Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER : NORTH DISTRICT : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
PRESIDED BY : MS. AKRITI MAHENDRU
Ananta International Marketing (P) Ltd.
Through its Director : Sh. Parth Bindal
having its registered office at:4805/24,
Bharat Ram Road, Krishna House, 2nd Floor,
Daryaganj, New Delhi- 110002 …..Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Dinesh Khanna
Proprietor of M/s Kia Herbals
Having its registered office at: H-37,
Sector-2, Bawana Industrial Area,
Delhi- 110039 …..Defendant
E X - P A R T E J U D G M E N T
CNR No. DLNT 0300-0234-2025
Case No. 152/2025
Under Section
Suit seeking recovery of Rs. 1,31,331/-
(rupees one lac thirty one thousand
three hundred and thirty one only)
along with
pendente lite & future
interest @ 12% per annum.
Date of Institution 13.02.2025
Date of Reserving Order 19.03.2026
Date of Final Order 22.04.2026
Final Order Suit Decreed
CS No. 152/2025 Anant International Marketing P Limtited Vs. Dinesh Khanna Page 1 of 9
-- 1 of 9 --
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose of the present suit
instituted by the plaintiff seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.
1,31,331/- (rupees one lac thirty one thousand three hundred and thirty
one only) along with
pendente lite & future interest @ 12% per
annum.
2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the case of the plaintiff is that the
plaintiff is a Private Limited Company incorporated and registered
under the Companies Act 1956 in the name and style of M/s Anant
International Marketing (P) Ltd., engaged in the business of trading
and supplying of paper products across India whereas, the defendant is
the sole proprietor of M/s Kia Herbals, a proprietorship concern
engaged in the business of trading and manufacturing of cosmetic
products. In the month of March 2024, the defendant approached the
plaintiff company for purchase of paper products and after discussions
and mutual understanding, an oral agreement was entered into
between the plaintiff company and the defendant regarding the terms
and conditions with regard to buying and selling of paper products.
Thereafter, defendant placed an order for paper products vide invoice
no.173 dated 20.03.2024 in the amount of Rs. 1,61,331/- (rupees one
lac sixty one thousand three hundred and thirty one only) and the
products along with the original invoice were duly delivered to the
defendant, who assured that the payment would be made by
04.04.2024, but the defendant failed to make payment as per
assurance. Several requests were made by the representatives of the
CS No. 152/2025 Anant International Marketing P Limtited Vs. Dinesh Khanna Page 2 of 9
-- 2 of 9 --
plaintiff company to the defendant to pay the outstanding amount of
Rs. 1,61,331/- (rupees one lac sixty one thousand three hundred and
thirty one only) and upon repeated requests defendant issued two
cheques i.e. (i) cheque bearing No. 001097 dated 12.04.2024 for an
amount of Rs. 61,331/- (rupees sixty one thousand three hundred and
thirty one only) and (ii) cheque bearing No. 001098 dated 19.04.2024
for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lacs only) in favor of the
plaintiff company, however, the cheque dated 12.04.2024 got
dishonoured upon presentation and fresh cheques were issued by the
defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only) and Rs.
61,332/- (rupees sixty one thousand three hundred and thirty two only)
which also got dishonoured vide separate return memo dated
28.08.2024. Thereafter, on 14.10.2024, defendant in discharge of his
aforesaid legal debt again issued three post dated cheques i.e. (i)
cheque bearing no. 001662 dated 28.10.2024 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-
(rupees fifty thousand only), (ii) cheque bearing no. 001663 dated
25.11.2024 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) and
(iii) cheque bearing no. 001665 dated 22.12.2024 for a sum of Rs.
61,331/- (rupees sixty one thousand three hundred and thirty one only)
to the plaintiff albeit from the account of another proprietorship/sister
concern i.e. ‘Xpert Printers’, also duly signed and issued by the
defendant, however, all the three cheques again got dishonoured on
presentation vide three separate return memos with reason ‘Account
Closed’. The defendant was informed by the plaintiff about the fact of
dishonour of cheques and he made a part payment in the amount of
CS No. 152/2025 Anant International Marketing P Limtited Vs. Dinesh Khanna Page 3 of 9
-- 3 of 9 --
Rs. 30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand only) on 16.11.2024 to the
plaintiff company in the bank account no. 3980002100016516 and the
amount of Rs. 1,31,331.00/- (rupees one lac thirty one thousand three
hundred and thirty one only) was still remaining to be paid. Since, the
outstanding amount was not paid, a written complaint dated
08.11.2024 was lodged by the plaintiff company before the SHO,
PS-Bawana to clear the outstanding dues, however, no action was
taken by the authorities. The Plaintiff had also issued a legal demand
notice dated 11.12.2024 through his counsel to the defendant to clear
the outstanding amount but neither any reply was received nor the
payment of the due amount was forthcoming. Consequently,
the plaintiff company was constrained to institute the present suit
seeking recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,31,331/- (rupees one lac thirty
one thousand three hundred and thirty one only) along with pendente
lite and future interest @12% per annum from the defendant.
3. Summons were served upon the defendant on 03.03.2025 but
defendant neither appeared in the court nor filed any Written
Statement, therefore, defendant was proceeded
ex-parte vide order
dated 12.11.2025.
4. Sh. Parth Bindal, AR of the plaintiff company, was examined as
PW-1 and he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex. PW1/A
wherein he reiterated the contents of his plaint and relied upon the
following documents :-
CS No. 152/2025 Anant International Marketing P Limtited Vs. Dinesh Khanna Page 4 of 9
-- 4 of 9 --
SERIAL
No.
