Final Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEVENDER KUMAR, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT-01), EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 90/2026
CNR No. DLET010014562026
Bank of Baroda
A body corporate duly constituted under the
Banking Companies (Acquisition and transfer of undertakings)
Act 1970, having its head office at Baroda Bhavan
R.C. Dutt Road, Alkapuri, Vadodara-39007, Gujrat
and Branches all over India and amongst other places at
Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi
through its Chief Manager Mr. Amit Ohlan. ..............Plaintiff
Versus
Mrs. Suman
Wife of Lt. Mr. Mukesh Dhawan
(Legal Hair of Lt. Mr. Mukesh Dhawan Prop.
of M/s Mukesh Enterprises)
R/o House No. 18/191, Kalyanpuri,
Delhi-110091
............Defendant
Date of institution : 16.03.2026
Date of Arguments : 14.08.2026
Date of judgment : 16.09.2026
JUDGMENT :-
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of this suit for recovery of Rs.
12,17,065.29/- filed by the plaintiff against the defendant along with
interest @ 11.15% per annum with penal interest @ 2% per annum. Brief
facts of the case are as under:
CS (Comm) No. 90/2026
Bank of Baroda Vs. Suman 1/16
-- 1 of 16 --
2. Plaintiff is a banking company incorporated under the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and is
being represented through its AR Mr. Amit Ohlan, Chief Manager, who is
authorized to institute this suit through board resolution. It is further
alleged that the deceased Mr. Mukesh Dhawan, husband of the defendant,
was carrying his business in the name and style of M/s Mukesh Enterprises
and applied for credit loan facility vide loan application dated 13.06.2023.
It is further alleged that the bank considered application of the deceased
and sanctioned overdraft facility of Rs. 11,40,000/- under CGTMSE on
15.06.2023. It is further alleged that the deceased signed various loan
documents including DP Note, Letter of Continuity, Loan Agreement etc. It
is further alleged that loan facility was extended on interest @ 12.40% per
annum but the deceased failed to maintain financial discipline of the
plaintiff and loan account was declared NPA on 04.09.2025. Plaintiff has
further alleged that the bank served a legal notice dated 03.11.2025 upon
the defendant but the defendant failed to pay outstanding amount and the
plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of Rs. 12,17,065.29/- with interest @
11.25% per annum, with 2% penal interest.
3. Deceased loanee Mukesh Dhawan expired during existing loan
facility and the plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs.
12,17,065.29/- against his wife being LR of deceased.
4. Defendant i.e. wife of deceased has filed WS thereby denying
authority of the plaintiff/ AR to institute this suit on behalf of the plaintiff
and has further alleged that the defendant was not aware about any loan
CS (Comm) No. 90/2026
Bank of Baroda Vs. Suman 2/16
-- 2 of 16 --
facility availed by her deceased husband and is not liable to pay any
amount. It is further alleged that there is no privity of contract between the
defendant and the plaintiff and the defendant never executed any loan
document in favor of the plaintiff, due to she is not liable to pay any
amount. It is further alleged that the plaintiff has misused the process of
law and has filed this suit just to harass the defendant, who is already
undergoing under medical treatment from G.B. Pant Hospital for her
mental condition and has no source of income to bear her treatment, or to
take care of herself since 2019. It is further alleged that the plaintiff has no
cause of action against the defendant to file this suit and the defendant has
no personal knowledge about loan transaction and has also not succeeded
assets/ estate of the deceased or his firm, due to the defendant is not liable
to pay suit amount and this suit is liable to be dismissed.
5. Plaintiff has not filed replication to written statement of the
defendant and opportunity was closed vide order dated 01.06.2026.
6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties following issues were framed
vide order dated 01.06.2026 as under:
ISSUES
1. Whether defendant succeeded assets and liabilities of
deceased loanee Lt. Mukesh Dhawan and liable to pay suit
amount as alleged? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of suit amount of
Rs. 12,17,065.29/- as prayed for? OPP
CS (Comm) No. 90/2026
Bank of Baroda Vs. Suman 3/16
-- 3 of 16 --
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest against decretal
amount, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
4. Relief
7. To prove case, the plaintiff has examined PW1 Amit Ohlan, Chief
Manager, who has deposed in verbatim of the plaint and has relied upon
documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/14.
