IN CS 368 OF 1994 - CALCT HC- Calcutta High Court allows plaintiff’s 35-year-old Rs 10 lakh claim against company that had hired his services for marketing its products in the year 1987
Justice Sugato Majumdar [23-06-2023]

Read more: Sudhanshu Singhania v. Eimco K.C.P. Limited

Simran Singh

New Delhi, June 26, 2023:  The Calcutta High Court, in a case that dates back to over 35 years ago, held that since the defendant did not adduce any evidence to disprove the case of the plaintiff and as such the cross-examination did not make any discrepancy, therefore, it was proved by preponderance of probabilities, on the basis of oral and documentary evidences that the plaintiff was entitled to and the defendant was liable to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.10,94,751/-, with interest at a rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit, till recovery and the same was ordered to be paid within 3 months from the date of the decree.

In the matter at hand, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for Rs.10,94,751/- along with interest and direction to render true accounts against the defendant company. It was alleged that the defendant had agreed to hire the services of the plaintiff as its agent for marketing its products in the eastern region of India on regular basis in 1987. The agreement was entered between the parties in the year 1988 for a period of 6 months initially which was extended from time to time.

In the year 1990, the defendant modified the terms and conditions of service of the plaintiff with respect to the stipulation on payment of commission. In course of business, a sum of Rs.8,97,558.27 became payable by the defendant to the plaintiff; apart from the father amount of Rs.98,200/- on account of commission. Further, Rs.23,442/- toward tax deduction at source and Rs.75,550.73 on account of interest on the principal amount was due towards the plaintiff. It was alleged that in spite of repeated demands, the defendant neglected the responsibility towards the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit praying for recovery of money along with interest.

The defendant contended that it was professionally understood that the plaintiff would market the defendant’s manufactured products on a job to job basis and on experimental basis for a period of six months only subject to payment of commission for service rendered depending upon the volume of business.

The Bench noted that the suit was related to a commercial agreement between the parties which was instituted in the year 1994 when the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was not introduced. The Court further noted the fact that a sum of Rs.8,034/- was due owing and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff as on 26-11-1993 and as per letter dated 02-09-1993 a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was payable by the defendant to the plaintiff as on the present day. The Court further took note of the evidence wherein the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs.23,442/- on account of tax deduction at source which was deducted but not paid into the plaintiff’s tax account.

The Bench considered the demand notice dated 20-08-1994 showing demand raised by the plaintiff and held that the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff proved that the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs.10,94,751/- from the defendant. However, there was no evidence on record to show that any amount, as such, was paid to the plaintiff.

In view thereof, the Court allowed the plaintiff’s 35 years old claim against the defendant.