Order 43

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF RAMESH KUMAR-II, DISTRICT
JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-08, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, EXTENSION BLOCK:
DELHI.
CS (COMM.) 999/2023
CNR No.DLCT01-008900-2023
Smt. Urmila Gupta
W/o Lt. Sh. Rajender Prasad Gupta
R/o B-1215, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052. ....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Rishi Kumar Goel
Prop. M/s Mamraj Chunnilal & Sons
Office 5184, Lahori Gate, Naya Bazar
Delhi-110006.
Also at:-
Kh. No.78/24, GF Near Uma Dharam
Kanta, Vill-Bakoli, North West
Delhi-110036
Also at:
R/o 23, Suvidha Kunj, Pitampura
A2, Sect. -31, Noida, UP-201301.
2. Vineet Goel,
Prop. M/s Golden Orchid International
At:- Kh. No.78/24, GF Near Uma Dharam
Kanta, Vill-Bakoli, North West,
Delhi-110036.
R/o 23, Suvidha Kunj,
Pitampuria,
A2, Secotor 31, Noida,
U.P.-201301. …..Defendants
Date of Institution : 07.07.2023
CS(Comm) 999/23 Page 1 of 13
-- 1 of 13 --
Date of Arguments : 24.03.2026
Date of Judgment : 13.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. This is a commercial suit for recovery of Rs.20,26,746/-
(Rupees Twenty Lac Twenty Six Thousand Seven Hundred
and Forty Six Only) alongwith pendente lite and future
interest @ 18 % per annum, as filed by the plaintiff against
the defendants.
2. In brief, facts of the case as made out in the plaint are
that the defendant no.1 is the proprietor of M/s Mamraj
Chunnilal and Sons (defendant no.2), which is a
proprietorship firm and deals with day to day affairs/dealing
on behalf of the firm. It is stated that the defendants were
known to plaintiff’s husband and her family members from
last so many years. The defendants approached the plaintiff
and her husband to seek financial help or investment in the
company with assurance to give interest @ 1.20% p.m. over
the invested amount.
3. It is averred that the plaintiff invested amount from
time to time with the defendant and their company, whereas
the defendants paid interest time to time after deducting
TDS on the interest earned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff
again re-invested her earned interest with the defendant. It
is stated that the defendant made part payment of
Rs.8,00,000/- on 19.09.2018 through cheque no.522167
drawn on Punjab National Bank against discharge of their
liability of Rs.17,72,181/- against the amount invested by
the plaintiff and also assured for payment of remaining
outstanding amount. The plaintiff after receiving
CS(Comm) 999/23 Page 2 of 13
-- 2 of 13 --
Rs.8,00,000/-, re-invested her earned interest after
deducting TDS i.e. an amount of Rs.1,79,040/- for financial
year 2018-19 and Rs.1,51,270/- for financial year 2019-20.
However, the defendant failed to credit interest of
Rs.1,92,697/- for financial year 2020-21 and Rs.3,14,407/-
for financial year 2021-22, total Rs.5,07,104/- and that the
total invested amount of plaintiff comes to Rs.18,09,595/-.
4. It is further case of the plaintiff that the defendant also
issued account statement to the plaintiff for cross
verification/reconciliation of account. It is stated that the
plaintiff and her family were having good relations with
defendants and as per their request, plaintiff invested huge
amount from time to time with the defendant company and
as per ledger account, total amount of Rs.18,05,595/- is
recoverable as on 15.09.2022. The defendants credited
yearly interest after deducting TDS in plaintiff’s account. It
is submitted that due to sudden demise of plaintiff’s
husband, defendants escaped from their liability and failed
to offer to pay the outstanding amount.
5. It is further case of the plaintiff that as per ledger
account, the total outstanding amount alongwith interest @
18 % p.a. comes to Rs.18,09,595/- as on 15.09.2022, which
the plaintiff number of times requested the defendants to
refund/repay the same, but the defendants delayed the
matter on one or other pretext. Thereafter, plaintiff issued
legal notice dated 29.09.2022 demanding outstanding
amount of Rs.18,059,595/- alongwith interest @ 2 % p.m.
from 15.09.2022 till actual realization alongwith
Rs.51,000/- notice pay, which was returned by the
CS(Comm) 999/23 Page 3 of 13
-- 3 of 13 --
defendants despite of having knowledge of demand by the
plaintiff.
