Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: RCA DJ-175-24
M/S EATBUDS FOOD PVT LTD
VS M/S SHUBHAM INTERNATIONAL
Pg.1/5
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINAY SINGHAL:
DISTRICT JUDGE-09: (CENTRAL):
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
In the matter of:-
RCA DJ- 175-24
1. M/S EATBUD FOOD PVT. LTD.
(A company registered under the Companies Act)
Principal Office : 291, Mall Road, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110070
through its Director,
Sh. Vidur Kanodia
2. Sh. Vidue Kanodia
Director of M/S Eatbud Food P. Ltd
S/O Sh Pradeep Kanodia
at : 291, Mall Road, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110070
Mob No. 9999999501 …... APPELLANT
Versus
1. M/S Shubham International
At : 111-D, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007
through its proprietor
Sh. Rajinder Prasad
S/O Sh Panna Lal .....RESPONDENT
Date of Institution of Suit : 27.11.2024
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 27.01.2026
FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER
XLI OF CPC AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED
28.10.2024 PASSED BY MS. CHARAN SALWAN, LD.
CJ-03(CENTRAL), THIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI IN CASE
BEARING NO. CS SCJ NO. 298/2019, TITLED AS M/S
SHUBHAM INTERNATIONAL VS M/S EATBUD FOOD PVT.
LTD” WHEREBY THE LD TRIAL COURT DECREED THE
SUIT OF THE RESPONDENT
-- 1 of 6 --
RCA DJ-175-24
M/S EATBUDS FOOD PVT LTD
VS M/S SHUBHAM INTERNATIONAL
Pg.2/5
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this Judgment, the appeal filed by the appellant against
the judgment/ decree dated 28.10.2024 whereby the suit for
recovery filed by the respondent herein stand decreed by the
Ld Trial Court, stand dismissed.
2. The respondent has filed the suit for recovery stating thereby
that it has supplied goods to the appellant against invoices and
a sum of Rs. 2,84,154/- is outstanding against the appellant in
its books of accounts, which the appellant has failed to clear.
3. The appellant on the other hand denied the entire averments
of respondent and even gone to the extent of stating that it is
not aware of any transaction or is not aware of any payment
outstanding, as claimed by the respondent.
4. During the course of evidence the respondent proved the
invoices in question Ex PW1/1 along with other documents.
5. The respondent deposing as PW-1 was cross examined very
briefly which cross examination is reproduced herein as
under :-
“
XXXXX PW-1: Statement of Sh. Rajinder Prasad (recalled
for cross examination after 12.07.2023)
XXXX by Ms. Malika Bhatia Arora, Ld counsel for
defendant No.1.
I received orders telephonically and their representative come
at our shop and take the goods as per the order given by
-- 2 of 6 --
RCA DJ-175-24
M/S EATBUDS FOOD PVT LTD
VS M/S SHUBHAM INTERNATIONAL
Pg.3/5
defendant. I have placed the entire bills as per the statement
of account Ex PW1/1. The signatures of person who used to
take delivery on behalf of defendants is present on the
invoice. The plaintiff company used to produce a slip for
order and then the said slip used to be converted to invoices
and the person concerned for collecting the goods used to sign
on the invoices. The said slip are not present on the record
of this court. ( Vol. Once invoices/bills were raised there is no
need to retain the slips) I have not filed inventory register
maintained by the proprietorship concern. No bank statement
or receipt of payment in the past has been filed in court
record. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely”.
6. The appellant examined its Purchase Manager Sh Sandeep
Kumar as DW-1 who deposed that he is not aware about the
contents of the Written Statement and most importantly
deposed that the bills annexed with the bills were ordered by
the appellant through whatsapp by answering a specific
question in this respect as under :-
“ XXXXX
Q. Were the orders bills annexed with the plaint ordered
through whatsapp?
A. Yes.”
7. The Ld Trial Court accordingly after considering the material
before it, decreed the suit in favour of respondent on the basis
of the admissions on the part of appellant’s witness DW-1
regarding placing of order in question through Whatsapp.
-- 3 of 6 --
RCA DJ-175-24
M/S EATBUDS FOOD PVT LTD
VS M/S SHUBHAM INTERNATIONAL
Pg.4/5
8. In this background feeling aggrieved by the said impugned
judgment, present appeal stand filed taking the ground that
the plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove the invoices in
question or the delivery of the goods qua them or the payment
of VAT in respect of the said invoices and also taking the
ground that the liability to prove that the orders were ever
placed or the goods so delivered was upon the respondent.
9. After giving a considerable thought to the submissions made
by both the sides, this court do not find any error in the
impugned judgment passed by Ld Trial Court.
10. The respondent has very well proved the invoices raised by it
upon the appellant as Ex PW1/1.
11. The appellant witness DW-1 had admitted the placement of
orders qua the said bills/ invoices having been placed through
Whatsapp from the appellant’s side.
12. The Ld Trial Court has rightly held that in order to disprove
the claim of the respondent regarding non receipt of payment
qua the said invoices, the appellant has failed to lead any
contrary evidence and especially in the light of the said
admissions on the part of DW-1 that the orders were indeed
placed.
13. The question regarding a blanket denial on the part of the
appellant raising a question mark over the delivery of the
goods has lost its significance in view of disproving of the
appellant’s claim that the orders were never placed by it and
as such when it has been proved that the appellant has taken
-- 4 of 6 --
RCA DJ-175-24
M/S EATBUDS FOOD PVT LTD
VS M/S SHUBHAM INTERNATIONAL
Pg.5/5
a false stand of denying even the placing of orders, but rather
had gone to the extent of denying just all the contents of the
plaint, in the light of admissions of Appellant’s own witness,
the ld Trial Court has rightly held that the orders were indeed
placed by the appellant, the goods were delivered but the
payment stand not cleared.
14. In fact the appellant has also not cross examined the PW-1
regarding payment/non payment of VAT qua the invoices nor
has raised any defence in its Written statement.
15. Hence, this court do not find any merit in the appeal so filed
by the appellant which can warrant the setting aside of the
impugned judgment.
16. The appeal accordingly stand dismissed.
17. A copy of the order be also sent to the ld Trial Court.
No order as to cost.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court
on 27.01.2026 (Vinay Singhal)
District Judge-09 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
-- 5 of 6 --
RCA DJ-175-24
M/S EATBUDS FOOD PVT LTD
VS M/S SHUBHAM INTERNATIONAL
Pg.6/5
-- 6 of 6 --