Final Order 32

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: DLCT010175912023
IN THE COURT OF SH. M. K. NAGPAL,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-13,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
CS (COMM.) No. 1585/2023
CNR No. DLCT-01-017591-2023
Sh. Narinder Singh
(Proprietor of M/S A.G. Apparels)
through its AR
Sh. Sanjay Kumar
Office At : H-16/52, Street No. 4, Tank Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110008.
…….....Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/S R. R. Agencies
Registered Address: IX/6242, First Floor,
Subhash Mohalla No.1, Nehru Gali,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031.
Office At:-
IX/6242, Second Floor,
Subhash Mohalla No.1, Nehru Gali,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031.
2. Sh. Sanjeet Rawat
Managing Partner of M/S R. R. Agencies,
Registered Address: IX/6242, First Floor,
Subhash Mohalla No.1, Nehru Gali,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031.
Office At:-
IX/6242, Second Floor,
Subhash Mohalla No.1, Nehru Gali,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031.
Mob No. 9582082514, 8076922979
& 9350399990.
….…...Defendants
CS (Comm.) No. 1585/2023 Page No. 1 of 25
-- 1 of 25 --
DLCT010175912023
Date of e-filing : 12.12.2023
Date of Institution : 14.12.2023
Judgment Reserved on : 28.11.2025
Date of Decision : 29.11.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed this suit seeking recovery of a sum
of Rs. 44,47,075/- from defendants and this amount includes Rs.
34,74,278/- as the principal amount and Rs. 9,72,797/- as interest
thereon @ 24% per annum for the period w.e.f. 05.05.2022 to
05.08.2023. Besides this, the plaintiff has also claimed interest on
the above amount of Rs. 44,47,075/- from defendants at the same
rate from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the said
amount.
CASE OF PLAINTIF
2. The plaintiff claims himself to be proprietor of a firm
namely M/S A.G. Apparels and engaged in wholesale business of
jeans, t-shirts and other clothing products and apparels etc. from
his given address of Karol Bagh, Delhi and he has filed the
present suit through his authorized representative (AR)/Special
Power of Attorney Sh. Sanjay Kumar. The defendant No.1 is
claimed to be a partnership firm engaged in business of retail
garments and apparels and defendant No.2 is stated to be the
Managing Partner thereof and also engaged in its day to day
affairs.
CS (Comm.) No. 1585/2023 Page No. 2 of 25
-- 2 of 25 --
DLCT010175912023
3. It is the case of plaintiff that defendant No.1 firm through
its partner i.e. defendant No. 2 had approached him in his office
and requested for supply of certain apparels/garments and since
April, 2018, he had been in regular business with defendant No.
1. It is averred by plaintiff that in the regular course of business,
defendant No.1 had placed several orders upon him on credit
basis and he had delivered the goods to defendants as per their
desired orders and the said goods were duly received by them. It
is also averred by plaintiff that he had been maintaining a
running account in respect to the above business transactions
with defendant No.1 and the outstanding balance thereof was
being acknowledged by defendant No.2 from time to time. The
details of invoices raised by plaintiff regarding the goods
supplied by him to defendant No.1 from time to time are found
given in a tabular form in para 6 of the plaint and the same are as
under:-
S.No. Invoice No./Voucher No. Date Amount
1. AG03335/19-20 11.02.2020 1,94,775/-
2. AG03357/19-20 12.02.2020 1,89,847/-
3. AG03362/19-20 12.02.2020 86,829/-
4. AG03374/19-20 12.02.2020 93,604/-
5. AG03377/19-20 12.02.2020 90,927/-
6. AG03380/19-20 12.02.2020 91,989/-
7. AG03385/19-20 12.02.2020 2,72,068/-
8. AG03389/19-20 12.02.2020 88,830/-
9. AG03400/19-20 13.02.2020 94,476/-
10. AG03523/19-20 18.02.2020 1,03,251/-
11. AG03536/19-20 18.02.2020 91,936/-
12. AG03561/19-20 19.02.2020 1,02,815/-
13. AG03603/19-20 20.02.2020 94,660/-
