Final Order 15

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MANOJ KUMAR: DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT)-5, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI,
DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT01-018314-2024
CS (COMM) No. 1283/2024
In the matter of:
Ved Prakash,
Prop. M/s Durga Ji Agro,
At: 2635, 2nd Floor,
Room No-8, Naya Bazar,
Delhi-110006 … Plaintiff
VERSUS
Pampa Barman Sarkar,
Prop. Taj Agro Impex,
At: Kadamtala, Nepal Road,
NH-2, Siliguri,
West Bengal-734429
Also at:
Gandogal Jote,
Panitanki, Kharibari,
Darjeeling, West Bengal-734429 … Defendant
Date of Institution : 22.11.2024
Date of Reserving judgment : 04.11.2025
Date of pronouncement : 06.11.2025
For Plaintiff : Mr. Binod Kumar Agrawal,
Advocate
For Defendant : Ex parte
CS (COMM) No. 1283/2024 Page No. 1 of 10
-- 1 of 10 --
JUDGMENT:
This is a suit for recovery of 11,35,000/- instituted by	₹
plaintiff Ved Prakash, proprietor of M/s Durga Ji Agro against defendant
Pampa Barman Sarkar, proprietor of Taj Agro Impex.
2. Facts, as per the plaintiff’s version, are that the plaintiff is
proprietor of M/s Durga Ji Agro and he is whole seller/distributor of all
types of food grain item which included pulses and cereals having
GSTIN No. 07AAEPP9722E1ZN at the above address; that being the
proprietor he is fully acquainted with all the facts of the case and is
competent to file the present suit, sign/verify the documents and depose
before this court; that the defendant is proprietor of TAJ AGRO IMPEX
having GST No. 19KFFPS1075PIZH doing retail / whole sale business
in food grain items including pulses and cereals at both the above
address; that the defendant is fully aware of day to day affairs of his
business and as such defendant is liable for all acts done either in his
name and/or firm's name; that the plaintiff had maintained proper
account of transactions in the books of account duly and regularly
maintained in due course of the business; that the defendant placed
purchase order to the plaintiff for pulses-Chana Dal and Chana Dal
(purple) as per his need and the plaintiff in turn supplied the same goods
on 19.10.2023 and raised bill / invoice bearing number 1240 amounting
to 26,38,190/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand One	₹
CS (COMM) No. 1283/2024 Page No. 2 of 10
-- 2 of 10 --
Hundred Ninety Only); that the plaintiff as per instruction of the
defendant supplied 350.10 quintal of pulses through Assam Bombay
Corporation- a transporter vide truck no. HR63C-8286 who in turn
issued ABC / G.R.No. 23598 dated 19.10.2023; that the defendant after
receiving the goods / pulses as per his order made part payment of
16,38,190/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand One	₹
Hundred Ninety Only) to the plaintiff's bank HDFC Bank vide RTGS on
30.10.2023; that as per statement of account there being an outstanding
amount of 10,00,000/- against defendant; that the plaintiff maintains	₹
statement of account qua defendant; that despite numerous calls,
requests made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to pay the out
standing amount of 10,00,000/- and thus the defendant is legally bound	₹
to pay the outstanding amount to the plaintiff as stated above; that the
defendant is also liable to pay late payment charges / interest @18% per
annum from due date till filing of the suit which comes out to be
1,35,000/- (One Lakh Thirty Five Thousand); that the plaintiff on	₹
27.05.2024 issued legal demand notice through his counsel vide speed
post, whatsapp and email demanding 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh	₹
Only) along with interest 18% per annum and the same was duly served
to the defendant who in turn failed to reply the legal notice and / or make
the outstanding principal amount of 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh	₹
Only) to the plaintiff; that the defendant is now liable to pay
11,35,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Only)	₹
CS (COMM) No. 1283/2024 Page No. 3 of 10
-- 3 of 10 --
inclusive of interest @18% p.a. from due date till filing of the suit; that
the defendant is also liable to pay interest @18% per annum from the
date of filing of the suit till realization of amount i.e. pendente lite
interest; that the instant suit was referred before the concerned DLSA,
Central District, Tis Hazari Court, but despite the issuance of second
notice the defendant did not appear due to which the matter has been
declared as Non-starter as per Non-starter report dated 01.10.2024; that
the present suit is a commercial suit as it involves a “Commercial
dispute” under section 2(1)(c) of the the Commercial Courts Act, 2015;
that the plaintiff has left with no other efficacious remedy and / or
alternate remedy except for the recovery suit of 11,35,000/- with	₹
pendente lite interest till realization of amount @ 18% per annum. It is
further stated in the plaint that due to the acts of the defendant a cause of
action arose in favour of the plaintiff at different dates leading upto the
institution of the present suit.
