FORTUNEX LIMITED Vs. KOUTONS RETAIL INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff seeks a decree for recovery of Rs.1,45,15,753/- along with pendente lite and future interest at 18% per annum pleading:

(2.) The counsel for the defendant appeared before this Court even before the summons of the suit were issued on 25th February, 2011 and sought time to file written statement. However, written statement was not filed and on 20th May, 2011 cost of Rs.2,000/- payable to the Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee was imposed on the defendant. The order dated 3rd August, 2011 records that though the counsel for the defendant claimed having filed the written statement but the same was not on record. Further cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to the counsel for the plaintiff was imposed on the defendant. The order dated 30th September, 2011 records that though the written statement had been filed but the cost of Rs.5,000/- was promised to be paid in the course of the day and the counsels for the parties informed that the parties are contemplating settlement. Cost of Rs.5,000/- was not paid and vide order dated 9th December, 2011 further one week's time was given to the defendant to pay costs. Counsels again informed that compromise was being negotiated. However, none appeared for the defendant on 10th April, 2012 and the order dated 29th May, 2012 records that neither had anybody appeared for the defendant nor had the costs imposed of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.5,000/- for permitting the written statement to be placed on record been paid. Accordingly, vide order dated 1st June, 2012, the defendant was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte and the plaintiff permitted to lead ex-parte evidence. None appeared for the defendant thereafter and the plaintiff has filed affidavit by way of examination-in-chief of its Finance Head, Mr. Pankaj Kumar and which was tendered into evidence on 6th February, 2013 and exhibit marks put on the documents proved. The senior counsel for the plaintiff has been heard.

(3.) Though the defendant is ex-parte and has not even paid the costs subject to payment of which the written statement was permitted to be taken on record but I have still perused the written statement of the defendant. The defendant therein has pleaded that,