7.1. During cross examination, PW1 has deposed that financial status of
the deceased Mukesh Dhawan was verified by the officer of the bank but
name of his wife was not mentioned in loan documents. It is further
deposed that he was not aware whether wife of the deceased had
knowledge of loan amount or not. It is further deposed that he has not filed
any document that wife of the deceased had knowledge of this loan but he
has no knowledge about mental condition of the defendant. It is admitted
that he did not verify assets of the deceased before filing of this suit, or that
the deceased left any assets for his wife. It is denied that the defendant is
liable to pay suit amount, or that she has been residing at her parental home
with her children.
8. Defendant has examined herself as DW1 Suman and has relied upon
documents Ex.DW1/1 to Ex.DW1/5.
8.1. During cross examination, DW1 has deposed that she doesn’t know
English language but aware about contents of affidavit being read over in
Hindi. It is further deposed that her husband was doing business but she did
CS (Comm) No. 90/2026
Bank of Baroda Vs. Suman 4/16
-- 4 of 16 --
not remember whether he had any car, or that the bank served any legal
notice upon her, whereas she has prescriptions of GB Pant Hospital for her
mental ailments. It is admitted that she is not able to think and answer the
questions put to her properly. It is denied that her husband has any share in
his parental properties but she was not aware that he was doing a good
business, whereas she never visited his shop.
9. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. My point wise
determination is as under:
ISSUE NO. 1. The onus to prove issue no.1 was put upon the plaintiff and
to discharge the onus, the plaintiff has examined PW1, whereas the
defendant has examined herself as DW1. However, Ld. Counsel for
defendant has argued that this suit has not been duly instituted by
authorized person of the plaintiff, due to institution of this suit has to be
considered.
10. Admittedly, a Civil Suit by a Corporation / Company must be signed
and verified by Authorized Representative in terms of Order 29 Rule 1 of
CPC, whereas appointment of Recognized Representative must be in terms
of Order 3 Rule 2 of CPC. Order 29 Rule 1 CPC is as under:
Order 29 Rule 1. Subscription and verification of pleading.— In suit
by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified
on behalf of the corporation by the secretary or by any director or
other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the
facts of the case.
CS (Comm) No. 90/2026
Bank of Baroda Vs. Suman 5/16
-- 5 of 16 --
11. In view of Order 29 Rule 1 of CPC, it is clear that authority
mentioned in abovesaid provision must sign and verify the pleadings like
Secretary, Director or any other Principal Officer of the Corporation. The
authority may sign and verify the pleadings besides an authorized
representatives appointed by the corporation through Board Resolution.
The authority of recognized agent/s has been prescribed under Order 3 Rule
1 & 2 of CPC as under:
Rule 1. Appearances, etc., may be in person, by recognized agent or
by pleader.—Any appearance, application or act in or to any Court,
required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such
Court, may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law
for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or
by his recognized agent, or by a pleader [appearing, applying or
acting, as the case may be, on his behalf :
Provided that any such appearance shall, if the Court so directs, be
made by the party in person.
Rule 2. Recognised agents.—The recognised agents of parties by
whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done
are—
(a) persons holding powers-of-attorney, authorising them to make and
do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties;
(b) persons carrying on trade or business for and in the names of
parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the
Court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made
or done, in matters connected with such trade or business only, where
no other agent is expressly authorised to make and do such
appearances, applications and acts.