3. After institution of the suit, summons upon the defendant
could not be served through ordinary process, therefore, in the wake of
an application under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (CPC) made on behalf of the plaintiff, summons upon the
defendant were ordered to be served through publication in newspaper
Aajkal, Siliguri edition. In spite of service of summons upon the
defendant through publication in newspaper Aajkal, Siliguri edition
dated 29.5.2025 none appeared on his behalf and no written statement of
CS (COMM) No. 1283/2024 Page No. 4 of 10
-- 4 of 10 --
defence was filed, therefore, by order dated 16.7.2025, passed by this
court the defendant was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte and the
matter was posted for ex parte evidence.
4. In support of his case plaintiff Ved Prakash got examined
himself as PW1, who during his examination-in-chief tendered his
affidavit Ex.PW1/A along with documents Ex.PW1/1 (copy of his
Aadhar card), Ex.PW1/2 (copy of GSTIN registration of his firm),
Ex.PW1/3 (copy of GSTIN registration of the defendant firm),
Ex.PW1/4 (Bill of supply No. 1240 dated 19.10.2023), Ex.PW1/5 (copy
of transport receipt No. ABC/G.R. No. 23598 dated 19.10.2023 issued
by Assam Bombay Corporation - transporter), Ex.PW1/6 (copy of
statement of bank account No.50200023457827 of the plaintiff with
HDFC Bank), Ex.PW1/7 (statement of ledger account with effect from
01.4.2023 to 04.5.2024), Ex.PW1/8 (copy of legal notice dated
27.5.2024, Ex.PW1/9 (postal receipts), Ex.PW1/10 (return envelope of
legal notice sent to the defendant at his Darjeeling address), Ex.PW1/11
(return envelope of legal notice sent to the defendant at his Siliguri
address), Ex.PW1/12 (copy of service of legal notice sent to the
defendant at his email ID tajsales19@gmail.com by email ID
bka.advocate@gmail.com), Ex.PW1/13 (screen-shots of service of legal
notice sent to the defendant through WhatsApp on 28.5.2024),
Ex.PW1/14 (Certificate of Non-Starter Report dated 01.10.2024)
Ex.PW1/15 (certificate of the plaintiff under section 63 of BSA),
CS (COMM) No. 1283/2024 Page No. 5 of 10
-- 5 of 10 --
Ex.PW1/16 (publication in newspaper, namely, Aajkal, Darjeeling
edition dated 29.5.2025 regarding service of summons upon the
defendant) and Mark-A (certificate of counsel for the plaintiff under
section 63 of BSA in respect of service of legal notice upon the
defendant through WhatsApp and email). In his affidavit Ex.PW1/A,
tendered in evidence, PW1 Ved Prakash reiterated the averments made
in the plaint, and after tendering of his affidavit, evidence on behalf of
the plaintiff was closed.
5. I have heard counsel for the plaintiff and have gone through
the material on record carefully.
6. Having drawn the attention of the court on the testimony of
PW1 Ved Prakash and documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/16 and Mark-A
it is submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that at the request of the
defendant, by way of invoice Ex.PW1/4 dated 19.10.2023, the plaintiff
sold and supplied pulses to the defendant for a total sum of
26,38,190/-. It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that the	₹
said pulses were delivered to the defendant through transport receipt
Ex.PW1/5 dated 19.10.2023. It is further submitted by counsel for the
plaintiff that in discharge of his liabilities towards the plaintiff the
defendant made payment of 16,38,190/- on 30.10.2023 through RTGS.	₹
It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that by way of the legal
notice dated 27.5.2024, a copy of which is Ex.PW1/8, the plaintiff called
upon the defendant to make payment for the price of the pulses along
CS (COMM) No. 1283/2024 Page No. 6 of 10
-- 6 of 10 --
with interest. It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that
despite service of notice the defendant did not make the payment as
claimed by the plaintiff, therefore, left with no other option the plaintiff
approached the Central District Legal Services Authority for mediation
before institution of the suit, but none appeared on behalf of the
defendant for settlement of the dispute. It is further submitted by counsel
for the plaintiff that having purchased the pulses from the plaintiff, the
defendant did not pay the price of the same, therefore, he has become
liable to pay 1,35,000/- as late payment charges/ interest at the rate of	₹
18% per annum from due date till filing of the suit. It is further
submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant is also liable to
pay pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum from
the date of filing of the suit till its actual realization.
