Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: THE COURT OF MR. VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH
CIVIL JUDGE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, DELHI
CNR No. DLND03-000743-2026
CS SCJ 444/2026
In the matter of:-
HT MEDIA LTD.
18-20, Hindustan Times House
Kasturba Gandhi Marg
New Delhi-110001 . . .Plaintiff
Versus
RAJENDER PRASAD UPADHYAYA
PROPRIETOR OF M/S BRIJ LUX
ADVERTISING AGENCY
H-320, Vishwa Bank Colony Barra
Kanpur, U.P-208027
E-mail- sirupadhyay@gmail.com . . .Defendant
Date of Institution : 20.04.2026
Date of Reserving Judgment : 12.10.2026
Date of Judgment : 12.10.2026
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 1,98,301.20/- (RUPEES
ONE LAKH NINETY EIGHT THOUSAND THREE
HUNDRED ONE AND TWENTY PAISA ONLY)
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1. The present suit is filed for recovery of Rs.
1,98,301.20/- by the Plaintiff against the Defendant.
2. Brief facts as alleged by the Plaintiff are that the
Plaintiff is a Company duly registered under the Companies Act,
CS SCJ 444/2026 Page No.1/6
-- 1 of 8 --
1956, having its registered office at 18-20, Hindustan Times
House, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001, and is a
leading media house engaged in the delivery of media/content
and broadcasting of FM Radio Channels under the names
“FEVER FM”, “PUNJABI FEVER” and “RADIO NASHA”. Mr.
Ajay Kumar Singh is authorised to represent the Plaintiff
pursuant to the Board Resolution dated 02.08.2022 and Power of
Attorney executed in his favour.
3. That the Defendant, to the best of the Plaintiff’s
knowledge, is the proprietor of M/s Brij Lux Advertising Agency
and is engaged in the business of advertisements.
4. That the Defendant, in the ordinary course of
business, approached the Plaintiff expressing its desire to
broadcast advertisements on the Plaintiff’s FM Radio Channels
and requested the Plaintiff to provide services against release
orders issued by it, while assuring timely payment of invoices
raised in accordance with the agreed terms and conditions.
5. That the agreed invoice terms and conditions
stipulated that payments be made within 60 days from the
invoice date, unless otherwise agreed in writing, failing which
interest at 18% per annum would be payable; payments were to
be made in favour of HT Media Limited, and all disputes were
subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of courts at Delhi.
CS SCJ 444/2026 Page No.2/6
-- 2 of 8 --
6. That pursuant to the Defendant’s request, the
Defendant issued Release Order No. 77 dated 13.06.2024 for
broadcasting advertisements on the Plaintiff’s radio stations.
7. That relying upon the Defendant’s representations,
the Plaintiff duly provided the agreed services, which were
availed by the Defendant without protest or demur, and raised the
following invoices against Release Order No. 77 dated
13.06.2024: Invoice Nos. 4020019909, 4020019910 and
4020019911, all dated 30.06.2024, for Rs. 24,072/-, Rs. 24,072/-
and Rs. 15,576/-, respectively; and Invoice Nos. 4020020323,
4020020324 and 4020020325, all dated 31.07.2024, for Rs.
42,480/-, Rs. 42,409.20/- and Rs. 42,480/-, respectively,
aggregating to Rs. 1,91,089.20/-.
8. That, as per the Plaintiff’s accounting practice, on-
account payments received from the Defendant are adjusted
against the last unpaid invoices in the ledger, unless otherwise
specified.
9. That as per the Plaintiff’s books of account, an
amount of Rs. 1,61,089.20/- remained outstanding as on
19.12.2024 after adjustment of part-payments of Rs. 15,000/-
each received from the Defendant on 13.12.2024 and 19.12.2024.
10. That despite repeated reminders and assurances, the
Defendant failed to clear the outstanding amount, compelling the
CS SCJ 444/2026 Page No.3/6
-- 3 of 8 --
Plaintiff to issue a Legal Notice dated 28.10.2025 through its
counsel by Speed Post and email, which was duly served upon
the Defendant.
11. That the Defendant is liable to pay Rs. 1,98,301.20/-
as on 31.03.2026, comprising principal outstanding of Rs.
1,61,089.20/- and interest of Rs. 37,212/- calculated at 18% per
annum from 19.12.2024 till 31.03.2026. Although interest is
contractually payable from the respective invoice due dates, the
Plaintiff has restricted its claim to interest from the date of the
last part-payment received, stated as 19.02.2024, and is also
entitled to pendente lite and future interest.
12. Summons was served upon Defendant on
24.04.2026, however, Defendant failed to appear before the
Court. Hence, Defendant was proceeded ex-parte on 17.08.2026.
13. Thereafter, matter was fixed for ex-parte evidence.
AR of the Plaintiff Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh examined himself as
PW-1, filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and
relied upon the documents as under:
Sl
No.
Documents Exhibit/ Mark
1. Power of attorney daated
01.04.2025 along with board
resolution dated 18.06.2021
Ex. PW1/1
(OSR)(At page
no. 20-22)
2. Copy of Incorporation certificate of
Plainitff company
Ex. PW1/2
(At page no.
19)
CS SCJ 444/2026 Page No.4/6
-- 4 of 8 --
3. Proof of Defendant being
proprietor of the said prorietorship
concern as is available on GST
website.
Ex. PW1/3 (At
page no. 23-
25)
4. Digital copy of Release order no.
77 dated 13.06.2024.
Ex. PW1/4 (At
page no. 26)
5. Digital copy of Invoice no.
4020019909 dated 30.06.2024
along with its broadcasting
certifacate.
Ex. PW1/5
(Colly)(At
page no. 27-
33)
6. Digital copy of Invoice no.
4020019910 dated 30.06.2024
along with its broadcasting
certifacate.
Ex. PW1/6
(Colly)(At
page no. 34-
40)
7. Digital copy of Invoice no.
4020019911 dated 30.06.2024
along with its broadcasting
certifacate.
Ex. PW1/7
(Colly)(At
page no. 41-
45)
8. Digital copy of Invoice no.
4020020323 dated 31.07.2024
along with its broadcasting
certifacate.
Ex. PW1/8
(Colly)(At
page no. 46-
55)
9. Digital copy of Invoice no.
4020020324 dated 31.07.2024
along with its broadcasting
certifacate.
Ex. PW1/ 9
(Colly)(At
page no. 56-
65)
10. Digital copy of Invoice no.
4020020325 dated 31.07.2024
along with its broadcasting
certifacate.
Ex. PW1/10
(Colly)(At
page no. 66-
75)
11. True copy of the account statement
of the Plaintiff company.
Ex. PW1/11
(At page no.
76)
12. Office copy of the legal notice
dated 28.10.2025 along with copy
of postal receipt.
Ex. PW1/12
(Colly) (At
page no. 77-
80)
13. Certificate u/s 63, BSA, 2023. Ex. PW1/13
(At page no.
CS SCJ 444/2026 Page No.5/6
-- 5 of 8 --
81-86)
14. No other witness was sought to be summoned or
examined by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, ex-parte evidence was
closed.
15. Final arguments were heard. Learned Counsel for
the Plaintiff has argued that the Plaintiff has by its evidence
proved its case.
16. I have perused the record in light of the arguments
advanced.
17. The present suit is well within the stipulated time of
limitation. Further, since all transactions occurred is maintained
in New Delhi, this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to decide
the present case. Since the amount claimed is less than
Rs.3,00,000/-, this Court also has the pecuniary jurisdiction to
hear this case.
18. AR of the Plaintiff has tendered in his evidence as
PW-1, the relevant documents i.e. Release Order, Invoices and
statement of account, clearly establishing the commercial
relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, evidencing
the transaction as claimed. However, neither the witness was
cross-examined nor any other evidence was led on behalf of the
Defendant who was proceeded ex-parte. Hence, this Court has
CS SCJ 444/2026 Page No.6/6
-- 6 of 8 --
no reason to disbelieve the assertions of the Plaintiff, which
leads to a necessary inference that Defendant has failed to make
the payment owed to the Plaintiff.
19. Keeping in view the unrebutted testimony of PW-1
and documents relied upon, it can be said that the Plaintiff has
duly established its case that Defendant has unlawfully withheld
the amount due to the Plaintiff, which it is liable to pay.
20. As per the case of the Plaintiff, the Defendant is
liable to pay Rs. 1,98,301.20/- as on 31.03.2026, comprising Rs.
1,61,089.20/- towards the principal outstanding amount and Rs.
37,212/- towards interest calculated at 18% per annum, along
with pendente lite and future interest, on account of unpaid
invoices raised for advertising and broadcasting services duly
provided by the Plaintiff.
21. The Plaintiff cannot be allowed to charge such an
exorbitant rate of interest from the Defendant, even if, there was
a contract between the parties to this effect. The Plaintiff can be
allowed to charge reasonable interest, whether in the form of
penal interest or the normal interest and the charging of
unnecessary interest and other charges are totally contrary to the
public policy and the same is also against the well settled
principles, as postulated in Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment of
the Hon’ble Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
the case of Pt. Munshi Ram & Associates (P) Ltd. vs DDA,
2010 SCC Online Del 2444 that higher rates of interest, which
CS SCJ 444/2026 Page No.7/6
-- 7 of 8 --
are against public policy, can be struck down by the Court by
finding such rates of interest to be against the public policy. Any
contract, which is against the public policy, is void, as per
Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
22. The suit of the Plaintiff is thus decreed for an
amount of Rs. 1,98,301.20/-, with pendente lite rate of simple
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till
the date of decree, and future interest @ 6% per annum from
date of decree till the date of realisation of the decretal amount.
23. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be
consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Pronounced by me in the Open
Court on 12.10.2026.
Due to DSC having expired,
judgment is not digitally signed.
(VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH)
Civil Judge, Patiala House Courts
New Delhi District, Delhi
CS SCJ 444/2026 Page No.8/6
-- 8 of 8 --