Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS (Comm.): 588/2024
Page 1
of 13
IN THE COURT OF
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) No.: 588/2024
CNR No. DLND01-0088232023
IN THE MATTER OF:-
M/S MUKUL GUPTA MARKETING PVT. LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:-
UNIT NO. 204-205, S/F PP TRADE CENTRE, PLOT NO.P-1,
NETAJI SUBHASH PALACE, PITAMPURA, DELHI110034
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, MR.
SARVESH SHARMA
......PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/S SINWOO PACK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
CIN NO. U36912DL2012FTC245797
GSTIN/UIN 09AASCS3543D1Z4
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:-
305, NIRMAL TOWER, 26B K TOWER, NEW DELHI.
ALSO, AT:-
B-12,GATE NO.5, NORTHN BLOCK HOSIERY COMPLEX
PHASE II, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA 201305.
......DEFENDANT
Date of institution of suit : 24.07.2024
Date of reserving judgment : 19.08.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 19.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the present suit for
-- 1 of 13 --
CS (Comm.): 588/2024
Page 2
of 13
recovery of Rs. 36,25,351
/- along with interest and costs,
filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. The case of the plaintiff, as culled out from the plaint and
the documents filed therewith, are as under:-
(i.) The plaintiff is a duly incorporated pvt. Ltd.
company incorporated under the companies Act,
2013, having its registered office at Unit No. 204-
205, S/F P. P.Trade Centre, Plot No.P-1 Netaji
Subhash Palace, Pitam Pura, Delhi 110034. It is a
company being driven by its three directors namely
Sh. Mukul Gupta, Smt. Shalini Gupta and Sh.
Sanchit Gupta and is engaged in the business of
trading of papers and boards and use to supply the
same in Delhi and outside Delhi. The present suit
has been filed through Sh. Sarvesh Sharma, who is
Authorized Representative of the plaintiff company
to file the present suit.
(ii.) The defendant is a Pvt. limited company & is
classified as subsidiary of foreign company,
registered at ROC, Delhi, engaged in
supply/manufacturing, importing & exporting Rigid
box, Gift boxes & mono cartoons etc. registered at
Delhi ROC, which has been run and operated and
managed by its directors and Sh. Ranjan Madhotra
(Sales & Marketing Manager-Noida Branch),
Deepanshu Kapoor (Company Secretary), Sh.
Sashanka Sekhar Nayak, (Accounts head), Sh.
-- 2 of 13 --
CS (Comm.): 588/2024
Page 3
of 13
Mahadev(Purchase head).
(iii.) It is the case of the plaintiff that willingness to do
the business was considered by both the plaintiff(s)
and defendant(s) in or about 2022, November to
purchase the Paper & Board was considered by the
plaintiff and the matter was mutually discussed and
deliberated by the parties herein where the parties
herein mutually settled certain terms regulating the
supply.
(iv.) It is further the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff
company always and regularly maintains its
accounts in due course of business and at all times
and raise the invoices as and when the supply of
Paper & Board by the plaintiff as per the
specifications by the defendant(s). The defendant
during the commercial relationship, had placed
several purchase orders with the plaintiff for the
supply of Paper & Board. In accomplishment, the
plaintiff company had supplied & shipped the
required Raw material/goods exactly as per the
demand, specifications and instructions and to the
satisfaction of the defendant.
(v.) It is further the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff
company had been honoring the purchase orders
and instructions as received from the Defendant
telephonically or otherwise and had been supplying
the required material on credit basis & the
defendant also paid the invoiced amount although a
-- 3 of 13 --
CS (Comm.): 588/2024
Page 4
of 13
little late but when the defendants started delaying
the payment more than the sufficient time, the
plaintiff company tried to solve the issue but all in
vain. Finally the defendant stopped giving payment.
