IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE,

KARKARDOOMA COURT, NEW DELHI

SUIT NO. OF 2019

(UNDER ORDER XXXVII OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908)

IN THE MATTER OF: -

Netcom IITS ...Plaintiff
versus

Ap E-Services Private Limited & Ors. ...Defendants

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

Sl. No. Particulars Page No. C.F.

1. Memo of Parties

2. Court Fees

3. Suit under Order XXXVII of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908

4. Affidavit in support

5. List of Documents

6. Vakalatnama

Plaintiff
Through

(xxxxxx)(xxxxxxx)
Advocates for the Plaintiff
Chamber: 706, Lawyers’ Chambers,
                     Block III, Delhi High Court,
Date: 15.11.2019 New Delhi – 110 003
Place: New Delhi Mob.xxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxx
 IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE,
KARKARDOOMA COURT, NEW DELHI
SUIT NO. OF 2019

(UNDER ORDER XXXVII OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908)

IN THE MATTER OF: -

NETCOM IITS ...Plaintiff
versus

AP E-SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. ...Defendants

MEMO OF PARTIES

Netcom IITS,
Through its Proprietor,
Shailesh Randhar,
72, 3rd Floor Agarwal Chamber I
Veer Savarkar Block,
Shakarpur,
Delhi – 110092 ....Plaintiff
versus

1. Ap E-Services Private Limited,

Office No. 307, Plot No. 45 & 46
Balaji Complex, Mohan Park
Laxmi Nagar
Delhi

Also at

C-113, Square Kumaun,

West Vinod Nagar,
Mandawali,
Delhi 110092

2. Sarita Negi (Director)

Ap E-Services Private Limited,
Office No. 307, Plot No. 45 & 46
Balaji Complex, Mohan Park
Laxmi Nagar
Delhi

Also at

C-113, Square Kumaun,

West Vinod Nagar,
Mandawali,
Delhi 110092
3. Kalam Singh Negi (Director)
Ap E-Services Private Limited,
Office No. 307, Plot No. 45 & 46
Balaji Complex, Mohan Park
Laxmi Nagar
Delhi

Also at
C-113, Square Kumaun,
West Vinod Nagar,
Mandawali, Delhi 110092

.....Defendants

Plaintiff
Through

(xxxxxxx)(xxxxxxx)
Advocates for the Plaintiff
Chamber: 706, Lawyers’ Chambers,
                     Block III, Delhi High Court,
Date : 15.11.2019 New Delhi – 110 003 
Place : New Delhi Mob. xxxxxx, xxxxxxx
 IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE,
KARKARDOOMA COURT, NEW DELHI
SUIT NO. OF 2019

(UNDER ORDER XXXVII OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908)

IN THE MATTER OF: -

Netcom IITS ...Plaintiff
versus

Ap E-Services Private Limited & Ors. ...Defendants

SUIT UNDER ORDER XXXVII RULE 1 & 2 OF CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE 1908 FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 1,23,143.40/-
(RUPEES ONE LAKH TWENTY THREE THOUSAND ONE
HUNDRED FORTY THREE AND FORTY PAISE ONLY) ALONGWITH
INTEREST.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

1. That the Plaintiff is a sole propriety concern being managed by

Shailesh Randhar (Sole Proprietor), dealing in sale of computer,

printers, computer related parts and accessories and IT

equipment amongst other things. The Plaintiff is a reseller to

companies, IT shops and system integrators.

2. That Defendant No.1 is client of Plaintiff and having a running

account with the plaintiff for supply of computer and other

computer/IT related equipments. That Defandant Nos.2 & 3 are

the full time directors of Defendant No.1, namely, Ap E-Services

Private Limited, having Office No. 307, Plot No. 45 & 46, Balaji

Complex, Mohan Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi and also at C-113,

Square Kumaun, West Vinod Nagar, Mandawali, Delhi 110092 and have

full control over its day to day affairs and also, jointly and
 severally responsible for it. Besides, Defendant No.3 is the

authorised signatory of Defendant No.1.

3. That, since the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 through Defendant

Nos. 2 & 3 were having business terms for number of years, the

Plaintiff reposed faith and trust in the Defendants. That

Defendant No. 1 through its directors Defendant Nos. 2 & 3

Sarita Negi and Kalam Negi respectively, used to place order to

the Plaintiff telephonically for purchase of computer and

computer/IT related products and as per the terms of business

and understanding the products were supplied to the Defendants

through their agents/ employees by the Plaintiff against receipt;

the payments of the goods supplied were paid after a few days

by Defendant No. 1 through defendant No.2 & 3 by cheque and

sometimes by cash when the value of the product supplied by

the plaintiff is meagre. It is pertinent to mention here that it was

orally agreed between the Plaintiff and the Defendants that latter

would be liable to pay a penal interest of 24% per annum in case

of default of payment. A ledger account of defendant No. 1 was

maintained by the plaintiff in regular course of business.

4. That since 2014 the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 were in

business terms and plaintiff had been supplying IT goods as well

as computer related goods against receipts to Defendant No. 1

on credit basis.