14. AG03604/19-20 20.02.2020 2,71,370/-
15. AG03608/19-20 20.02.2020 1,85,002/-
16. AG03670/19-20 21.02.2020 74,009/-
17. AGAP13707/19-20 22.02.2020 86,216/-
CS (Comm.) No. 1585/2023 Page No. 3 of 25
-- 3 of 25 --
DLCT010175912023
18. AG03707/19-20 22.02.2020 96,663/-
19. AG03828/19-20 25.02.2020 92,227/-
20. AG03869/19-20 27.02.2020 89,540/-
(not 89,595/-)
21. AG03890/19-20 27.02.2020 83,012/-
22. AG03970/19-20 01.03.2020 93,535/-
23. AG03972/19-20 01.03.2020 2,79,746/-
24. AG03998/19-20 03.03.2020 1,81,966/-
25. AG04063/19-20 03.03.2020 88,585/-
26. AG04090/19-20 05.03.2020 4,62,778/-
27. AG04091/19-20 05.03.2020 94,772/-
28. AG04093/19-20 05.03.2020 88,424/-
29. AG04095/19-20 05.03.2020 1,85,065/-
30. AG04121/19-20 06.03.2020 93,430/-
31. AG04130/19-20 06.03.2020 1,87,935/-
32. AG04215/19-20 12.03.2020 86,727/-
33. AG04240/19-20 15.03.2020 1,77,430/-
34. AG04254/19-20 17.03.2020 88,544/-
35. AG04259/19-20 17.03.2020 94,956/-
36. AG04272/19-20 18.03.2020 85,825/-
37. AG04284/19-20 19.03.2020 585/-
38. AG00456/20-21 24.06.2020 80,814/-
39. AG00587/20-21 28.06.2020 86,153/-
40. AG00625/20-21 30.06.2020 93,341/-
41. AGAP00238/20-21 10.07.2020 97,652/-
42. AGAP00241/20-21 10.07.2020 95,092/-
43. AGAP00243/20-21 11.07.2020 95,035/-
44. AGAP00244/20-21 11.07.2020 1,01,135/-
45. AG00931/20-21 28.07.2020 85,615/-
46. AG01669/20-21 25.08.2020 1,90,678/-
47. AG01798/20-21 29.08.2020 98,959/-
48. AG001799/20-21 29.08.2020 91,548/-
4. It is further the case of plaintiff that defendants made part
payments from time to time against the said invoices, but still
there remains an outstanding balance of Rs. 34,74,278/- as on
05.05.2022 against them in the books of account being
maintained by him. It has been averred that in order to discharge
their liabilities, the defendant No.1 through defendant No.2 had
even issued seven cheques in favour of the above firm of
CS (Comm.) No. 1585/2023 Page No. 4 of 25
-- 4 of 25 --
DLCT010175912023
plaintiff, but all these cheques were dishonoured when presented
by plaintiff with his bank. The details of these seven cheques are
also found given in a tabular form in para 9 of plaint and the
same are being re-produced as under:-
SR. No. CHEQUE No. DATE AMOUNT (RS.)
1. 007469 20.08.2021 5,00,000/-
2. 001193 07.07.2021 5,00,000/-
3. 001495 20.10.2021 3,00,000/-
4. 007662 10.12.2021 5,00,000/-
5. 007659 19.11.2021 3,00,000/-
6. 001349 30.04.2022 2,00,000/-
7. 007470 30.08.2021 5,00,000/-
5. It is further the case of plaintiff that due to dishonour of
the above said cheques, he was constrained to go for mandatory
Pre-Institution Mediation before the Central District Legal
Services Authority (CDLSA) on 17.04.2023 and on the
scheduled date i.e. 26.05.2023, defendant’s counsel had appeared
and requested his counsel for settlement and on their joint
request, the CDLSA had given another date. However, on next
scheduled date i.e. 04.07.2023, the defendant failed to appear
before CDLSA or to approach the plaintiff for any settlement.
6. It has also been specifically averred by plaintiff in plaint
that cause of action for filing of the present suit arose in his
favour when defendant No.1 firm started doing business with
him; when it placed orders upon him for supply of goods through
defendant No.2 and the goods ordered by them were supplied by
him and it further arose on various other dates, as have been
stated in para 12 of the plaint, and the same is still continuing and
CS (Comm.) No. 1585/2023 Page No. 5 of 25
-- 5 of 25 --
DLCT010175912023
existing as defendants have failed to pay the above outstanding
sale consideration amount to him, along with interest. It has also
been claimed by him that this court has the territorial and
pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present suit; that the
dispute raised in present suit is a commercial dispute under the
provisions of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Court,
Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of the
High Court Ordinance, 2015 and that the present suit is within
limitation.
