Final Order 8

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. DLND03-000828-2025
CS No. 470/2025
In the matter of:-
CHHABRA STEEL CORPORATION
Vijay Chhabra, Properitor
M/s Chhabra Steel Corporation
At:- Y-123, Loha Mandi
Naraina, New Delhi-110028
Through SPA holder
Sh. Ashwani Sehgal . . .Plaintiff
Versus
SEIKHO INDUSTRIES
At:- RZ/R-1, Nangloi
50 Futa Road, Nihal Vihar
Opposite Daler Mehendi
Farm House, Delhi
Mobile No:-9871013131, 8447105965
Also At:-
H.No. 125, Sultanpuri Majra
Opposite Mother Dairy, New Delhi . . .Defendant
Date of Institution : 06.05.2025
Date of Reserving Judgment : 30.07.2026
Date of Judgment : 30.07.2026
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 1,46,265/- (RUPEES ONE
LAKH FORTY SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SIXTY
FIVE ONLY)
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1. The present suit is filed for recovery of Rs.
CS No. 470/2025
Chhabra Steel Corporation v. Seikho Industries 1/8
-- 1 of 8 --
1,46,265/- by the Plaintiff against the Defendant.
2. Brief facts as alleged by the Plaintiff are that the
Plaintiff is a proprietorship firm represented through its
Manager/SPA Holder Sh. Ashwani Sehgal, who looks after the
day-to-day affairs of the firm and has personal knowledge of the
present dispute. The Special Power of Attorney has been
executed by the proprietor Sh. Vijay Kumar Chhabra, who is
unable to see properly. The Plaintiff has been dealing in coil
sheets for many years and has earned a good reputation in the
market.
3. That the Plaintiff and the Defendant had business
relations for the past few years, under which the Plaintiff
supplied coil sheets to the Defendant.
4. That it was agreed that the Defendant would make
payment in two equal installments, i.e., 50% through
NEFT/RTGS at the time of delivery of goods and the remaining
50% through cheque.
5. That owing to the long-standing business relations,
the Plaintiff reposed faith and trust in the Defendant.
6. That during the course of business, the Plaintiff
supplied steel coil sheets measuring 2.185 MT worth
CS No. 470/2025
Chhabra Steel Corporation v. Seikho Industries 2/8
-- 2 of 8 --
Rs.1,57,265/- to the Defendant against Invoice No. 447/23-24
dated 17.02.2024 through transportation, and duly deposited the
applicable GST.
7. That towards partial discharge of the outstanding
liability, the Defendant issued Cheque No. 721097 dated
07.03.2024 for Rs.78,632/-, but the Plaintiff found that the
cheque could not be presented due to overwriting and informed
the Defendant accordingly.
8. That the Defendant requested the Plaintiff not to
present the cheque and assured that payment would instead be
made through RTGS/NEFT, whereupon the Plaintiff relied upon
such assurance and granted further time for payment.
9. That despite repeated requests and reminders, the
Defendant failed to clear the outstanding amount and ultimately
made only a part payment of Rs.11,000/- through electronic
mode on 30.10.2024, leaving an outstanding balance of
Rs.1,46,265/-.
10. That the Plaintiff repeatedly demanded payment
through WhatsApp messages sent by its Manager/SPA Holder
and text messages sent by its proprietor on 24.09.2024 at 06:37
p.m., 11.11.2024 at 12:15 p.m. and 27.12.2024 at 02:54 p.m., but
the Defendant failed to make payment.
CS No. 470/2025
Chhabra Steel Corporation v. Seikho Industries 3/8
-- 3 of 8 --
11. That as per the running account maintained by the
Plaintiff, a sum of Rs.1,46,265/- remained due and payable by the
Defendant as on 31.10.2024.
12. That the Plaintiff thereafter sent a legal demand
notice through counsel to the Defendant, which was returned
unserved.
13. Summons was served upon Defendant on
18.07.2025 through WhatsApp, however, Defendant failed to
appear before the Court. Hence, Defendant was proceeded ex-
parte on 13.10.2025.
14. Thereafter, matter was fixed for ex-parte evidence.
AR of the Plaintiff Mr. Ashwani Sehgal 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. SPA dated 22.04.2025. Ex. PW1/1
(At page no.
14 and 15)
2. Adhaar Card of the Plaintiff Ex. PW1/2 (At
page no. 16)
3. Adhaar Card of AR/SPA holder Ex. PW1/3 (At
page no. 17)
4. Tax invoice dated 17.02.2024 Ex. PW1/4 (At
page no. 18)
5. E-way bill dated 17.02.2024 Ex. PW1/5 (At
page no. 19)
CS No. 470/2025
Chhabra Steel Corporation v. Seikho Industries 4/8
-- 4 of 8 --
6. GST receipt Ex. PW1/6 (At
page no. 20)
7. Original cheque dated 07.03.2024 Ex. PW1/7 (At
page no. 21)
8. Copy of the printouts of WhatsApp
chats between the AR/SPA holder
and the Defendant.
Ex. PW1/8 (At
page no. 22 to
24)
9. Photographs of the text messages
sent by the proprietor of the
Plaintiff to the Defendant.
Ex. PW1/9 (At
page no. 25 to
27)
10. The leger account mentain by the
Plaintiff for the period of
01.010.2024 to 31.03.2025,
01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024 and
01.01.2023 to 31.03.2023.
Ex. PW1/10
(Colly) (At
page no. 28 to
30)
11. The legal demand notice dated
30.01.2025
Ex. PW1/11
(At page no.
31 to 34)
12. The original postal receipts. Ex. PW1/12
(At page no.
35)
13. Tracking report of legal notice on
both the addresses
Ex. PW1/13
(Colly) (At
page no. 36 to
39)
14. The return envelopes. Ex. PW1/14
(Colly) (At
page no. 40 to
43)
15. Certificate under Section 63 BSA,
2023
Ex. PW1/14
(At page no.
44 and 45)
15. No other witness was sought to be summoned or
examined by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, ex-parte evidence was
closed.
CS No. 470/2025
Chhabra Steel Corporation v. Seikho Industries 5/8
-- 5 of 8 --
16. Final arguments were heard at length. The Learned
Counsel for the Plaintiff has argued that the Plaintiff has by its
evidence proved its case.
17. I have perused the record in light of the arguments
advanced.
18. The present suit is well within the stipulated time of
limitation. Further, since the invoices were raised in Naraina, 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.
19. AR of the Plaintiff has tendered in his evidence as
PW-1, the relevant documents i.e. tax invoice, e-way bill, GST
receipt, ledger and e-mails, 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 due to non-appearance.
Hence, this Court has 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 along with
the interest that accrued thereon.
CS No. 470/2025
Chhabra Steel Corporation v. Seikho Industries 6/8
-- 6 of 8 --
20. 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 they are liable to pay
jointly and severally.
21. As per the case of the Plaintiff, goods were supplied
to the Defendant and the outstanding principal amount was Rs.
1,46,265/- after deducting the part payment. Over and above
this, Plaintiff seeks pendente lite and future interest @ 15% p.a.
from the filing of suit till realization.
22. 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
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.
CS No. 470/2025
Chhabra Steel Corporation v. Seikho Industries 7/8
-- 7 of 8 --
23. The suit of the Plaintiff is thus decreed in its favour
and against the Defendant for an amount of Rs. 1,46,265/- 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
@ 4% per annum from date of decree till the date of realization
of the decretal amount.
24. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be
consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Pronounced by me in the Open
Court on 30.07.2025.
(VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH)
Civil Judge, Patiala House Courts
New Delhi District, Delhi
CS No. 470/2025
Chhabra Steel Corporation v. Seikho Industries 8/8
-- 8 of 8 --