The plaintiff after too many reminders
telephonically and otherwise, is filing the present
Suit on the basis of under mentioned unpaid/partly
paid invoices:
1. Invoice no. MGM/7128/2022-23, dated 25-01-
2023 and the material comprising "4,270
kilograms of Grey Board" as per advice by the
Defendant, was shipped to Noida and billed to
Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The price of the material
so supplied amounting to Rs. 2,76,181/- though
was to be paid by 26-03-2023. The defendant had
made part payment of Rs 5,591/- leaving a
balance of Rs 2,70,590/- which amount has not
been paid by the defendant.
2. Invoice no. MGM/7201/2022-23, dated 28-01-
2023 and the material comprising "7,930.00
kilograms of White Board" as per advice by the
Defendant, was shipped to Noida, Uttar Pradesh
and billed to Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The price of
the material so supplied amounting to Rs.
5,83,968/- though was to be paid by 29-03-2023.
3. Invoice no. MGM/7211/2022-23, dated 30-01-
2023 and the material comprising "3,090.00
kilograms of White Board". The price of the
-- 4 of 13 --
CS (Comm.): 588/2024
Page 5
of 13
material so supplied amounting to Rs. 2,27,640/-
though was to be paid by 31-03 -2023.
4. Invoice no. MGM/7265/2022-23, dated 31-01-
2023 and the material comprising "3,630.00
kilograms of Grey Board". The price of the
material so supplied amounting to Rs. 2,48,629./-
though was to be paid by 01-04-2023.
5. Invoice no. MGM/7287/2022-23, dated 01-02-
2023 and the material comprising "7,730.00
kilograms of White Board". The price of the
material so supplied amounting to Rs. 5,69,240/-
though was to be paid by 02-04 -2023.
6. Invoice no. MGM/7422/2022-23, dated 06-02-
2023 and the material comprising "3,100.00
kilograms of Grey Board". The price of the
material so supplied amounting to Rs.2,00,508/-
though was to be paid by 07-04-2023.
7. Invoice no. MGM/7465/2022-23, dated 06-02-
2023 and the material comprising "4,130.00
kilograms of Grey Board". The price of the
material so supplied amounting to Rs. 2,67,131/-
though was to be paid by 07-04 -2023.
8. Invoice no. MGM/7663/2022-23, dated 11-02-
2023 and the material comprising "3,930.00
kilograms of Grey Board". The price of the
material so supplied amounting to Rs. 2,54,193/-
though was to be paid by 12-04-2023.
-- 5 of 13 --
CS (Comm.): 588/2024
Page 6
of 13
(vi.) It is further the case of the plaintiff that to discharge
of the partial liability, the defendant company
issued two cheques bearing no. 000872 and bearing
no. 000873 dated 05-03-2024 and 05.04.2023
worth Rs 10,00,000/- and on presentation of the
said cheques, same were returned unclear along
with the memos.
(vii.) It is further the case of the plaintiff that in view of
default and inordinate delay in payments as
mentioned above, the interest charged @ 24% p.a
for the delayed period (from the due date for
payment when not paid by the defendant till 16-06-
2024) is amounting to Rs.10,03,452/- and this
amount has to be paid by defendant in addition to
the principal amount being the contractual rate of
interest charged by the Plaintiff Company as per the
terms and conditions laid down in the foot of
respective invoices. It is claimed that the defendant
did not pay the outstanding amount of Rs.
26,21,899/-and the interest on pending amount at
the rate of 24% p.a. being contractual obligation on
the defendant, the debit note raised by the Plaintiff
Company being Jrnl(interest 1) on 17-04-24 for an
amount of Rs. 10,03,452/ is the interest calculated
as per the contractual rate of interest provided at the
foot of each invoice. It is stated that an amount of
Rs 5,591/- has already been recovered out of
2,76,181/-being invoice dated 25-01-23. Therefore,
defendant is thus, yet to pay an outstanding balance
-- 6 of 13 --
CS (Comm.): 588/2024
Page 7
of 13
of Rs 36,25,351/- along with the interest at the rate
of 24% per annum being the contractual rate of
interest mentioned at the foot of each invoice.