7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions
made on behalf of the plaintiff.
8. From the testimony of PW1 Ved Prakash and ledger account
Ex.PW1/7 it is proved that the plaintiff had sold pulses by bill Ex.PW1/4
to the defendant and received part payment of 16,38,190/- on	₹
30.10.2023 from the defendant. From the testimony of PW1 Ved
Prakash, bill Ex.PW1/4 dated 19.10.2023 for a sum of 26,38,190/- and	₹
transport receipt Ex.PW1/5 dated 19.10.2023, the plaintiff sold and
delivered the pulses to the defendant. From the testimony of PW1 Ved
Prakash and documents Ex.PW1/8 to Ex.PW1/13 it has also been proved
CS (COMM) No. 1283/2024 Page No. 7 of 10
-- 7 of 10 --
that the defendant did not pay the balance amount of the pulses to the
plaintiff. From the testimony of PW1 Ved Prakash and documents
Ex.PW1/7 it has also been proved that the defendant in discharge of his
liability towards the plaintiff made payment of 16,38,190/- on	₹
30.10.2023. From the testimony of PW1 Ved Prakash and documents
Ex.PW1/8 to Ex.PW1/13 it has also been proved that before institution
of the present suit the plaintiff also sent a legal notice to the defendant
calling upon him to pay 10,97,500/- along with interest at the rate of	₹
18% per annum within fifteen days, but no such payment was made,
resulting the plaintiff approaching the Central District Legal Services
Authority to resolve the dispute by the process of mediation, but the case
was returned as non-starter. And thus, the defendant has become liable to
pay outstanding amount of 10,00,000/- to the plaintiff	₹ on account of
the price of the pulses sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant
by way of documents Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/5.
9. The plaintiff has claimed 1,35,000/- on account of interest	₹
at the rate of 18% per annum from the due date till the date of filing of
the suit. The plaintiff has not mentioned the due date from which he has
claimed 1,35,000/- as interest till the date of filing of the suit. The bill	₹
of supply Ex.PW1/4 is silent on the point of the rate of interest or late
payment charges. No other material has been produced before this court
by the plaintiff to show that there exists any contract between the parties
that in case the defendant failed to pay the due amount in time, he would
CS (COMM) No. 1283/2024 Page No. 8 of 10
-- 8 of 10 --
be liable to pay interest or late payment charges at the rate of 18% per
annum. Therefore, in the opinion of the court, the rate at which the
interest has been claimed by the plaintiff does not appear to be
reasonable. The pulses were supplied to the defendant by the plaintiff on
19.10.2023 and the defendant had made payment of 16,38,190/- on	₹
30.10.2023, therefore, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover
interest at the rate of 12% on the principal sum of 10,00,000/- from the	₹
date of payment, that is, 30.10.2023 till the date of filing of the suit, that
is, 22.11.2024 which comes to 1,27,890.41 paise.	₹
10. The plaintiff has also claimed pendente lite and future
interest at the rate of 18% per annum, which, in the opinion of the court,
does not appear to be reasonable. However, taking into account the fact
that transactions were commercial, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled
to the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the adjudged amount of
11,27,890.41 paise from the date of the institution of the suit till	₹
realization of the said amount.
11. In view of above discussion the suit is decreed with costs in
terms that the plaintiff is found entitled to recover 11,27,890.41	₹ paise
from the defendant along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate
of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization
of the said amount.
CS (COMM) No. 1283/2024 Page No. 9 of 10
-- 9 of 10 --
12. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and after necessary
compliance file be sent to the records.
Pronounced in the open court
on the 6th day of November, 2025
(MANOJ KUMAR-1)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-05
Central District: Tis Hazari: Delhi
CS (COMM) No. 1283/2024 Page No. 10 of 10
-- 10 of 10 --