ISSUANCE OF PROCESS, FORFEITURE OF RIGHT OF
DEFENDANT TO FILE WRITTEN STATEMENT AND
OTHER PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED IN MATTER
7. Summons of the suit were duly served upon both
defendants through registered post on 26.12.2023 for date
06.01.2024 and even appearance on their behalf was filed before
this court through a counsel on that date and also on the next date
i.e. 13.02.2024. However, on the next adjourned date i.e.
14.03.2024 given by this court, neither anybody was present on
behalf of defendants despite waiting till 2 pm nor any written
statement came to be filed by them, though the stipulated
minimum period of 30 days for filing of written statement stood
expired. Hence, the right of defendants to file written statement
was closed on that date and they were also proceeded as ex-parte
in the case.
CS (Comm.) No. 1585/2023 Page No. 6 of 25
-- 6 of 25 --
DLCT010175912023
8. However, on 22.03.2024, when the matter was fixed for
recording ex-parte evidence of plaintiff, Ld. Counsel for
defendant had again joined the proceedings through VC and he
was given time to file appropriate application for setting aside the
above ex-parte order. He was also apprised that even the right of
defendants to file written statement stood already closed.
9. On the next adjourned date i.e. 16.04.2024, though some
Proxy Counsel for defendants was present before the court, but
no application for setting aside the above ex-parte order or for
taking the written statement of defendants on record was filed on
behalf of defendants and the matter was adjourned to 10.05.2024
for recording ex-parte evidence of plaintiff.
10. An application under Order 9 Rule 7 r/w 151 CPC for
setting aside the abovesaid ex-parte order dated 14.03.2024 was
then filed by defendants through e-mode on 09.05.2024 and a
hard copy thereof was also placed on record of the court on
above date fixed for hearing i.e. 10.05.2024. The said application
also contained a prayer for permitting the defendants to put their
defence on merits. It is further found observed by this court in the
same order that the maximum period of 120 days prescribed for
filing of the written statement by defendants stood already
expired.
CS (Comm.) No. 1585/2023 Page No. 7 of 25
-- 7 of 25 --
DLCT010175912023
11. The above application of defendants was decided by this
court vide order dated 28.05.2024 and in view of fact that the
maximum prescribed period of 120 days for filing of written
statement by defendants stood already expired, it was observed
by this court in said order that though the things could not be
reverted back and defendants could not be permitted to defend
the case on merits or to file their written statement now on
record, in view of the judgment dated 12.02.2019 passed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 1638/2019
in case titled as M/s SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K.S.
Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors, but still they
were being permitted to join and participate in further
proceedings of the case as per settled law.
ISSUES
12. Though no issues for disposal of this case are found to
have been framed for the reason that defendants failed to file
their written statement on record within the maximum prescribed
period of 120 days, but for better appreciation of the evidence
and for the purposes of convenience, the following issues are
being framed by court through this judgment for disposal of the
suit:-
1 Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit
amount from defendant? OPP.
2 Whether plaintiff is entitled for pendente-lite
and future interest on the suit amount and, if so, at what rate
and for which period? OPP.
CS (Comm.) No. 1585/2023 Page No. 8 of 25
-- 8 of 25 --
DLCT010175912023
3 Relief.
EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF
13. The plaintiff in support of his claim raised in this suit has
examined only one witness and his AR/SPA namely Sh. Sanjay
Kumar stepped into the witness box as PW1 initially on
26.09.2024 and tendered on record his examination-in-chief
through an affidavit Ex.PW1/X. In the said affidavit, he is found
to have deposed almost on the lines of plaint of present case and
had also tendered and relied upon the following documents
through said affidavit:-
1) Copy of his aadhar card as Ex.PW1/A (OSR);
2) Copy of Special Power of Attorney dated 10.10.2023 in his
favour as Ex.PW1/B;
3) Copy of GST details of defendant as Mark A; (though this
document was found exhibited as Ex.PW1/1 in affidavit of the
witness, but it was de-exhibited and marked only at the time of
recording statement of witness);
4) Copies of 48 invoices as Mark B; (though these documents
were found exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 (colly) in affidavit of the
witness, but the same were de-exhibited and marked only at the
time of recording statement of the witness);
5) Copy of ledger account statements of plaintiff for the periods
w.e.f. 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021, 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 and
01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 as Ex.PW1/3;
6) Copy of Non-Starter Report of CDLSA dated 28.07.2023 as
Ex.PW1/4; and
7) Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act filed
along with plaint, with respect to authenticity of computerized
printout of ledger account, as Ex.PW1/5.