6. Plaintiff also initiated pre-ligation mediation against
the defendants before DLSA, Central and a Non-Starter
Report was issued on 01.06.2023. The defendants are liable
to pay Rs.18,09,595/- as outstanding amount and
Rs.2,17,151/- as interest @ 18 % p.a. from 15.09.2022 till
March, 2023, in total Rs.20,26,746/- to the plaintiff. Hence,
the present suit.
7. Defendants contested the present suit by filing written
statement while submitting that husband of plaintiff was a
commission agent/broker/cash collection agent in Naya
Bazar Market and was also working on behalf of defendant
no.1 & 2 and getting 1% commission on sale. It is
submitted that many times sale amount was to be received
either in cash or in bank account from the buyer/purchaser
including outstation parties and same was to be collected by
husband of plaintiff on behalf of defendant no.1 and 2 to
save time and thereafter, same was to be
deposited/transferred into the bank account of defendant
no.2. The above said understanding was executed in writing
between husband of plaintiff and defendant no.1 & 2 vide
MOU cum undertaking. It is submitted that whichever
amount was to be transferred from the bank account of
husband of plaintiff into the bank account of defendant no.1
& 2, same was to be treated as loan because of showing the
same in accounting system as well as for income tax
purpose and as per MOU, neither the plaintiff nor her
successors will claim any transferred amount from her bank
CS(Comm) 999/23 Page 4 of 13
-- 4 of 13 --
account into the account of defendant no.2. Further, the said
amount so deposited was an adjustment to clear the loan
account which was stood in balance sheet of defendant no.1
and 2 in the name of plaintiff. The defendant no.1 and 2
never paid any interest either in cash or into the bank
account, on the amount whichever transferred from the
bank account of husband of plaintiff into their bank
account.
8. It is stated that plaintiff has not approached the court
with clean hands and concealed material facts; that present
suit has not been filed within a period of three years as per
the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963; that plaintiff has
not disclosed on which date lastly she paid the alleged
amount of loan to defendant no.1 and 2.
9. On merits, the contents of plaint have been denied as
wrong. It is submitted that there is no such
outstanding/balance amount of Rs.18,09,595/- as on
September, 2022 in balance sheet of defendant no.2. It is
submitted that the suit of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed
with heavy costs.
10. Replication to the written statement of defendant no.1
and 2 was filed on behalf of plaintiff, wherein plaintiff
denied the facts as mentioned in written statement while re-
affirming the averments as pleaded in the plaint.
11. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues
were framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated
16.04.2024:-
1.Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the suit
CS(Comm) 999/23 Page 5 of 13
-- 5 of 13 --
amount? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest? If yes, at
what rate and for what period? OPP
3. Whether any MOU dated 05.04.2011, 01.05.2013
and 01.04.2013 were executed between Late Sh.
Rajender Prasad Gupta and defendant, if yes to what
effect? OPD
4. Relief.
12. Vide order dated 12.07.2025, passed on an application
under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, as filed on behalf of
defendants, Ld. Predecessor has framed one additional
issue, which is as under:-
iii) a) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not
maintainable in view of the dispute involved is not a
commercial dispute as defined under Commercial
Courts Act? OPD
13. In support of her case, plaintiff examined herself as
PW-1, Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta as PW-2, Sh. Rajender Prasad
Meena, TA, Income Tax Office as PW-3, Sh. Syed Faisal
Huda, Forensic Expert as PW-4 and Sh. Harsh Solanki,
Inspector GST as PW-5.
14. PW-1 tendered her evidence by way of affidavit i.e.
Ex.PW1/A and has relied upon following documents:-
1. Bill of defendant no.2 with GST details from GST
portal and also invoice of Maha Laxmi Enterprises i.e.
Ex.PW1/1 (Colly).
2. Copies of 26AS for the financial year 2019-20
from income tax website alongwith certificate u/s 65B
CS(Comm) 999/23 Page 6 of 13
-- 6 of 13 --
of Indian Evidence Act i.e. Ex.PW1/2.
3. Copies of account statement issued by the
defendant till March, 2020 i.e. Ex.PW1/3 (colly).
