow any points mentioned in the scope of services can result in termination of contract and/or compensation for any loss to the company/brand. 10. The plaintiff that they have also deposited a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- as security which was supposed to be refunded upon termination of the revised contract dated 1st June, 2015. 11. The defendant no. 10. The plaintiff that they have also deposited a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- as security which was supposed to be refunded upon termination of the revised contract dated 1st June, 2015. 11. The defendant no. 1 pursuant to the revised contract, have organized a number of events between May, 2015 to October, 2015 and in course of such events, the defendant no. 1 is alleged to have paid a total sum of Rs. 1,36,50,560/- to the influencers as against the coupon reimbursement. 12. According to the terms of the contract the defendant no. 1 was required to submit reconcile statement and upon submission of the same, the plaintiff would reimburse the defendant no. 1 and in this regard, till date, a total sum of Rs. 1,36,50,560/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. 13. By way of a letter dated 11th August, 2015, the defendant no. 1 informed the plaintiff that the defendant no. 2 has been authorized by him to issue cheques on his behalf to the influencers as against the coupon reimbursement. 14. Sometimes in the month of September, 2015, the plaintiff had started receiving large number of complaints from influencers as to the cheques issued by the defendants amounting to Rs. 20,42,380/- as against the coupon reimbursement being dishonoured upon presentation. This was a shock to the plaintiff as the defendants had already received payments from the plaintiff upon reconciliation of their accounts. 15. The plaintiff in order to safeguard and protect its goodwill and reputation made payment of a sum of Rs. 20,42,380/- to the influencers. 16. The plaintiff, by a letter dated 16th December, 2015, called upon the defendant no. 1 to make payment of such sums of money which is due and payable to the plaintiff on account of dishonoured cheques issued to the influencers. 17. Even after receipt of the letter from the plaintiff, the defendant no. 1 had failed to make any payment. The plaintiff by a letter dated 31st December, 2015 as well as 8th January, 2016, have lodged police complaints against the defendants in view of the illegalities committed by the defendants. The complaints were lodged before the officer-in-charge, Shakespeare Sarani Police Station as well as the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Division, having his office at Park Street, Kolkata. 18. The plaintiff in order to prove its case has adduced evidence and also examined one witness name Mr. The complaints were lodged before the officer-in-charge, Shakespeare Sarani Police Station as well as the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Division, having his office at Park Street, Kolkata. 18. The plaintiff in order to prove its case has adduced evidence and also examined one witness name Mr. Shyam Sundar Mantri, who is the Manager, Legal of the plaintiff company. 19. The plaintiff has exhibited total number of 14 (Fourteen) Documents being “Exhibit A - to Exhibit L/1.” Exhibit-A Board Resolution dated 6th July, 2021, through which the plaintiff’s witness was authorized to depose before the Court. Exhibit-B A copy of a letter dated 19th January, 2015, recording an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 issued by the plaintiff upon the defendant No. 1. Exhibit-C Original letter dated 1st June, 2015, recording revision of contract issued by the plaintiff upon the defendant No. 1. Exhibit-D and Exhibit-D/1 Certified and true copy of the Ledger Statement maintained by the plaintiff of the defendant. Exhibit-E Schedule showing the details of the number of events organised by the defendant no. 1 between May, 2015 to October, 2015 on behalf of the plaintiff. Exhibit-F Original letter dated 11th August, 2015, issued by the defendant No. 1 upon the plaintiff. Exhibit-G Original cheques along with few dishonoured memos and original Money Receipts. Exhibit-H A copy of the schedule containing particulars of dishonoured cheques as issued by the defendants in favour of the influencers. Exhibit-I A copy of the schedule showing particulars of payments as made by the plaintiff in favour of the influencers. Exhibit-J A copy of a letter dated 16th December, 2015 issued by the plaintiff upon the defendant no. 1 alongwith the original postal receipt dated 16th December, 2015 are exhibited collectively. Exhibit-K and Exhibit-K/1 Original letter dated 31st December, 2015 issued by the plaintiff to the Officer-in-Charge, Shakespeare Sarani Police, Shakeaspear Sarani and K/1 is the stamp of the receipt of the Office-in-Charge. Exhibit-L and Exhibit-L/1 Original letter dated 8th January, 2016, issued by the plaintiff to the Deputy Commissioner of Police South Division and Exhibit L/1 is stamp of the receipt of the Deputy Commissioner. 20. Exhibit-L and Exhibit-L/1 Original letter dated 8th January, 2016, issued by the plaintiff to the Deputy Commissioner of Police South Division and Exhibit L/1 is stamp of the receipt of the Deputy Commissioner. 20. Exhibit-B and C which are the letters dated 19th January, 2015 and 1st June, 2015, which proves that there has been one agreement and one revised agreement between the plaintiff company and the defendant No. 1 under which the defendant No. 1 was appointed by the plaintiff to organize events in several states in India. Exhibit-D is a copy of a Ledger Statement maintained by the plaintiff wherein details of several payments made by the plaintiff to the defendant no. 1 from time to time in respect of the work done by the defendant no. 1 on behalf of the plaintiff, which proves that the plaintiff had duly fulfilled its obligations regarding the payment for the work done. Exhibit-E is the details of the events organized by the defendant no. 1 in between May, 2015 to October, 2015 on behalf of the plaintiff on different places. Exhibit-F is a letter issued by the defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff, which proves that the defendant No. 1 had authorized the defendant No. 2 to make payments to Saathis or influencers coming with coupons during the events for redemption activities and also to receive payment in form of Cheques/RTGS for Coupon Reimbursement which proves involvement of the defendant no. 2. Exhibit-G are the cheques along with cheque return memos and money receipts issued by the defendants to the influencers which proves that the cheques issued by the defendants to the influencers have been dishonoured and the defendants have not paid the amounts. Exhibit-I is the details of payment made by the plaintiff which amounts to a sum of Rs. 20,42,380/- to protect and safeguard its goodwill in the market amongst the influencers after the dishonour of cheques which were issued by the defendants. Exhibit-J is a copy of a letter dated 16th December, 2015, issued by the plaintiff to the defendant no. 1 informing about dishonour of cheques from which the plaintiff had to receive an amount of Rs. 24,95,173/- after making all adjustments and also terminated the contract. Exhibit-J is a copy of a letter dated 16th December, 2015, issued by the plaintiff to the defendant no. 1 informing about dishonour of cheques from which the plaintiff had to receive an amount of Rs. 24,95,173/- after making all adjustments and also terminated the contract. Exhibit-K, K/1, L and L/1 are copies of letters dated 31st December, 2015 and 8th January, 2016, which were sent to the Officer-in-Charge, Shakespeare Sarani Police Station and to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Division, Park Street, Kolkata which were duly received by both the authorities, which proves that steps were taken by the plaintiff against the illegal act committed by the defendants. 21. Considered the plaint, evidence of the plaintiff and the documents which were exhibited during the evidence of PW-1. This court finds that the plaintiff has proved its case. The defendants have received total payments from the plaintiff and have issued cheques to the influencers but subsequently the cheques issued by the defendants were dishonoured and the defendants have neither paid the said amount to the influencers nor to the plaintiff as the plaintiff to save its good will made the payments to the influencers after dishonoured of cheques issued by the defendants. 22. The plaintiff proves that apart from Rs. 20,42,380/- the plaintiff is also entitled to get refund of security amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- towards advance retainership, Rs. 1,164/- being refund of bank charges paid for dishonour of cheques and Rs. 5,600/- being the cost of 4 web cameras. Out of the total amount of Rs. 31,99,144/- the defendant has paid only Rs. 7,99,827/-. 23. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 23,99,317/- along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realisation of the total amount. The defendants are directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs. 23,99,317/- along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the case till realisation of the total amount to the plaintiff. 24. CS-COM 626 of 2024 (Old C.S. No. 195 of 2018) is thus disposed of. Decree to be drawn accordingly.