CS (Comm.) No. 1585/2023 Page No. 9 of 25
-- 9 of 25 --
DLCT010175912023
However, only the part examination-in-chief of PW1 was
recorded on the above date and his further examination was
deferred at request of Ld. Counsel representing him for filing of
appropriate certificate under Section 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023 or under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence
Act, as the case may be, in respect to the documents marked as
Mark A and B during his statement as the same were found to be
the computerized copies or printouts of the said documents.
14. Thereafter, two different applications under the provisions
of Section 151 r/w Order 11 Rule 1(2) CPC dated 12.11.2024 and
15.11.2024 came to be filed by plaintiff for taking on record
some additional documents. The additional documents sought to
be placed on record by plaintiff through the first application were
some missing or left out leafs of the 48 disputed invoices sought
to be brought in evidence as Mark B and the second application
was to file an additional certificate under Section 63 of the
Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 in respect to the
computerized printouts of documents marked as Mark A & Mark
B. Both these applications were allowed and disposed off vide
order dated 16.01.2025 of this court and the above additional
documents of plaintiff were taken on record and matter was
again fixed for remaining ex-parte evidence of plaintiff in respect
to the said documents.
15. PW1 again stepped into the witness box of this court on
13.02.2025 and besides the documents already relied upon
through his previous examination-in-chief dated 26.09.2024, he
CS (Comm.) No. 1585/2023 Page No. 10 of 25
-- 10 of 25 --
DLCT010175912023
also tendered in evidence and relied upon the following
documents during his additional/re-examination:-
1) The printouts of his missing invoices/e-way bills as Ex.
PW1/6 (colly);
2) Declaration on oath by way of affidavit under Order XI Rule
6 (3) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with respect to above
computerized invoices/e-way bills as Ex. PW1/7;
3) Certificate under Section 63 of the BSA, 2023 with respect
to above computerized invoices/e-way bills as Ex. PW1/8;
4) Additional Declaration on oath by way of affidavit under
Order XI Rule 6 (3) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with
respect to Mark A and Mark B as Ex. PW1/9; and
5) Additional certificate under Section 63 of the BSA, 2023
with respect to Mark A and Mark B as Ex. PW1/10.
16. PW1 vide his separate statement recorded on the same date
had also closed evidence of plaintiff and hence, since no
evidence on behalf of defendants could have been led in the case
for the reasons already discussed by this court, the matter was
fixed for final arguments.
17. However, two other applications under Order 11 Rule 1(5)
& 12 CPC and under Order 18 Rule 17 r/w Section 1 CPC again
came to be filed before this court on behalf of plaintiff and the
first application was filed to take on record a fresh Special Power
of Attorney executed in favour of the above AR/SPA of
plaintiff/PW1 as an additional document and the other
application was filed seeking reopening of the evidence of
CS (Comm.) No. 1585/2023 Page No. 11 of 25
-- 11 of 25 --
DLCT010175912023
plaintiff again for tendering the said document in evidence. Vide
a detailed order dated 20.05.2025, both these applications of
plaintiff were also allowed subject to payment of some costs to
defendants and the above fresh SPA was taken on record and the
AR of plaintiff/PW1 was also permitted to be recalled for
formally tendering the said document in evidence.
18. PW1 again came in the witness box of this court on
08.07.2025 and tendered in evidence the above fresh SPA dated
30.04.2025 executed in his favour as Ex. PW1/C. He was again
cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant with regard to the
said document and was discharged thereafter.
EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT
19. As stated above, no evidence in the matter has been led by
defendants as their right to file written statement stood forfeited
by operation of law and because of non-filing of their written
statement within the maximum permitted time of 120 days.
20. I have heard the arguments addressed by Sh. Vipin Wason,
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, assisted by Ms. Stuti Wason Advocate,
and Sh. K.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for defendants. I have also
gone through the case record.
CS (Comm.) No. 1585/2023 Page No. 12 of 25
-- 12 of 25 --
DLCT010175912023
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND ISSUE-WISE
FINDINGS
ISSUE Nos. 1 & 2
Since issue Nos. 1 & 2 are interconnected, for the purposes
of appreciation of evidence and convenience, both these issues
are being taken up for disposal together by the court.