12. In view of abovesaid legal proposition, it stands proved that any
recognized representative may be authorized by way of Power of Attorney /
Resolution of Board of Directors in terms of Section 291 of the Companies
Act, 1956 (Now corresponding section under Section 179 of Companies
CS (Comm) No. 90/2026
Bank of Baroda Vs. Suman 6/16
-- 6 of 16 --
Act, 2013). The authority of authorized representative under Order 3 Rule 2
of CPC viz-a-viz signing authority of authorized representative under Order
29 rule 1 & 2 of CPC has been defined in case titled
Nibro Ltd. v. National
Insurance Co. Ltd., (1991) 70 Comp Case 388 (Delhi) as under:
Order 3, rule 1 provides that any appearance, application or act in or
to any court required or authorise by law can be made or done by the
party in person or by his recognized agent or by a pleader appearing,
applying or acting, as the case may be, on his behalf. Provided of
course, such an appearance, application or act in or to any court is
required or authorised by law to be done or done by a party in such
court. Where, however, there is an express provision of law, then that
provision will prevail. Thus, if an authority is given to a pleader or a
recognised agent as provided by law, the recognised agent or pleader
can file an appearance or file a suit in court if the party himself is not
in a position to file it. In my view, if a party is a company or a
corporation, the recognised agent or a pleader has to be authorise by
law to file such a plaint. Such an authority can be given to a pleader or
an agent in the case of a company by a person specifically authorised
in this behalf. In other words, a pleader or an agent can be authorised
to file a suit on behalf of a company only by an authorised
representative of the company. If a director or a secretary is authorised
by law, then he can certainly give the authority to another person as
provided under Order 3, rule 1.
The authority of a principal officer of a company in relation to suits
filed on behalf of the limited company does not extend beyond what is
laid down in Order 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That provision
does not entitle the principal officer of a company to file a suit on its
behalf and for that the authority has to be found either in the articles
of association of the company or in the resolution of its board of
directors. In the articles of association of several companies, provision
is generally made authorising their managing directors and other
officers to file and defend suits on their behalf. Similarly, the board of
directors of a company can authorise the institution of a suit on behalf
of the company by a resolution. In the case of some companies the
articles empower the managing director or directors to appoint general
attorneys and general managers and given them authority to institute
suits on behalf of the company. But in the absence of any proof in
regard to any such power having been conferred on Shri Ram Lal
Choudhary, it is not possible to accept his statement that he was
authorised to file the suit as the principal officer of the plaintiff hotel.
CS (Comm) No. 90/2026
Bank of Baroda Vs. Suman 7/16
-- 7 of 16 --
It is well-settled that under section 291 of the Companies Act except
where express provision is made that the powers of a company in
respect of a particular matter are to be exercised by the company in
general meeting, in all other cases the board of directors are entitled to
exercise all its powers. Individual directors have such powers only as
are vested in them by the memorandum and articles. It is true that
ordinarily the court will not unsuit a person on account of
technicalities. However, the question of authority to institute a suit on
behalf of a company is not a technical matter. It has far-reaching
effects. It often affects the policy and finances of the company. Thus ,
unless a power to institute a suit is specifically conferred on a
particular director, he has no authority to institute a suit on behalf of
the company. Needless to say such a power can be conferred by the
board of directors only by passing a resolution in that regard.
13. Further, in a landmark judgment titled
United Bank of India
v. Naresh Kumar, (1996) 6 SCC 660, it has held that;
9. In cases like the present where suits are instituted or defended on
behalf of a public corporation, public interest should not be permitted
to be defeated on a mere technicality. Procedural defects which do not
go to the root of the matter should not be permitted to defeat a just
cause. There is sufficient power in the courts, under the Code of Civil
Procedure, to ensure that injustice is not done to any party who has a
just case. As far as possible a substantive right should not be allowed
to be defeated on account of a procedural irregularity which is
curable.
10. It cannot be disputed that a company like the appellant can sue
and be sued in its own name. Under Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of
Civil Procedure a pleading is required to be signed by the party and its
pleader, if any. As a company is a juristic entity it is obvious that some
person has to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company. Order 29
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, provides that in a
suit by or against a corporation the Secretary or any Director or other
Principal Officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts
of the case might sign and verify on behalf of the company. Reading
Order 6 Rule 14 together with Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure it would appear that even in the absence of any formal
letter of authority or power of attorney having been executed a person
referred to in Rule 1 of Order 29 can, by virtue of the office which he
holds, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation. In
addition thereto and dehors Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, as a company is a juristic entity, it can duly authorise any
CS (Comm) No. 90/2026
Bank of Baroda Vs. Suman 8/16
-- 8 of 16 --
person to sign the plaint or the written statement on its behalf and this
would be regarded as sufficient compliance with the provisions of
Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A person may be
expressly authorised to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company,
for example by the Board of Directors passing a resolution to that
effect or by a power of attorney being executed in favour of any
individual. In absence thereof and in cases where pleadings have been
signed by one of its officers a corporation can ratify the said action of
its officer in signing the pleadings. Such ratification can be express or
implied. The court can, on the basis of the evidence on record, and
after taking all the circumstances of the case, specially with regard to
the conduct of the trial, come to the conclusion that the corporation
had ratified the act of signing of the pleading by its officer.