4. Ledger account i.e. Ex.PW1/4 (colly).
5. Copy of Legal notice alongwith postal receipt and
its tracking report i.e. Ex.PW1/5 (colly).
6. Non-Starter Report i.e. Ex.PW1/6.
7. Forensic report i.e. Ex.PW1/7.
15. PW-2 Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta has tendered his evidence
affidavit i.e. Ex.PW2/A. PW-3 Sh. Rajender Prasad Meena,
TA, Income Tax Office, Civic Centre, Ward 35 (1), Delhi
has brought the summoned record related to form 26AS of
Urmila Gupta for the financial year 2015-16 to 2019-20 and
proved the same as Ex.PW3/A (colly) and his authority
letter as Ex.PW3/B.
16. PW-4 Sh. Syed Faisal Huda, Forensic Report proved
his report regarding examination of signatures as already
Ex.PW1/7 and gave opinion that signatures marked as Q1
to Q3 do not mach with admitted signature of Rajinder
Prasad Gupta marked as A1.
17. PW-5 Sh. Harsh Solanki, Inspector GST has proved the
GST No.GSTIN07AAAPG4339A1ZD of Rishi Kumar
Goel with trade name M/s Maha Laxmi Enterprises as
Ex.PW5/A.
18. Defendants in support of their case examined Sh. Rishi
Kumar Goel as DW-1 and Sh. Gavender Singh as DW-2.
They both tendered their evidence by way of affidavit i.e.
Ex.DW1/A and Ex.DW2/A. DW-1 has relied upon the copy
CS(Comm) 999/23 Page 7 of 13
-- 7 of 13 --
of memorandum of understanding i.e. Ex.DW1/1.
19. After conclusion of the evidence of the parties, the matter
was listed for final arguments.
20. I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties
and perused the record. On perusal of record, my issue-wise
findings are as follows:-
ISSUE NO.3A
21. Firstly issue no.3A is being taken up for disposal as the
findings on this issue would decide the aspect that the
present suit is maintainable before this court or not. The
onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant and he had
to prove that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in
view of the dispute involved is not a commercial dispute as
defined under Commercial Courts Act.
22. Ld. Counsel for defendants contended that the plaintiff has
filed the present suit on the basis of some documents, by
which the plaintiff has stated that there was a commercial
transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 and
2. He further contended that the plaintiff took a plea that
she invested some amount with the defendant no.1 and 2 on
interest, however neither there is any loan agreement nor
any promissory note or receipt or any acknowledgment or
any cheque filed by the plaintiff executed or issued or
provided by the defendants to the plaintiff. Thus, the
present suit is not a commercial dispute as there is no
mercantile document to show that the present dispute is a
commercial dispute within Section 2(1) (c) (i) of
Commercial Courts Act, 2015. He further contended that
CS(Comm) 999/23 Page 8 of 13
-- 8 of 13 --
the plaintiff has filed the present suit under Commercial
Courts Act intentionally and deliberately only to expedite
the adjudicatory process. He further contended that the
present suit has not been supported or filed with proper
documentations like loan agreement, promissory note or
post dated cheques for the repayment of loan and the
plaintiff cannot be considered as Merchant or Trader or
Financier (who has valid license for disbursement of
amount), hence the present suit does not fall within the
meaning of the term ‘Commercial Dispute’ as defined in
Section 2(1)(c)(i) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015. He
further submitted that the defendants shall suffer an
irreparable loss and injury if the trial of the present suit is
adjudicated by this court which does not have any
jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties.
Hence, either the plaint may be returned or rejected.
23. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff opposed the
contentions of the defendants stating that the plaintiff
invested/advance/given the financial services to the
defendants and the defendants deducted the TDS on interest
and deposited the same with Income Tax Department which
clearly proves beneficiary of the commercial transaction.
Thus, the present suit falls in Section 2(1)(c)(i) of
Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
24. I have perused the record and given my thoughtful
consideration to the respective contentions of both the
parties.
25. Section 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015, defines the expression
CS(Comm) 999/23 Page 9 of 13
-- 9 of 13 --
"commercial dispute" comprehensively which reads as
under:-
"2. Definitions.--(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise re-
quires,--
..…...