21. As already discussed, the plaintiff in support of his case
has examined only one witness and the witness who has been
examined by plaintiff is namely Sh. Sanjay Kumar, who has been
claimed to be the AR as well as Special Power of Attorney of
plaintiff. He has tendered on record his examination-in-chief
through an affidavit Ex. PW1/X, which contains his detailed
depositions about facts of the case, the disputed transactions
between parties, the invoices issued by plaintiff regarding the
said transactions in name of defendant No.1 and also the non-
payment of outstanding amount of Rs. 34,74,278/- of these
invoices by defendants to plaintiff despite requests and demands.
He has further tendered and relied upon through his statement,
inter-alia, copies of above 48 invoices issued by the firm of
plaintiff in name of defendant No.1 as Mark B & Ex. PW1/6
(colly), the copy of ledger account of plaintiff for the periods
w.e.f. 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021, 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 and
01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 as Ex. PW1/3, a copy of the certificate
U/S 65B of the Indian Evidence Act given by him regarding
authenticity of the computerized printouts of ledger account
CS (Comm.) No. 1585/2023 Page No. 13 of 25
-- 13 of 25 --
DLCT010175912023
statement as Ex. PW1/5, declarations/affidavits as Ex. PW1/7 &
Ex. PW1/8 given under the provisions of Order 11 Rule 6(3) of
the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 regarding authenticity of the
documents Ex. PW1/6 and also the certificates Ex. PW1/9 & Ex.
PW1/10 under Section 63 of the BSA, 2023 given by him in
respect to authenticity of the documents Mark A and Mark B.
Besides these, copies of two different Powers of Attorneys
executed by plaintiff in his favour have also been brought in
evidence during his testimony as Ex. PW1/B & Ex. PW1/C.
22. Since no written statement or defence plea of defendants
was on record, the cross-examination of PW1 conducted by Ld.
Counsel for defendants on 08.07.2025 was limited to the extent
of testing the truthfulness of depositions made by this witness in
his above affidavit and also the claim of plaintiff on merits as Ld.
Counsel for defendant was not legally permitted to put the case
of defendants on merits to the witness.
23. However, it has been observed from the oral and
documentary evidence on record that despite the fact that there
was no evidence or written statement of defendant on record, the
plaintiff has still failed to discharge the onus placed upon him
for proving his claim for recovery of the abovesaid amount from
defendant as the documents on record do not corroborate or
substantiate the said claim of plaintiff due to different reasons.
But, before discussing the merits of case and entitlement of
CS (Comm.) No. 1585/2023 Page No. 14 of 25
-- 14 of 25 --
DLCT010175912023
plaintiff for the claimed amount, it is first felt necessary to
discuss the contention of Ld. Counsel for defendants that PW1
was not a duly constituted attorney of plaintiff and hence, he was
not a competent person to institute the present suit or to depose
as a witness in this court on behalf of plaintiff.
24. On this aspect, it is observed by court that two different
Special Power of Attorneys dated 10.10.2023 & 30.04.2025 have
been brought on record through the testimony of this witness as
Ex.PW1/B & Ex.PW1/C respectively. The second Power of
Attorney Ex. PW1/C was filed as an additional document by
plaintiff, as already discussed, during the course of final
arguments and when Ld. Counsel for defendants has challenged
the earlier Power of Attorney Ex.PW1/B executed by plaintiff in
favour of the witness on grounds that it was executed simply on
letterhead of plaintiff and it being an unstamped document was
not admissible in evidence and further that it did not even
specifically authorized PW1 to appear as a witness before this
court on behalf of plaintiff.
25. As far as the objection taken by Ld. Counsel for defendant
regarding lack of authority in favour of PW1 to appear as a
witness before this court on behalf of plaintiff as per Ex.PW1/B
is concerned, it is observed that through the above first Power of
Attorney Ex. PW1/B the plaintiff has duly authorized PW1 not
only to sign the documents, institute suits etc. on his behalf, but
CS (Comm.) No. 1585/2023 Page No. 15 of 25
-- 15 of 25 --
DLCT010175912023
also to do all other acts and deeds as may be necessary for the
purpose of enforcing the claims of plaintiff in different suits and
appeals etc. Thus, it is clear from the plain language of above
document Ex. PW1/B that the plaintiff in his capacity as the
proprietor of his above firm had duly authorized PW1 to
represent him in the present case and even though it is not found
specifically stated in the said document that PW1 was also even
being authorized by plaintiff to depose before a court, but this
authority can be inferred to be there from the plain language used
by this document and it can be taken that PW1 was a person duly
authorized by the plaintiff to sign this suit and other pleadings
and also to appear as a witness before the court and to depose on
his behalf.