13. The court had to be satisfied that Shri L.K. Rohatgi could sign the
plaint on behalf of the appellant. The suit had been filed in the name
of the appellant company; full amount of court fee had been paid by
the appellant-Bank; documentary as well as oral evidence had been
led on behalf of the appellant and the trial of the suit before the Sub-
Judge, Ambala, had continued for about two years. It is difficult, in
these circumstances, even to presume that the suit had been filed and
tried without the appellant having authorised the institution of the
same. The only reasonable conclusion which we can come to is that
Shri L.K. Rohatgi must have been authorised to sign the plaint and, in
any case, it must be held that the appellant had ratified the action of
Shri L.K. Rohatgi in signing the plaint and thereafter it continued with
the suit.
14. A combined reading of abovesaid judgments made it clear that the
pleadings must be signed by authority mentioned under Order 29 Rule 1 of
CPC, or by authorized agent / representative. The authorization of any
representative may be in terms of Order 3 Rule 2 of CPC, or by a company
through Resolution of Board of Directors in terms of Section 291 of
Companies Act, 1956 (Corresponding section 179 of Companies Act,
2013). However, authority of any such person/s under Order 29 Rule 1 of
CPC to sign the pleadings must be proved through Article of Association or
Resolution of Board of Directors as held in
State Bank of Travancore v.
Kingston Computers (I) (P) Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 524 as under:
CS (Comm) No. 90/2026
Bank of Baroda Vs. Suman 9/16
-- 9 of 16 --
14. In our view, the judgment under challenge is liable to be set aside
because the respondent had not produced any evidence to prove that
Shri Ashok K. Shukla was appointed as a Director of the Company
and a resolution was passed by the Board of Directors of the
Company to file a suit against the appellant and authorised Shri Ashok
K. Shukla to do so. The letter of authority issued by Shri Raj K.
Shukla, who described himself as the Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, was nothing but a scrap of paper because no resolution was
passed by the Board of Directors delegating its powers to Shri Raj K.
Shukla to authorise another person to file a suit on behalf of the
Company.
13. The Division Bench of the High Court did take cognizance of the
fact that the Company had not summoned any witness from the office
of the Registrar of Companies to prove that Shri Ashok K. Shukla was
a Director of the Company and that the minute book of the Company
had not been produced to prove the appointment of Shri Ashok K.
Shukla as a Director, but reversed the finding of the trial court on
Issue 1 on the basis of the authority letter issued by Shri Raj K.
Shukla and resolutions dated 14-2-2001 and 19-4-2001, by which the
Board of Directors of the Company had authorised some persons to
operate the bank account.
15. In this case, this suit has been instituted on behalf of the plaintiff
bank by its Chief Manager, Mr. Amit Olhan, who has proved his authority
Ex.PW1/1 by which all Chief Managers were allowed to institute any suit
on behalf of the plaintiff bank. Defendant has not conducted any cross
examination of PW1 to dispute this authority to institute this suit,
accordingly, due institution of this suit on behalf of the plaintiff stands
proved.
16. PW1 Amit Ohlan has proved that the deceased Mukesh Dhawan
applied for cash credit facility and filed loan application Ex. PW1/2 and
cash credit limit was sanctioned vide sanction letter Ex. PW1/3 and the
deceased loanee executed various loan documents Ex. PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/7.
It is further proved the deceased failed to pay outstanding amount and
CS (Comm) No. 90/2026
Bank of Baroda Vs. Suman 10/16
-- 10 of 16 --
committed default and loan account was declared NPA and the plaintiff also
maintained statement of accounts of the deceased Ex.PW1/2, duly
supported by certificate Ex.PW1/3, which has proved outstanding liability
of the deceased.