..……
(c) “commercial dispute” means a dispute arising out of––
(i) ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders
such as those relating to mercantile documents, including enforcement
and interpretation of such documents;
(ii) export or import of merchandise or services;
(iii) issues relating to admiralty and maritime law;
(iv) transactions relating to aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft equipment
and helicopters, including sales, leasing and financing of the same;
(v) carriage of goods;
(vi) construction and infrastructure contracts, including tenders;
(vii) agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in
trade or commerce;
(viii) franchising agreements;
(ix) distribution and licensing agreements;
(x) management and consultancy agreements;
(xi) joint venture agreements;
(xii) shareholders agreements;
(xiii) subscription and investment agreements pertaining to the services
industry including outsourcing services and financial services;
(xiv) mercantile agency and mercantile usage;
(xv) partnership agreements;
(xvi) technology development agreements;
(xvii) intellectual property rights relating to registered and unregistered
trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical
indications and semiconductor integrated circuits;
(xviii) agreements for sale of goods or provision of services;
(xix) exploitation of oil and gas reserves or other natural resources
including electromagnetic spectrum;
(xx) insurance and re-insurance;
(xxi) contracts of agency relating to any of the above; and
CS(Comm) 999/23 Page 10 of 13
-- 10 of 13 --
(xxii) such other commercial disputes as may be notified by the Central
Government.
Explanation.-- A commercial dispute shall not cease to be a commercial
dispute merely because--
(a) it also involves action for recovery of immovable property or for
realisation of monies out of immovable property given as security or
involves any other relief pertaining to immovable property;
(b) one of the contracting parties is the State or any of its agencies or
instrumentalities, or a private body carrying out public functions.
26. A perusal of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Court
Act clearly shows that the Commercial Courts Act has not
defined a commercial dispute as a dispute arising out of all
commercial transactions. Rather the Act has specified twenty
two transactions listed from Clause(s) (i) to (xxii) of Section
2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, as transactions aris-
ing therefrom while constituting a commercial dispute.
27. As per Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act,
the dispute related to ordinary transactions of merchants,
bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to
mercantile documents, including enforcement and
interpretation of such documents, falls within the definition
of a commercial dispute.
28. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CS (Comm) No.
81/2024 Kailash Devi Khanna Vs. DD Global Capital Ltd.;
2019 SCC Online Del 9954 held that all suits for recovery
of monies cannot brought under Section 2(1)(c) of the Act
where the suit is not based on any transaction relating to
mercantile documents.
29. Perusal of the record reveals that the present suit is
not supported by document such as loan agreement,
CS(Comm) 999/23 Page 11 of 13
-- 11 of 13 --
promissory note or post dated cheques for the repayment of
loan. The suit of the plaintiff is based only on TDS
certificate which cannot be treated as mercantile document.
Further, the plaintiff has not filed any document to show
herself to be as Merchant or Trader or Financier nor the
present suit involves any dispute regarding mercantile
documents and their enforcement and interpretation.
30. The dispute raised by plaintiff by way of present suit
thus cannot be termed a commercial dispute as defined
under Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015. Once the subject matter of the present dispute is not a
commercial dispute, covered under Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the
Commercial Courts Act, then, this Court is vested with no
jurisdiction to entertain, try and pass judgment on the merits
of this case. Issue no.3A is decided in favour of the
defendant.
31. In view of the forgoing discussion, this court is of the
opinion that the dispute raised by the plaintiff in the present
case, does not come within the ambit of a commercial
dispute as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial
Courts Act, therefore, this court is not vested with the
jurisdiction to entertain, try and pass judgment on merits.
Accordingly, let this file be placed before Ld. Principal
District & Sessions Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi for passing appropriate orders in this regard.
32. It is clarified that rest of the issues/contentions of
both the parties are left open to be decided by the court
having competent jurisdiction.
CS(Comm) 999/23 Page 12 of 13
-- 12 of 13 --
33. Both the parties/their counsels are directed to appear
before Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, Central
District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 30.04.2026 at 02.00
p.m.
(Announced in open court on 13.04.2026).
(RAMESH KUMAR-II)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-08
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts,
Extension Block, Delhi.
CS(Comm) 999/23 Page 13 of 13
-- 13 of 13 --