26. Now coming to the defect in authority or authorization of
PW1 on ground that the above document was though titled as a
Specific Power of Attorney, but it was not stamped as such and
also the question of its admissibility in evidence, it has already
been discussed that the plaintiff has also brought in his evidence
a fresh Special Power of Attorney executed by him in favour of
PW1 as Ex.PW1/C and this Special Power of Attorney is found
to have been executed on a stamp paper of appropriate value and
the same is even notarized. No objection is also found to have
been taken on behalf of defendants at the initial stage and even
no such objection to the admissibility of this document was taken
by Ld. Counsel representing them at the time of admission of this
CS (Comm.) No. 1585/2023 Page No. 16 of 25
-- 16 of 25 --
DLCT010175912023
document as Ex.PW1/B in evidence. Hence, in considered
opinion of this court, the defect or discrepancy, if any, in the
appointment of PW1 as a Special Power of Attorney of plaintiff
stands not only rectified or ratified by plaintiff, but the objection
regarding its admissibility etc. stood also waived on behalf of
defendants and therefore, PW1 can be taken to be a competent
witness to appear and depose on behalf of the plaintiff.
27. The next contention of Ld. Counsel for defendant is that
PW1 during his cross-examination has himself stated that the
deal or transactions were made between plaintiff and Mr. Sanjeet
Rawat, who as per him was the director of defendant firm, and
hence, it is clear from his above admission that he was not aware
about the business transactions between parties or had any
personal knowledge about the same. It is also the submission of
Ld. Counsel for defendants that PW1 was not even able to tell the
difference between a proprietorship firm and a partnership firm
and he was also not aware if all the partners of defendant No.1
firm were made a party to this suit or not by the plaintiff and
further that he was 10th class pass only and hence, in light of the
about admissions or depositions made by PW1, his testimony has
to be discarded straightaway as it can be inferred therefrom that
he was not aware about the disputed transactions of this case.
28. However, the above contentions or submissions of Ld.
Counsel for defendants are found unacceptable on the basis of
CS (Comm.) No. 1585/2023 Page No. 17 of 25
-- 17 of 25 --
DLCT010175912023
record. Even if PW1 had studied upto 10th class only, but in view
of provisions contained in Section 124 of the Bhartiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023 which are equivalent to the provisions of
Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in force earlier, he
has been found to be a competent witness and as the competency
of a witness has nothing to do with his educational qualifications
and all that is required by the said Section is that a witness should
be able to understand the questions put to him and of giving a
rational answers to the said questions. Thought his above
depositions suggest that the deal about disputed transactions was
struck or made between plaintiff and Sh. Sanjeet Rawat, but in no
way it can be inferred therefrom that he has no knowledge about
the said business transactions between parties. It is observed that
he has specifically stated in his cross-examination that he was
working with plaintiff for the last 15 years and he also denied the
suggestion given by Ld. Counsel for defendants that he was not
involved in dealings of this case (the word ‘not’ inadvertently
typed in recording the reply of witness to suggestion given to him
on this aspect). He also volunteered specifically that he was
working as a supervisor with plaintiff and it was a part of his
duty to supervise such transactions of sale and purchase and he
even supervised the transactions of this case. He further
volunteered specifically that he even used to collect payments
from defendants. Hence, these depositions made by the witness
clearly show that he was directly associated with the disputed
transactions between parties and he has a personal knowledge
CS (Comm.) No. 1585/2023 Page No. 18 of 25
-- 18 of 25 --
DLCT010175912023
about the same and hence, he is held to be a competent witness to
appear and depose about the said transactions before this court.
29. Now coming to merits of the case, as already discussed,
the total amount of Rs. 44,47,075/- claimed by plaintiff in this
case consists of an amount of Rs. 34,74,278/- as the principal or
outstanding amount against above invoices Mark B and
Ex.PW1/6 and rest of the amount of Rs. 9,72,797/- consists of
interest thereon @ 24% per annum for the period w.e.f.