17. However, the defendant has taken a plea that she was not aware
about loan liability of her husband and even also deceased also not left any
assets/ estate to pay this amount. Admittedly, this suit has been filed by the
plaintiff against the wife of the deceased for recovery of loan amount
advanced to her deceased husband, whereas successor / LRs of the
deceased loanee are not personally liable to bear liability of loanee and it
may be fastened only qua estate of the deceased. However, the plaintiff
claiming recovery against estate of the deceased has to prove that
successors / LRs succeeded estate to bear such loan liability of the
deceased. In this case, PW1 has duly admitted that he has not led any
evidence that the defendant succeeded estate of the deceased to bear his
loan liability.
18. In fact, the plaintiff was supposed to prove that the defendant
succeeded assets of the deceased Mukesh Dhawan, whereas neither the
plaint nor affidavit of PW1 Ex. PW1/A has any averment that the defendant
succeeded assets/ estate of her husband to fasten liability upon her to pay
loan amount. As such, there is no evidence that the defendant/ wife of the
deceased has succeeded his assets/estate, due to she is not liable to pay any
amount. Contrary to it, the defendant / DW1 has proved that she was not
aware that her husband ever availed any loan or executed loan documents
CS (Comm) No. 90/2026
Bank of Baroda Vs. Suman 11/16
-- 11 of 16 --
in favor of the plaintiff and rather she never shared any such information
with her during his lifetime.
19. Not only this, PW1 was pregnant when her husband / deceased
loanee expired and she has been residing at her parental home with her
minor children and also not keeping mentally well. She has proved her
treatment documents Ex.DW1/2, Ex.DW1/4 and Mark A, which have
proved that she is not mentally fit to understand proceedings or to respond
questions of the plaintiff. PW1 has also admitted that the bank has no
document that the defendant has knowledge of loan amount or that her
husband had knowledge that the defendant was not mentally fit.
20. After going through the testimonies of both parties, it is clear that the
plaintiff has failed to prove that the deceased Mukesh Dhawan left any
assets/ estate on her death to bear loan liability of the deceased by his LRs.
However, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that the deceased had share
in his parental properties, which are likely to be succeeded by the
defendant, due to the defendant is liable to pay suit amount. However,
Section 6 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 deals with future succession of
any property and has prescribed as under:
Section. 6. What may be transferred.—Property of any kind may be
transferred, except as otherwise provided by this Act or by any other
law for the time being in force,—
(a) The chance of an heir-apparent succeeding to an estate, the chance
of a relation obtaining a legacy on the death of a kinsman, or any other
mere possibility of a like nature, cannot be transferred;
CS (Comm) No. 90/2026
Bank of Baroda Vs. Suman 12/16
-- 12 of 16 --
(b) A mere right of re-entry for breach of a condition subsequent
cannot be transferred to anyone except the owner of the property
affected thereby;
(c) An easement cannot be transferred apart from the dominant
heritage;
(d) All interest in property restricted in its enjoyment to the owner
personally cannot be transferred by him;
(dd)A right to future maintenance, in whatsoever manner
arising, secured or determined, cannot be transferred;(e)A mere
right to sue cannot be transferred;
(f) A public office cannot be transferred, nor can the salary of a public
officer, whether before or after it has become payable;
(g) Stipends allowed to military-naval, air-force and civil pensioners
of the Government and political pensions cannot be transferred;
(h) No transfer can be made (1) in so far as it is opposed to the nature
of the interest affected thereby, or (2) for an unlawful object or
consideration within the meaning of section 23 of the Indian Contract
Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), or (3) to a person legally disqualified to be
transferee;
(i) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a tenant having
an untransferable right of occupancy, the farmer of an estate in respect
of which default has been made in paying revenue, or the lessee of an
estate, under the management of a Court of Wards, to assign his
interest as such tenant, farmer or lessee.
In view of abovesaid Section 6 (a) of the Act, it stands proved that neither
chances of success may be succeeded nor considered actual estate to fasten
liability of loan on this basis. Accordingly, the defendant cannot be made
liable to pay suit amount. Plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus to prove
this issue and issue no.1 is decided in favor of the plaintiff and against the
defendant.