(viii.) It is further the case of the plaintiff that the
plaintiff instituted Pre-Litigation Mediation before
Delhi Legal Services Authority, Patiala House
Courts, New Delhi. However, the defendant did not
appear in the said proceedings and consequently,
Non Starter Report dated 05.06.2024 was issued by
the concerned Authority. Thereafter, the present
suit came to be instituted.
3. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant. The
defendant was duly served with the summons on
22.08.2024 sent through e-mail. However, the defendant
failed to appear and file the written statement despite
service and consequently, the right to file written statement
was forfeited vide order dated 14.01.2025 and later
defendant was proceeded against
ex-parte, vide order dated
22.04.2025.
4. In support of its case, the plaintiff has examined its AR
namely Sh. Kaushal Kumar as PW1, who has deposed on
the lines of the averments made in the plaint. He also
relied upon/proved the following documents:-
Srl.no Document/Particulars Exhibit(s)
1. Master date of plaintiff company. Ex. PW1/1
2. GST registration certificate of
defendant.
Ex. PW1/2
-- 7 of 13 --
CS (Comm.): 588/2024
Page 8
of 13
Srl.no Document/Particulars Exhibit(s)
3. Master data of defendant. Ex. PW1/3
4. Board Resolution. Ex. PW1/4
5. Invoice alongwith e-way bill
dated 25.01.2023.
Ex. PW1/5
(Colly)
6. Invoice alongwith E-way bill
dated 28.01.2023.
Ex. PW1/6
(Colly)
7. Invoice alongwith E-way bill
dated 30.01.2023.
Ex. PW1/7
(Colly)
8. Invoice alongwith E-way bill
dated 30.01.2023.
Ex. PW1/8
(Colly)
9. Invoice alongwith E-way bill
dated 01.02.2023.
Ex. PW1/9
(Colly)
10. Invoice alongwith E-way bill
dated 06.02.2023.
Ex. PW 1/10
(Colly)
11. Invoice alongwith E-way bill
dated 06.02.2023.
Ex. PW1/11
(Colly)
12. Invoice alongwith E-way bill
dated 11.02.2023.
Ex. PW1/12
(Colly)
13. The cheque no. 000872
alongwith memo.
Ex. PW1/13
(Colly)
14. The cheque no. 000873
alongwith memo.
Ex. PW1/14
(Colly)
15. Office copy of demand notice
alongwith tracking receipt.
Ex. PW1/15
(Colly)
16. Copy of ledger accounts for the
period 04.11.2022 to 17.04.2022.
Ex. PW1/16
(Colly)
17. Non Starter Report. Ex. PW1/17
18. Paid invoices alongwith e-way
bills.
Ex. PW1/18
(Colly)
19. Affidavit under Order XI Rule 6
(3) CPC.
Ex. PW1/19
20. Debit note. Ex. PW1/20.
5. I have already heard, Ld. Counsel of plaintiff and perused
the record.
LIMITATION:
-- 8 of 13 --
CS (Comm.): 588/2024
Page 9
of 13
6. Firstly, I shall deal with the issue as to whether or not the
present suit is instituted within the period of limitation. In
this regard, while referring to the relevant documents, Ld.
Counsel of the plaintiff submitted that the suit is well
within the period of limitation as the first invoice against
which the amount is outstanding, was issued by plaintiff to
the defendants on 25.01.2023, as reflected in Ex. PW1/5
and remaining invoices were also issued thereafter.
Therefore, it is claimed that since the suit was filed on
24.07.2024, the same is well within the period of
limitation.
7. This is a suit for recovery of money and limitation is 3
years from the date when the cause of action arises. As per
invoices, which are duly proved by PW1, the plaintiff
supplied goods to the defendant from time to time against
the aforesaid invoices out of which the first invoice was
issued to the defendant on 25.01.2023. Since, the present
suit was filed on 24.07.2024, therefore, the Court is in
agreement with Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the
present suit is within the prescribed period of limitation.
JURISDICTION:
8. Ld. Counsel of plaintiff submitted that defendant’s place of
business falls at Nirmal Tower, 26B K Tower, New Delhi
-110001 within the jurisdiction of this Court. She further
argued that Invoices raised by the plaintiff upon the
defendant clearly stipulate that ‘
Any dispute subject to the
Delhi Jurisdiction only ’. She, therefore, submitted that this
Court has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the
present suit.