05.05.2022 to 05.08.2023. This is also the amount which is found
reflected as the closing balance as per the ledger account
statement of plaintiff for above said period and tendered in
evidence as Ex.PW1/3. The authenticity of this ledger account
statement has been sought to be established through a certificate
under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act given by PW1 and
exhibited in evidence as Ex.PW1/5.
30. As already discussed, the claim of plaintiff raised in this
suit is based on total 48 invoices, the details of which have been
given in para 3 of this judgment and all these invoices have been
found issued during the period from 11.02.2020 to 29.08.2020. It
is observed that first 37 invoices of plaintiff, as mentioned in the
above table and spreading over the period from 11.02.2020 to
19.03.2020, are not being reflected in above ledger account
statement of plaintiff for the simple and apparent reason that this
ledger account of plaintiff starts w.e.f. 01.04.2020, whereas these
CS (Comm.) No. 1585/2023 Page No. 19 of 25
-- 19 of 25 --
DLCT010175912023
37 invoices were admittedly issued prior thereto. The remaining
11 invoices of plaintiff are, however, found duly reflected in the
ledger account statement Ex.PW1/3 and this document even
reflects the payments or part payments received from defendants
on different dates.
31. It is found on perusal of record that the total amount of
above 48 invoices being relied upon by plaintiff comes to Rs.
59,80,371/-. It is well settled that the entries made by a party in
his books of account in the regular course of business are though
relevant in terms of provisions contained in Section 28 of the
Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Section 34 of the Indian
Evidence Act), but the said entries or statement of account alone
cannot be sufficient to allow the claim of said party for the
amounts stated therein or to discharge the onus placed upon him
to prove his claim. Hence, it can be inferred from this legal
position that the entires in above ledger account statement of
plaintiff has a relevance as a corroborative evidence only to the
other evidence of plaintiff. Thus, even if the ledger account
statement Ex.PW1/3 filed by plaintiff does not contain the entries
of first 37 invoices filed on record by plaintiff, the claim of
plaintiff can still be allowed by this court on the basis of above
invoices and the other evidence led by plaintiff.
32. However, it has also been observed on a bare perusal of the
ledger account statement Ex.PW1/3 that its starts with an
CS (Comm.) No. 1585/2023 Page No. 20 of 25
-- 20 of 25 --
DLCT010175912023
opening balance of Rs. 1,07,14,158/- as on 01.04.2020. Since it
has already been discussed that first 37 invoices of plaintiff are
not found reflected in this ledger account statement, it can be
safely taken or inferred therefrom that this amount of Rs.
1,07,14,158/- also includes the total amount of these 37 invoices,
which comes to Rs. 48,64,349/-. The total amount of remaining
11 invoices of plaintiff from serial Nos. 38 to 48 of the above
table is Rs. 11,16,022/- and it is already found included in the
ledger account statement and the closing balance of Rs.
34,74,278/- being shown in the said document. Thus, the above
ledger account statement and the testimony of PW1 on record
fails to explain the balance amount of Rs. 58,49,809/-
(1,07,14,158-48,64,349) being shown as outstanding and as a
part of the opening balance of Rs. 1,07,14,158/- given in this
document as on 01.04.2020. This is despite the fact that the court
has also specifically questioned Ld. Counsel for plaintiff about
the above outstanding balance appearing in Ex.PW1/3 and
further about non-reflection of the above 37 invoices issued
during the period from 01.02.2020 to 31.03.2020 in the said
document and had even asked him to clarify the said aspects and
to take appropriate steps in this regard. However, Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff failed to furnish any clarifications on this aspect or even
to take the requisite steps to bring on record a complete copy of
the ledger account statement reflecting all 48 disputed invoices of
this case and also the previous invoices issued by it in name of
defendants to justify the total outstanding balance of Rs.
CS (Comm.) No. 1585/2023 Page No. 21 of 25
-- 21 of 25 --
DLCT010175912023
1,07,14,158/- due from defendants on 01.04.2020, as appearing
in the above document. Hence, the claim of plaintiff atleast for an
amount of Rs. 58,49,809/-, which can be taken to be a part of the
above opening balance of Rs. 1,07,14,158/-, has remained
unexplained and unsubstantiated as there are no sale invoices or
any other document brought in evidence by plaintiff to prove his
entitlement for the said amount.
