Final Order 18

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: DLCT01-0147622024
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-03: (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS (EXTN. BLOCK): DELHI.
CS (COMM) No. 1039/2024
In the matter of :-
Naresh Bansal
Proprietor of Sri Balaji Sales Corporation
Address:
(i) 1st Floor, Shop No.6, 313/20B,
Inderlok, New Delhi-110035.
(ii) C-47, 3rd Floor, New Multan Nagar,
Multan Nagar, New Delhi-110056
Mobile No. 9810226581
Email ID: salasarmarketingindia2@gmail.com
...….Plaintiff
Versus
Rajiv Kumar
Proprietor of Sahara Traders
Address:
171/2, Ware House, Gurudwara Lane,
Ware House Jammu,
Jammu & Kashmir-180002
Mobile No. 9149401822
.......Defendant
Date of Institution : 18.09.2024
Date of Final Arguments : 20.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 20.01.2026
CS (Comm) No.1039/2024 Naresh Bansal vs. Rajiv Kumar Page No. 1/9
-- 1 of 9 --
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose off the suit for
recovery of Rs.3,41,228/- (Rs. 1,75,899/- being the principal
amount and Rs.1,65,329/- as interest till 30.04.2024 alongwith
pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum till the date of
actual recovery.
2. Succinctly stated, the case as averred in the plaint is
that the plaintiff is Proprietor and is running his firm under the
name and style of “Sri Balaji Sales Corporation” having its
registered office at 1st Floor, Shop No.6, 313/20B, Inderlok, New
Delhi-110035 and is primarily engaged in the business of
manufacturing, trading, wholesale & retail of footwear and other
related products (hereinafter referred to as ‘goods’) at pan India
level. The present suit has been filed through Sh. Naresh Bansal,
Proprietor of the plaintiff firm who is well conversant with the
facts of the present case as he was himself involved in the entire
transaction with the defendant.
3. It has been further averred in the plaint that in
March 2019, defendant had approached the plaintiff for supply of
goods from the plaintiff and assured that the payments against the
goods supplied shall be remitted in favour of the plaintiff on
receipt of invoices without any failure/ default of any manner. It
has been further averred that on the basis of firm representation
and assurances made by the defendant, the plaintiff had supplied
the goods to the defendant from time to time as per its
CS (Comm) No.1039/2024 Naresh Bansal vs. Rajiv Kumar Page No. 2/9
-- 2 of 9 --
requirements/ demands under distinct invoices which were duly
obtained and accepted by the defendant well in order without any
protest/ complaint.
4. It has been further averred that after having procured
the delivery of goods from the plaintiff, the defendant turned
dishonest and defaulted in making timely payment of the dues to
the plaintiff. It has been further averred that whenever the
plaintiff requested for settlement of dues, the same was clearly
avoided by the defendant on one pretext or the other. It has been
further averred that as per the ledger account statement as
maintained by the plaintiff concerning the defendant, the
principal amount of Rs.1,75,899/- remains unpaid and
outstanding against the defendant being the amount of invoices
under which the goods were supplied.
5. It has been further averred that despite repeated
requests/ demands/ reminders, the defendant did not pay any
heed to the legitimate and bonafide dues of the plaintiff. It has
been further averred that since the defendant failed to clear the
dues in a time bound manner as per the agreed terms and
conditions, he is liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum till
30.04.2024. It has been further averred that as agreed between
the parties, the interest is imposed upon the defendant on expiry
of 30 days from the date of invoice or last part payment made by
the defendant till the date by which the entire liability is paid by
the defendant. It has been further averred that the defendant is
liable to pay the principal amount of Rs.1,75,899/- alongwith
interest of Rs.1,65,329/- totaling to an amount of Rs.3,41,228/-.
CS (Comm) No.1039/2024 Naresh Bansal vs. Rajiv Kumar Page No. 3/9
-- 3 of 9 --
6. It has been further averred that the plaintiff had
approached to the Delhi Legal Services Authority (In Short
DLSA), Central District, Delhi for pre-litigation mediation in
compliance of the provision under Section 2 (1) of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (In Short CC Act) but despite the
issuance of notice, the defendant had failed to appear and
therefore, a Non-Starter Report dated 04.09.2024 was handed
over by the DLSA.
7. Thus, aggrieved by the act of defendant, the plaintiff
has filed the instant suit for recovery of Rs.3,41,228/- (Rupees
Three Lacs Forty One Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Eight
Only) including pendente lite and for future interest @ 18% per
annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of
decreetal amount and the costs of the present suit.
8. The summons were issued to defendant which were
duly served upon him through courier on 10.02.2025 and through
speed post and registered post on 14.02.2025 and therefore, the
first date of service of defendant is 10.02.2025. The defendant
however failed to appear and to file written statement within the
period stipulated under Commercial Courts Act despite service.
Hence, the opportunity of defendant to file written statement was
closed vide order dated 04.07.2025 and the matter was fixed for
evidence of plaintiff. Further, as none appeared on behalf of
defendant on said date, the defendant was also proceeded
ex-
parte vide order dated 04.07.2025.
9. In order to prove his case, plaintiff has examined
CS (Comm) No.1039/2024 Naresh Bansal vs. Rajiv Kumar Page No. 4/9
-- 4 of 9 --
himself as PW-1. He reiterated the averments made in plaint in
his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and has relied upon following
documents:-
Sr. No. Document Exhibit No.