-- 9 of 13 --
CS (Comm.): 588/2024
Page 10
of 13
9. The PW1 has also deposed on the identical lines during his
chief examination by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A). As
already noted above, the entire testimony of said witness
has gone unchallenged and unrebutted from the side of
defendant, who preferred not to appear and cross examine
the said witness examined on behalf of plaintiff company.
Moreover, the defendant was under an obligation to make
the payment to the plaintiff in pursuant to the principle of
‘
debtor must seek creditor’. Hence, this Court has
territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute involved in
the present suit.
10. Since the suit amount is above specified value i.e. Rs.3
lacs, as prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act,
2015, the Court has also pecuniary jurisdiction to
adjudicate the suit.
ENTITLEMENT:
11. Ld. Counsel of plaintiff has argued that the entire
testimony of PW-1 has remained unchallenged and
unrebutted from the side of defendant and therefore, the
plaintiff is entitled to the decree, as prayed for. She also
referred to the relevant documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex.
PW1/20, in order to bring home his point that these
documents clearly prove that the suit amount of
Rs.36,25,381/- was due towards defendant at the time of
filing of the suit. She, therefore, prayed that the suit may
be decreed.
12. As already noted above, there is no challenge to the case of
the plaintiff from the side of defendant, which preferred
-- 10 of 13 --
CS (Comm.): 588/2024
Page 11
of 13
not to appear and contest the present suit despite being
duly served. The averments made by PW1 on oath are duly
supported by the relevant documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex.
PW1/20, as already referred to herein above. Even
otherwise, nothing contrary to the case of plaintiff has
been brought on record. Hence, there is no reason to
disbelieve such testimony made on oath.
13. From the unchallenged and uncontroverted testimony of
PW-1 coupled with documents proved during the course of
evidence, it is duly established on record that the plaintiff
had supplied the goods to the defendant as per its
requirements and raised invoices which were duly received
and acknowledged by the defendant and despite having
received the goods against said invoices, the defendant
failed and neglected to pay the balance outstanding amount
of Rs.36,25,351/- as reflected in the ledger account Ex.
PW1/16. Therefore, the Court is of the view that the
plaintiff is entitled to recover the said amount from the
defendant.
INTEREST:
14. The plaintiff has claimed interest @ 24% p.a on the
delayed payment from the due date of each invoices. Ld.
Counsel for plaintiff has drawn attention of the Court to
the relevant clause of the invoices issued by plaintiff upon
defendant, which clearly provide that ‘
interest will be
charged @24% p.a. if payment is not received upon
presentation of bill’. He also argued that as per general
market practice, defendant is liable to pay interest @ 24%
-- 11 of 13 --
CS (Comm.): 588/2024
Page 12
of 13
per annum on the delayed payment.
15. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances of
the case, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is
entitled to recover interest @ 24% per annum as claimed
by it, the transactions between the parties being
commercial in nature.
16. The plaintiff has also claimed
pendente-lite and future
interest @ 24% p.a. However, Court is of the view that
same is on higher side. Interest of justice would be met by
awarding interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing
of the suit till the date of its realization. It is so directed
accordingly.
RELIEF:
17. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, Court is of the view
that the plaintiff has been able to prove its case on the
basis of preponderance of probability. Thus, the suit is
decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and
the following reliefs are granted:-
(i.)
The plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 36,25,351/-
(Rupees Thirty Six Lacs, Twenty Five Thousand ,
Three Hundred and Fifty one only);
(ii.)
Pendente Lite and Future interest is awarded @6%
per annum in favour of plaintiff from the filing of
the suit till the date of its realization.
(iii.)
Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the
plaintiff.
-- 12 of 13 --
CS (Comm.): 588/2024
Page 13
of 13
18. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
19. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Announced in the open court
on this 19th Day of August, 2025.
(BALWANT RAI BANSAL)
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
-- 13 of 13 --