5. That as on 19.10.2016, there was a total outstanding of Rs.

1,38,205/- (RUPEES ONE LAKH THIRTY EIGHT THOUSAND

TWO HUNDRED FIVE ONLY) against the Defendant No. 1. That

 on 20.10.2016, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (RUPEES TEN

THOUSAND ONLY) was paid to the plaintiff on behalf of

Defendant No.1. Subsequently, on 25.10.2016, Defendant No.3

issued a cheque for Rs. 50,000/- bearing number 629743 drawn

on Canara Bank, Laxmi Nagar Branch, Delhi 110092, IFSC

CNRB0002768 to the Plaintiff, however, the said cheque was

dishonoured for insufficient funds in account. The dishonour of

the above said cheque was brought to the notice of Defendant

No. 2 & 3 to which the defendants requested to again present

the cheque. The said cheque was again dishonoured and the

fact of dishonour was brought to the notice of the defendants

who assured the Plaintiff that the payment would be released

shortly.

6. That in the meantime, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (RUPEES TEN

THOUSAND ONLY) was paid on 30.10.2016 to the Plaintiff on

behalf of Defendant No. 1.

7. That in order to discharge part liability on 20.11.2016, Defendant

No. 1 issued a cheque bearing number 013222 drawn on Union

Bank of India, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi – 110019 IFSC

Code: UBIN0541214 amounting to Rs. 43,205/- in favour of the

Plaintiff, however, the said cheque also was dishonoured on

23.11.2016 for insufficient fund in account. The dishonour of the

above said cheque was brought to the notice of the Defendant

No. 2 & 3 who assured that the payment would be released

shortly. That Defendant Nos. 2 & 3, both the directors requested

the plaintiff to not initiate any legal proceedings against them in

as much as they were facing difficulty in arranging funds due to

 demonetisation. However, not to lose a client the plaintiff carried

on the business with Defendant No.1.

8. That as on 23.11.2016, there was a total outstanding of Rs.

1,18,205/- (RUPEES ONE LAKH EIGHTEEN THOUSAND TWO

HUNDRED FIVE ONLY) against Defendant No. 1. Subsequently,

on 09.01.2017, a payment of Rs. 25000/- (RUPEES TWENTY

FIVE THOUSAND ONLY) was made on behalf of Defendant

No.1. Another payment of Rs. 10,000/- (RUPEES TEN

THOUSAND ONLY) was made on 15.03.2017. Since, payments

were being made by Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 on behalf of

Defendant No.1, the Plaintiff was carried away by this fact and

continued to supply the goods to Defendant No.1 on the request

of Defendant Nos. 2 & 3.

9. That in continuation of business terms and as per order placed

by Defendant No.2 & 3, the Plaintiff again supplied goods worth

Rs. 7,280 (RUPEES SEVEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED

EIGHTY ONLY) to Defendant No.1 on 23.03.2017. The Payment

for the same was made on 15.04.2017.

10. That after adjusting the abovesaid payment made on

09.01.2017, 15.03.2017 and 23.03.2017, there was a total

outstanding of Rs. 83,205/- (RUPEES EIGHTY THREE

THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIVE ONLY) against Defendant

No.1.

11. That Defendant No. 3 on 25.10.2017 issued a cheque for an

amount of Rs. 15,000/- bearing number 394881 drawn on

Canara Bank, Laxmi Nagar Branch, Delhi 110092 110092, IFSC

 CNRB0002768, however, the said cheque was dishonoured on

18.11.2017 for insufficient funds in account. The said fact of

dishonour of cheque was informed to Defendant No.2 & 3 who

had promised to release the amount as soon as possible,

however, since then, no payment has been made by the

Defendants.

12. That in terms of the business, Defendant No. 2 &3 failed in

paying the dues and Defendant No. 2 & 3 kept on making false

promises to pay the entire outstanding within few days.

13. That since Defendants failed in making payment towards

outstanding and made false promises, the plaintiff has no other

efficacious remedy except to file the present suit.

14. That even till date, Defendants are in possession of the goods

supplied by the plaintiff and making gain to themselves. It is

stated that the Defendants are under the liability to pay total

amount of Rs.83,205/- (RUPEES EIGHTY THREE THOUSAND

TWO HUNDRED FIVE ONLY) and Rs.39,938.40/- (RUPEES

THIRTY NINE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED THIRTY EIGHT

AND 40 PAISA) as penal interest @ 24% from 18.11.2017 till

date for default in making regular payment of goods supplied to

them It is stated that total liability of the Defendants is

Rs.1,23,143.40/- (RUPEES ONE LAKH TWENTY THREE

THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FORTY THREE AND FORTY

PAISA), Rs.83,205/- (RUPEES EIGHTY THREE THOUSAND

TWO HUNDRED FIVE ONLY) towards principal amount + Rs.

39,938.40/- (RUPEES THIRTY NINE THOUSAND NINE

 HUNDRED THIRTY EIGHT AND 40 PAISA) towards penal

interest..