1. Computer generated copy of GST details of the
plaintiff firm
Ex.PW1/1
2. Computer generated copy of GST details of the
defendant firm
Ex.PW1/2
3. Computer generated copy of invoices Ex.PW1/3 to
Ex.PW1/28
(total 26 in
number)
4. Computer generated copy of e-way bill dated
18.11.2019
Ex.PW1/9A
5. Computer generated copy of e-way bill dated
26.02.2020
Ex.PW1/21A
6. Computer generated copy of e-way bill dated
20.06.2020
Ex.PW1/27A
7. Computer generated copy of ledger account
maintained by the plaintiff firm
Ex.PW1/29
8. Computer generated copy of interest calculation
sheet
Ex.PW1/30
9. Non-Starter Report dated 04.09.2024 Ex.PW1/31
10. Two Certificates u/s 63(4)(c) of BSA, 2023 Ex.PW1/32 and
Ex.PW1/33
10. He was not cross-examined on behalf of the
defendant. Plaintiff has also examined Sh. Vinay Kumar, GST
Inspector, Department of Goods & Services Tax as PW2 who has
brought and proved the Authorization Letter Ex.PW2/1 issued by
GSTO Ward No.49 executed in his favour. He has also brought
and proved the requisite relevant returns of the plaintiff firm i.e.
CS (Comm) No.1039/2024 Naresh Bansal vs. Rajiv Kumar Page No. 5/9
-- 5 of 9 --
GSTR-1 Ex.PW2/2 for the period from March 2019 to
September 2020 as extracted from GSTO BO Portal. No other
witness was examined on behalf of plaintiff. Therefore, PE was
closed and the matter was listed for ex-parte final arguments.
11. Arguments were addressed by Sh. Madhav, Counsel
for plaintiff. Written submissions were also filed on behalf of the
plaintiff.
12. In the final written submission, plaintiff has claimed
that the defendant is liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum as
agreed. It has been further submitted that there is an outstanding
principal amount of Rs.1,75,899/- against the defendant and
interest till 30.04.2024 comes from 13.10.2021. It has been
further submitted that the plaintiff is also entitled for pendente
lite and future interest @ 18% per annum till the realization of
the decreetal amount alongwith costs of the suit.
13. I have given thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced on behalf of the plaintiff and also perused
the record as well as written submissions filed on behalf of
plaintiff carefully.
14. The instant case has been filed by the plaintiff for
recovery of Rs.3,41,228/-. In support of his case, PW1/ Plaintiff
has proved several documents i.e. copy GST details of the
plaintiff’s and defendant’s firm, copy of invoices, copy of e-way
bills dated 18.11.2019, 26.02.2020 and 20.06.2020, copy of
ledger account maintained by the plaintiff firm, copy of interest
CS (Comm) No.1039/2024 Naresh Bansal vs. Rajiv Kumar Page No. 6/9
-- 6 of 9 --
calculation sheet, Non-Starter Report dated 04.09.2024 and the
certificates u/s 63(4)(c) of BSA, 2023. PW2 has also proved his
authority to depose vide Authorization Letter Ex.PW2/1 issued
by GSTO Ward No.49. PW2 has also proved the relevant returns
of the plaintiff firm i.e. GSTR-1 Ex.PW2/2 for the period from
March 2019 to September 2020 as extracted from GSTO BO
Portal. The said documents reflect the business transactions/
dealings between the parties.
15. From the testimony of PW1 and the documents
relied upon by him and proved in accordance with law by PW1,
it is established that the defendant used to place orders to the
plaintiff as per need and plaintiff in turn supplied the goods on
various dates by raising various tax invoices/ bills as per the
orders raised by the defendant. The defendant used to make
payment against the bills raised by the plaintiff, however there
was an outstanding outstanding principal amount of
Rs.1,75,699/- upon the defendant.
16. The PW1/ Plaintiff had also approached the Central
DLSA for initiating pre-institution mediation proceedings,
however, the defendant failed to join the said proceedings
thereby compelling plaintiff to file the present suit.
17. The suit has been filed within a period of limitation
as per the statement of account Ex.PW1/29 which reflects that
the last payment of Rs.20,000/- was made by defendant on
13.10.2021. From the testimony of PW1 and the documents
relied upon by him and proved in accordance with law by PW1,
CS (Comm) No.1039/2024 Naresh Bansal vs. Rajiv Kumar Page No. 7/9
-- 7 of 9 --
plaintiff has succeeded in proving his case on preponderance of
probability.
18. Since the testimony of PW1 and documents relied
upon by the plaintiff remained unrebutted during trial, this Court
has no reason to disbelieve the same. In view of the above, this
Court is of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for a money
decree in the sum of Rs.1,75,699/- and interest of Rs.80,759/-
(total Rs.2,56,458/-) till the date of filing of the suit from
13.10.2021 as agreed rate of interest @ 18% per annum.
19. Though the plaintiff has claimed pendente lite and
future interest @ 18% per annum, however the same appears to
be on higher side considering the prevalent reporate for lending
as fixed by the RBI. Therefore, the ends of justice would be met
if the plaintiff be awarded simple interest @ 9% per annum from
the date of filing of the suit i.e. 18.09.2024 till realization of the
decreetal amount.
R E L I E F:-
20. In view of the above, I hereby pass an ex-parte
money decree in the sum of Rs.2,56,458/- (Rupees Two Lacs
Fifty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Eight Only) in favour
of the plaintiff and against the defendant with simple interest @
9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 18.09.2024
till the realization of the amount
.
The defendant will further pay the full costs of the
suit and additionally Rs.1,000/- spent by the plaintiff in DLSA for
invoking pre-institution mediation proceedings.
CS (Comm) No.1039/2024 Naresh Bansal vs. Rajiv Kumar Page No. 8/9
-- 8 of 9 --
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due
compliance.
Announced in the open Court
on 20th Day of January, 2026
(DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-03
Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
CS (Comm) No.1039/2024 Naresh Bansal vs. Rajiv Kumar Page No. 9/9
-- 9 of 9 --