SUN 18 MEDIA SERVICES SOUTH PVT. LTD Vs INDIAN SAT SYSTEM
- Case No.BROADCASTING PETITION/381/2011
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A claimant who proves a liquidated debt through its ledger and statement of accounts, maintained in the ordinary course of business, may obtain a decree for the sum shown as due where those records are corroborated by the debtor's own acknowledgment of liability, such as minutes of a meeting recording an agreed schedule of payment for the overdue amount, a part payment, and an admission of over-payments. Non-appearance of the respondent does not displace this proof. Although the contract rate of interest is claimed at 18 percent, the Tribunal may fix a lower rate, applying the test of what the interest of justice requires. Here it fixed 9 percent per annum, payable on the decretal amount for the past, pendente lite and future. Where the respondent has not appeared, no order as to costs is made.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
J U D G E M E N T
The Petitioner, which is a content aggregator, has filed this petition for recovery of a sum of Rs.23,20,893/- towards the outstanding subscription amount from the Respondent together with interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum.
2. Despite service of notice, nobody appeared on behalf of the Respondent. The amount involved in this petition consists not only of the subscription fees payable to the Petitioner but also Sun Distribution Services (SDS), the predecessor in interest of the Petitioner.
3. Sun Distribution Services (SDS) by a letter dated 01.9.2010 has authorized the Petitioner herein to collect payments from the cable operators under the invoices issued by it and to transfer such payments within fifteen days of said collection. Respondent, however, has by a letter dated 02.9.2011 inter-alia contended that its network has been taken over by a State owned Government Corporation by the name of “Arashu Cable T.V. Network”.
4. Petitioner, in support of its petition, has affirmed an affidavit of Mr. Samuel Rajan. The said witness with its affidavit has annexed minutes of meeting between Sun Distribution Services and the Respondent (marked as Annexure P/8), which reads as under :- “The below said have been mutually agreed between both parties.
• Mr. Murali has agreed to pay Rs.9,64,000/- towards the overdue of Rs.29,54,150/- on or before 28th Aug. 2010 and the balance of Rs.20,00,150/- in 5 equal installments of Rs.4,00,030/-.
• Further Mr. Murali has agreed to pay the monthly invoice on or before 28th of every month. • The above said have been agreed between both the parties to the best of the knowledge and good faith.”
5. In support of its claim, apart from various other documents, the Petitioner has filed a statement of accounts from 01.4.2010 to 31.9.2011 wherein it has been inter-alia stated as under :-
Date Particulars Dr. Cr. Balance 8/19/2010 Debit Note: Debit Note : 500.00 2,764,649.5 Cheque Return-Bank Charges (Ref. Cheque No.073820, Cheque Date : 31/07/2010, Deposit Date : 31/07/2010 8/19/2010 Debit Note: Cheque Returned, 100,000.00 2,864,649.5 Cheque No. 073820, Cheque Date : 31/07/2010, Deposit Date : 31/07/2010 8/19/2010 Debit Note: Cheque Returned, 100,000.00 2,964,649.5 Cheque No. 058292, Cheque Date : 31/07/2010, Deposit Date : 09/08/2010 8/19/2010 Debit Note: Cheque Return – 500.00 2,965,149.5 Bank Charges (Ref. Cheque No. 058292, Cheque Date : 31/07/2010, Deposit Date : 09/08/2010
6. As on 30.9.2011, the claim of the Petitioner is as under :-
Date Particulars Dr. Cr. Balance 3/31/2011 SDS CL. Balance as 5,726,660.57 4,055,663.50 1,670,997.1 on 30.09.2011
7. It is accepted that the Respondent for the period 30.9.2010 and 07.3.2011 made over-payments. A Debit Note for a sum of Rs.5,22,313.50 was issued on 31.3.2011. We may notice the following entries :-
Date Particulars Dr. Cr. Balance 8/5/2011 Billing-Aug 11 367,066.06 781,396.36 8/16/2011 Debit Note: Cheque 100,000.00 881,396.36 dishonored (Insufficient Fund) Chq. No.71607 Dated 30.07.2011 8/16/2011 Debit Note: Cheque 500.00 881,896.36 bounce charges, Chq. No.71607 Dated 30.07.2011 8/30/2011 Payment Received 200,000.00 681,896.36 8/30/2011 Payment Received 32,000.00 649,896.36 9/8/2011 Payment Received 68,000.00 581,896.36 9/22/2011 Debit Note : Chq 68,000.00 649,896.36 dishonored, Chq No. 158522 Dt.30.08.2011 9/22/2011 Debit Note: Cheque 500.00 650,396.36 bounce charges, Chq No.158522 Dt.
30.08.2011 SUN18 Closing 5,281,396.36 4,631,000.00 650,396.36 balance as on 30.09.2011 Total Due (SDS+ 11,008,056.93 8,685,663.50 2,321,393.43 SUN18)
8. Petitioner, in the aforementioned amount, has included the payments due from Sun Distribution Services as on 30.9.2011.
9. It has also filed a ledger extract of accounts for the period 01.4.2009 and 30.9.2011. The said ledger accounts have been filed with an additional affidavit of Mr. Samuel Rajan. The ledger accounts maintained by the Petitioner, according to Mr. Rajan, in ordinary course of its business. Petitioner, furthermore, has made a demand of a sum of Rs.35,33,424/- on 18.6.2010, to which the Respondent is said to have not responded. A notice under Clause 4.1 of the Regulations was issued on 29.6.2010. A Public Notice in terms of Clause 4.3 of the Regulations was also published on the same date.
10. As noticed heretobefore, a meeting had taken place on 19.8.2010. The Respondent had also made part payment in July 2010. A public notice was also issued on or about 05.02.2011.
11. Keeping in view the aforementioned documents including the statement of accounts filed by the Petitioner and the acknowledgement of the Respondent as on 19.8.2010, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner has made out a case for passing a decree in its favour for a sum Rs.23,20,893/-. However, in our opinion, interest of justice will be sub-served if the rate of interest is fixed at nine percent per annum, past, pendentilite and future.
12. However, as the Respondent has not appeared, there shall be no order as to costs.
……………….. (S.B. Sinha) Chairperson
……………….. (P.K. Rastogi) Member rkc
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free