CS (Comm) No. 90/2026
Bank of Baroda Vs. Suman 13/16
-- 13 of 16 --
21. Issues No. 2 and 3: The onus to prove both the issues was put upon
the plaintiff and to discharge the onus, the plaintiff has examined PW1,
who has deposed in verbatim of the plaint and has proved that the deceased
Mukesh Dhawan applied for overdraft facility of Rs. 11,40,000/- and same
sanctioned vide sanction letter Ex.PW1/3 and the deceased executed loan
documents Ex. PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/7. It is further proved that loan facility
was extended against rate of interest @ 12.40% per annum but the
deceased loanee failed to repay loan amount and loan account was declared
NPA. It is further deposed that the plaintiff served a legal notice upon the
defendant but the defendant failed to pay outstanding amount. However,
the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant succeeded assets/ estate
of her deceased husband to pay loan amount, due to she cannot be
compelled to pay outstanding amount. However, in this case, the plaintiff
has failed to prove that wife of deceased succeeded assets / estate of the
deceased to make her liable, accordingly, the plaintiff has failed to
discharge the onus to prove both the issues and both the issues are decided
against the plaintiff and in favor of defendant.
22. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I hereby
dismiss this suit. Parties shall bear their own cost. Decree sheet be prepared
accordingly.
23. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (DEVENDER KUMAR)
ON 16th day of September ,2026 District Judge (Commercial Court-01)
East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi	Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CS (Comm) No. 90/2026
Bank of Baroda Vs. Suman 14/16
-- 14 of 16 --
FORM ‘A’	FORM ‘A’
LIST OF WITNESSES	LIST OF WITNESSES
S. No. Name of Witness Whether witness of plaintiff or defendant
1. Mr. Amit Ohlan Witness of plaintiff
2. Mrs. Suman Witness of defendant
LIST OF DOCUMENTS OF PLAINTIFF	LIST OF DOCUMENTS OF PLAINTIFF
S. No. Exhibit / Mark Date of exhibit Description of Exhibit
1. Ex. PW1/1 09.07.2026 Copy of Board Resolution dated
13.08.2024.
2. Ex. PW1/2 09.07.2026 Loan application
3. Ex. PW1/3 09.07.2026 Copy of sanction letter
4. Ex. PW1/4 09.07.2026 Letter of Sole Proprietorship dated
15.06.2023
5. Ex. PW1/5 09.07.2026 Demand Promise Note of Rs.
11,40,000/- dated 15.06.2023
6. Ex. PW1/6 09.07.2026 Letter of continuity dated
15.06.2023
7. Ex. PW1/7 09.07.2026 Composit Deed of Hypothecation
dated 15.06.2023
8. Ex. PW1/8 09.07.2026 Legal notice
9. Ex. PW1/9 09.07.2026 Postal Receipt
CS (Comm) No. 90/2026
Bank of Baroda Vs. Suman 15/16
-- 15 of 16 --
10. Ex. PW1/10 09.07.2026 Copy of reply
11. Ex. PW1/11 09.07.2026 Non-Starter Report
12. Ex. PW1/12 09.07.2026 Account statement
13. Ex.. PW1/13 09.07.2026 Certificate U/s 63 of BSA
14. Ex. PW1/14 09.07.2026 Affidavit of order XI Rule 6 (3) of
Commercial Courts
LIST OF DOCUMENTS OF DEFENDANT	LIST OF DOCUMENTS OF DEFENDANT
S. No. Exhibit / Mark Date of exhibit Description of Exhibit
1. Ex. DW1/1 30.07.2026 Death Certificate of Shri Mukesh
Dhawan issued on 01.08.2025
2. Ex. DW1/2 30.07.2026 Death Certificate issued by G.B.
Pant Hospital
3. Ex. DW1/3 30.07.2026 Birth Certificate of Daughter of
defendant
4. Ex. DW1/4 30.07.2026 Discharge summary of defendant
dated 12.02.2026
5. Ex. DW1/5 30.07.2026 Reply of Legal notice
(DEVENDER KUMAR)
District Judge (Commercial Court-01)
East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi	Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CS (Comm) No. 90/2026
Bank of Baroda Vs. Suman 16/16
-- 16 of 16 --