DOCUMENTS EXHIBIT
1 Certificate of Incorporation. PW/P1
2 Board Resolution dated 24.01.2025. PW/P2
3 Tax invoice. PW/P3
4 Transcription of Whatapp chats. PW/P4
5 Original cheques along with
memorandum.
PW/P5 (colly)
6 Cheque returning memorandum. PW/P6 (colly)
7 Letter dated 14.10.2024 issued by the
defendant.
PW/P7
8 Cheques along with cheque return
memorandum.
PW/P8 (colly)
9 Bank statement reflecting release of said
payment of Rs. 30,000/-.
PW/P9
10 Police complaint dated 08.11.2024. PW/P10
11 Legal notice along with postal receipts
and tracking reports.
PW/P11 (colly)
5. The witness was not cross-examined as the defendant remained
ex-parte during trial. No other witness was examined and PE was
closed vide order dated 02.02.2026.
6.
Ex-parte final arguments were advanced on behalf of the
plaintiff.
CS No. 152/2025 Anant International Marketing P Limtited Vs. Dinesh Khanna Page 5 of 9
-- 5 of 9 --
7. In view of the arguments advanced as well as the material
placed on record during the course of evidence on behalf of plaintiff,
this court is of the view that PW-1 has duly proved the contents of the
plaint as well as the documents relied upon by him. His testimony to
the effect that the plaintiff had supplied goods worth Rs. 1,31,331.00/-
(rupees one lac thirty one thousand three hundred and thirty one only)
but defendant did not pay the due amount has gone unrebutted and
uncontested in the absence of any cross-examination by the defendant
to this effect. The uncontroverted testimony of the witness is duly
corroborated by plethora of documents including invoice issued by
plaintiff to defendant Ex. PW/P3, Original cheques along with cheque
return memos Ex. PW/P5, Ex. PW/P6 and Ex. PW/P8, bank statement
Ex. PW/P9 and legal notice along with postal receipts and tracking
reports Ex. PW/P11. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the same.
The unrebutted testimony of PW-1 stands proved, insofar as, the
amount for which recovery has been sought is concerned, as the same
is reflected in the invoice Ex. PW/P3 duly corroborated by the cheques
issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff company.
8. Now, this court shall deal with the interest claimed by plaintiff.
In this regard, reference may be made to the observations of The
Hon’ble Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case of
Pt.
Munshi Ram &Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. DDA, 2010 SCC Online Del
2444 where it was held 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
CS No. 152/2025 Anant International Marketing P Limtited Vs. Dinesh Khanna Page 6 of 9
-- 6 of 9 --
against the public policy, is void under Section 23 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872. The said Judgment was also relied upon by the
Hon’ble Single Bench of the Hon’ble High Court in case bearing
R.F.A. No. 823 of 2004, titled as
Shri Sanjay Mittal Versus Sunil Jain
decided on 07/12/2018. The Hon’ble Single Bench has granted 9%
p.a. interest instead of 24% per annum.
8.1 In the matter of
M/S. Tommorrowland Limited vs Housing And
Urban Development, reported as AIR 2025 SC 1262, the Hon’ble
Supreme held as under:
“9. It is trite law that under Section 34 of the
CPC, the award of interest is a discretionary exercise
steeped in equitable considerations. The law in this
regard has been succinctly discussed in the
Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Central
Bank of India v. Ravindra & Ors.; (2002) 1 SCC 367,
which states:
“Award of interest pendente lite or post-decree is
discretionary with the Court as it is essentially
governed by Section 34 of the CPC de hors the
contract between the parties. In a given case if the
Court finds that in the principal sum adjudged on the
date of the suit, the component of interest is
disproportionate with the component of the principal
sum actually advanced, the Court may exercise its
discretion in awarding interest pendente lite and post-
decree interest at a lower rate or may even decline to
award such interest. The discretion shall be exercised
fairly, judiciously, and for not arbitrary or fanciful
reasons.”
50. There is no gainsaying that the power to award
interest ought to be exercised judiciously, aligning
with equitable considerations and also ensuring
neither undue enrichment nor unfair deprivation.
Courts are duty-bound to assess the facts and
CS No. 152/2025 Anant International Marketing P Limtited Vs. Dinesh Khanna Page 7 of 9
-- 7 of 9 --
circumstances of each case, applying the principles of
fairness and justice. This discretion must reflect a
balanced approach, grounded in reason, and guided
by the overarching objective of equity.”
8.2. It would be appropriate to refer to Section 34 of the CPC at this
stage. Section 34 of the CPC reads as under:
“
34. Interest .-
(1)Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment
of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest
at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid
on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the
suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest
adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to
the institution of the suit, with further interest at such
rate not exceeding six per cent. per annum, as the
Court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from
the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to
such earlier date as the Court thinks fit:
Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum
so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial
transaction, the rate of such further interest may
exceed six per cent. per annum, but shall not exceed
the contractual rate of interest or where there is no
contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or
advanced by nationalised banks in relation to
commercial transactions.
Explanation.-In this sub-section, "nationalised bank"
means a corresponding new bank as defined in the
Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970).
Explanation II.-For the purposes of this section, a
transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is
connected with the industry, trade or business of the
party incurring the liability.
CS No. 152/2025 Anant International Marketing P Limtited Vs. