Final Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: CS (Comm) No. 90/24 Neeraj Mohan Vs. Dipti Gupta Page No. 1of 7
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-01)
NORTH DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
CS (Comm) No.: 90/24
CNR No. DLNT010022372024
NEERAJ MOHAN PROPRIETOR OF
M/S AMRIT TRADERS
O/N: 266, SECTOR-1, DSIIDC BAWANA INDUSTRIAL
AREA, DELHI-110039
….Plaintiff
Versus
DIPTI GUPTA PROPRIETOR OF
M/S. S.R. TRADERS, E-204, SECTOR-2, BAWANA
INDUSTRIAL AREA, DELHI-110039
…. Defendant
Date of Institution : 16.02.2024
Date on which arguments were concluded : 09.06.2026
Date of pronouncement of order : 09.06.2026
JUDGMENT:-
1. Facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the proprietor of
M/s Amrit Traders, which is carrying on the business of
manufacturing of all kinds of corrugated paper roll items in Delhi
duly registered with the GST department vide GST
registration No.07AAYPM9755EIZX. It is stated that in
December 2020, defendant had approached plaintiff
to purchase the goods manufactured by plaintiff and
defendant showed it to be one of the biggest trader and lured
-- 1 of 7 --
CS (Comm) No. 90/24 Neeraj Mohan Vs. Dipti Gupta Page No. 2of 7
plaintiff that the defendant will regularly purchase the huge
quantity of goods and will make all the payments in time.
It is further stated that accordingly defendant placed order
to plaintiff and plaintiff started supplying material to the
defendant from 10.12.2020 as per defendant’s order and
requirement through his agent/authorized transporter, who used
to pick the goods from the premises of plaintiff. The plaintiff
started maintaining the running account/statement of account of
business transaction with the defendant. Since then the plaintiff
and defendant have entered into several business transaction.
It is further stated that the plaintiff and defendant have
good mercantile relations as being traders since 10.12.2020 for
all of the commercial transaction between the Plaintiff
and defendant. However, the defendant had failed to liquidate
his financial liability, as shown outstanding dues of Rs.
13,98,177/- in the books of plaintiff and as such, the plaintiff
had calculated interest upon principal amount i.e Rs. 13,98,177/-
@ 18% Per annum (Contractual rate of interest) w.e.f 27.12.2022
to 27.01.2024 (13 months),which comes out to Rs.2,72,644/-. But
the defendant despite various demands / reminders made by
plaintiff, failed to discharge his legal liability. The plaintiff
issued a legal demand notice dated 28.10.2023 through his
advocate, which was duly delivered to the defendant but the
defendant neither sent any reply nor discharged his legal liability.
-- 2 of 7 --
CS (Comm) No. 90/24 Neeraj Mohan Vs. Dipti Gupta Page No. 3of 7
Thereafter, the plaintiff filed pre-institution mediation
application on 08.12.2023 before District Legal Aid Services
Authority North District Rohini, Delhi. But the mediation was
not successful and hence, non-starter report was issued by the
District Legal Aid Services Authority North District Rohini on
25.01.2024. Hence the present ordinary suit for recovery of Rs.
16,70,821/- with pendent-lite and future interest and cost, has
been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. After filing of the suit, summons of the suit were
issued to the defendant. Summons were duly served through
e-mode on whatsapp and email on 29.04.2025. But none
appeared on behalf of defendant nor any written statement has
been filed. Hence, defendant was proceeded ex-parte on
29.07.2025. The following notional issues were framed as under:
i
Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the
suit amount? OPP
ii
Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest? If yes, at
what rate and for what period? OPP
iii
Relief.
3. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined
himself, being proprietor, as PW1. The PW 1 has reiterated in his
evidence the contents of the plaint, filed through affidavit Ex.
PW1/A. The PW 1 has relied upon relevant documents Ex. PW
1/1 to Ex. PW1/6.
-- 3 of 7 --
CS (Comm) No. 90/24 Neeraj Mohan Vs. Dipti Gupta Page No. 4of 7
The plaintiff has also examined PW2 Sh. Akash
Yadav, Statistical Assistant, Vyapar Bhawan, I.P. Estate,
Government of NCT of Delhi, Department of Trade and Taxes,
who has produced the GSTR-1 of Amrit Traders having GST No.
07AAYPM9755E1ZX and GSTR-2A and GSTR-2B of SR
Traders having GST No. 07BDWPG3837P1ZO and proved the
same as Ex. PW2/1.
4. I have heard arguments of Ld Counsel for the plaintiff
in ex-parte and considered the arguments. I have also perused the
record.
5. PW 1 Sh. Neeraj Mohan has relied upon and proved
the following documents in support of his case :
(i). Copy of Statement of Account is now exhibited as Ex. PW
1/1;
(ii). Copy of the Bills which are now exhibited as Ex. PW 1/2
(colly);
(iii). Copy of Legal Notice dated 28.10.2023 along with original
postal receipts which are now exhibited as Ex. PW 1/3 and PW
1 / 4 (colly);
(iv). Copy of Certificate U/s 65 of Indian Evidence Act which
is now exhibited as Ex. PW 1/5 ;
(v). Non-Starter Report which is now exhibited as Ex. PW 1/6.
-- 4 of 7 --
CS (Comm) No. 90/24 Neeraj Mohan Vs. Dipti Gupta Page No. 5of 7
6. The evidence led by the plaintiff stands un-rebutted.
The evidence brought on the record shows that the plaintiff has
placed on record number of invoices Ex. PW1/2 (colly). Perusal
of these invoices shows that they bear the signatures of the
recipient on behalf of the defendant in the name of ‘Guddu’ or
‘Raj Kumar’ on most of the invoices. Neither the defendant nor
his counsel ever appeared in the Court to deny that the said
persons do not belong to the defendant. Besides that the plaintiff
has also relied upon the ledger account statement pertaining to
the defendant being maintained by the plaintiff, which has been
exhibited as Ex. PW1/1. The said Ex. PW1/1 shows the regular
debit / credit entries related to the defendant. The said
documents Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/2 (colly) are duly supported
with the certificate u/S. 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW1/5.
7. Further the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case titled
as
Fresh and Healthy Enterprises Ltd. vs. M/s R.K. Brothers
bearing RFA No. 319 of 2017 decided on 24.08.2018 after
relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the cases of
Hindustan Forest Company vs. Lal Chand
and Others, AIR 1959 SC 1349 and
Kesharichand Jaisukhlal vs.
Shillong Banking Corporation AIR 1965 SC 1711, has observed
that an open, mutual and current account is an account when
there is shifting balance in the account. In the present suit, the
document Ex. PW1/1 reflects that when payments were made by
-- 5 of 7 --
CS (Comm) No. 90/24 Neeraj Mohan Vs. Dipti Gupta Page No. 6of 7
the defendant, same have been credited in the account of the
defendant being maintained by the plaintiff and lastly there is
debit balance of Rs.13,98,177/- which is due against the
defendant.
8. The plaintiff has also examined PW2 Sh. Akash Yadav
in support of his case, who has brought GSTR-1 of Amrit
Traders having GST No. 07AAYPM9755E1ZX and GSTR-2A
and GSTR-2B of SR Traders having GST No.
07BDWPG3837P1ZO. He has deposed that as per the
summoned records, the goods sold by Amrit Traders to M/s SR
Traders against several invoices and the input of all the invoices
has duly been claimed by M/s SR Traders. He has proved the
said summoned record as Ex. PW 2/1 (colly).
9. The testimonies of both PW1 and PW2 remained
unchallenged and unrebutted. The documents placed on the
record by the plaintiff are sufficient enough to prove the liability
of the defendant towards the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed
the outstanding dues of Rs.13,98,177/- along with interest @
18% p.a. w.e.f. 27.12.2022 to 27.01.2024 (13 months) which
comes to Rs.2,72,644/-. The perusal of invoice(s) Ex. PW1/2
(colly) also reveals that there is clause qua interest @ 18% p.a.
on the payments which are not made within the stipulated time.
The evidence brought on record by the plaintiff, successfully
-- 6 of 7 --
CS (Comm) No. 90/24 Neeraj Mohan Vs. Dipti Gupta Page No. 7of 7
proves that defendant had not paid the suit amount of
Rs.16,70,821/-.
Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the plaintiff
is held entitled to claim the suit amount of Rs.16,70,821/- from
the defendant.
10. Further this court after taking into account the facts of
the case also awards interest of @ 6% per annum to the plaintiff
for the pendante lite and future till realization of decretal amount.
The suit of the plaintiff is decreed accordingly for a sum of
Rs.16,70,821/- with interest @ 6% pendent lite and future period
till realization of the decretal amount against the defendant. Suit
is decreed with cost. Decree be prepared and file be consigned to
record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in open Court
on 9th day of June, 2026.
(Jagdish Kumar)
District Judge-Commercial Court-01
North District, Rohini Court, Delhi.
-- 7 of 7 --