33. Further, as also discussed above, the total amount of 48
disputed invoices of this case is Rs. 59,80,371/- and it has been
observed that against this amount, the defendants have made
payments of a total amount of Rs. 63,58,000/- to plaintiff in
installments of different amounts and on different dates and this
total amount of payments made by defendants is also found
specifically stated as a credit entry in the said document. Hence,
on the basis of documentary evidence made available to this
court by plaintiff himself, it can be seen that as against their debit
liability for a total amount of Rs. 59,80,371/-, based on the above
48 invoices, the defendants have already paid an amount of Rs.
63,58,000/- to plaintiff, and thus, no further amount as per the
evidence led on record can be taken to be still due or outstanding
from them towards the plaintiff and hence, the case of plaintiff
for recovery of the outstanding amount of Rs. 34,74,278/- as the
principal amount or any interest thereon is bound to fail and he
cannot be held entitled to recover the said amounts from
defendants.
CS (Comm.) No. 1585/2023 Page No. 22 of 25
-- 22 of 25 --
DLCT010175912023
34. Again, there is also one other reason as to why the claim of
plaintiff for above said amounts is liable to be dismissed and this
is the inadmissibility of above invoices in evidence. As stated
above, the invoices Mark B and Ex.PW1/6 are all computerized
documents or prints out and the authenticity of these documents
has been sought to be established by plaintiff through the
declaration/certificates under Order XI Rule 6 (3) of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and those given under Section 63
of the BSA, 2023 by PW1 and exhibited in evidence as
Ex.PW1/7 to Ex.PW1/10. However, it is observed that during his
cross-examination, Ld. Counsel for defendant has specifically
questioned PW1 regarding the above computerized printouts of
invoices and he has stated it to be correct that the said invoices
were not prepared by him nor he had taken out the printouts
thereof. He also stated specifically that he never checked the
authenticity of above invoices and contents thereof in computer.
Though being a supervisor, it might not have been a part of his
job to prepare the above invoices being issued by plaintiff or to
check their authenticity in records being maintained in computer,
but since the authenticity of these invoices was being sought to
be established through him and through the above certificates
/affidavits/declarations given by him, it was mandatory that the
printouts thereof were taken by him because it is only the person
who takes out such computerized printouts can authenticate or
verify the veracity of said printouts or the data stored in
CS (Comm.) No. 1585/2023 Page No. 23 of 25
-- 23 of 25 --
DLCT010175912023
computer. Hence, the above certificates and declarations
Ex.PW1/7 to Ex.PW1/10 given by him are of no use or
consequence and the same cannot authenticate the above invoices
Mark B and Ex.PW1/6 as these certificates
/affidavits/declarations were required to be given by the person
who had taken the said printouts and it was also necessary for
plaintiff to produce the said person as a witness before this court
for proving these certificates/affidavits/declarations. Thus, these
invoices Mark B and Ex.PW1/6 cannot even be considered to
have been proved in evidence by plaintiff as per law and the
same cannot form basis of the claim raised by plaintiff in this
suit.
35. Apart from this, the plaintiff has also failed to bring on
record the alleged 7 cheques of different dates totaling for an
amount of Rs. 28,00,000/-, as mentioned in para 4 of this
judgment, which he claims to have been issued by defendants in
his favour and in discharge of their liability towards the above
said transactions and had these cheques been produced before
this court in evidence, it could have corroborated and
substantiated the claim of plaintiff atleast to the extent of the
amount of these cheques. For his failure also to produce the
above best evidence available in his possession or power etc., his
case is bound to suffer and the court can draw an adverse
inference against him or to the detriment of his claim made in
present suit. Therefore, in view of above discussion, these issues
CS (Comm.) No. 1585/2023 Page No. 24 of 25
-- 24 of 25 --
DLCT010175912023
Nos. 1 and 2 are being decided against the plaintiff and in favour
of defendants.
ISSUE No. 3- RELIEF
36. In light of the findings arrived at while deciding the above
issues Nos. 1 and 2, the suit of plaintiff is dismissed. Parties are
left to bear their own costs.
37. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to
Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court
Dated: 29.11.2025
(M. K. Nagpal)
District Judge, Commercial Court-13
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi/29.11.2025(op/p)
CS (Comm.) No. 1585/2023 Page No. 25 of 25
-- 25 of 25 --