15. That the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and

against the Defendants firstly when the goods were supplied and

cheque number 629743 dated 25.10.2016 bearing account

number 3768201000024 amounting to Rs. 50,000/- drawn on

Laxmi Nagar Branch, New Delhi – 110092, was issued to the

plaintiff by the defendants. Again, it arose when Cheque bearing

No.013222 dated 20.11.2016 on account bearing number

412101010000741 drawn on Union Bank of India, Nehru Place

Branch, New Delhi – 110009 for an amount of Rs.43205/- and

Cheque bearing No.394881 dated 25.10.2017 on account

3768201000024 amounting to Rs. 15,000/- drawn on Laxmi

Nagar Branch, New Delhi – 110092, were issued in favour of the

plaintiff by the Defendants in order to discharge their partial

liabilities. It further arose on 19.11.2016, 22.11.2016 and

17.11.2017 when the abovesaid respective cheques were

returned by the banker as dishonoured for insufficient fund in the

account of the Defendant No. 1. It again arose on 12.12.2017,

when the Defendants inspite of last request, failed to make the

payment of outstanding dues to the plaintiff. That the cause of

action is still continuing in favour of the plaintiff and against the

defendants.

16. That the present Suit is being filed under Order XXXVII of the

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and rules thereunder, and no

relief, which does not fall within the ambit of this order has been

claimed in the plaint.

17. The business activities carried out by the defendants as well as

the plaintiff falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble

Court. The Plaintiff and Defendants work for gain at Delhi.

Hence, this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the

present Suit.

18. That the value of the suit for the purpose of the court fee and

jurisdiction is Rs.1,23,143.40/- (RUPEES ONE LAKH TWENTY

THREE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FORTY THREE AND

FORTY PAISA ONLY) upon which the Court Fees of Rs. /-

has been affixed.

PRAYER

In the above facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, most

respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

(a) pass a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,23,143.40/- (RUPEES ONE

LAKH TWENTY THREE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FORTY
THREE AND FORTY PAISA ONLY) in favour of the plaintiff and
against the Defendants jointly or severally; and

(b) pass an order directing the Defendants jointly or severally to pay

the pendente lite interest @ 24% per annum from the date of
filing of the suit till the date of the actual payment thereof to the
Plaintiff; and

(c) award the cost of the present suit and litigation expenses in
favour of the plaintiff and against the Defendants; and

(d) issue summons to the Defendants under the provisions of Order

XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908; and

(e) any other or further order/relief(s), which this Hon'ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case,
 may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the

Defendants.

Plaintiff

VERIFICATION

Verified at Delhi on this 15 th day of November, 2019 that the

contents of Para No. 1 to 14 of the above plaint are correct to my

knowledge and available documents and records and Para 15 to 18

are true and correct as per the information received as per legal advice

and last para is the prayer clause to this Hon’ble Court.

Plaintiff

Through

(xxxxxx)(xxxxxxxx)
Advocates for the Plaintiff
Chamber: 706, Lawyers’ Chambers,
                     Block III, Delhi High Court,
Date : 15.11.2019 New Delhi – 110 001 
Place : New Delhi Mob.xxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxx
 IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE,
KARKARDOOMA COURT, NEW DELHI
SUIT NO. OF 2019

(UNDER ORDER XXXVII OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908)

IN THE MATTER OF: -

Netcom IITS ...Plaintiff
versus

Ap E-Services Private Limited & Ors. ...Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

I, Shailesh Randhar, S/o Late Sh. Vijay Kumar Randhar, aged

about 45 years, resident of B 404, Gaur Valerio, Ahimsa Khand 2,

Indirapuram, Uttar Pradesh presently come down to Delhi, do hereby

solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:

1. That I am the sole proprietor of Plaintiff firm in the above

noted matter and well conversant with the facts and the
circumstances of the present case and, as such, competent to
affirm this affidavit.

2. That the accompanying Suit of Recovery under Order XXXVII

CPC has been drafted by my Counsel under my instructions and
the contents of the same have been read over to me in my
vernacular. I state the contents of the accompanying Suit are
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and records
maintained in the ordinary course of business. The contents
thereof may kindly be read as part and parcel of this affidavit, as
the same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

DEPONDENT
VERIFICATION:-
Verified at Delhi on this 15 th day of November, 2019 that the
contents of above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and records/documents; no part of it is false and
nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE,
KARKARDOOMA COURT, NEW DELHI
SUIT NO. OF 2019

(UNDER ORDER XXXVII OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908)

IN THE MATTER OF: -

Netcom IITS ...Plaintiff
versus

Ap E-Services Private Limited & Ors. ...Defendants

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

1. Original Cheques
2. Original Returning Memo
3. Bills
4. Document obtained from the
Website pertaining Defendant No.1
Company and its directors
5. Any other document with the permission of the Court

Plaintiff
Through

(xxxxxx)(xxxxxxx)
Advocates for the Plaintiff
Chamber: 706, Lawyers’ Chambers,
                     Block III, Delhi High Court,
Date : 15.11.2019 New Delhi – 110 001 
Place : New Delhi Mob.xxxxx, xxxxxxx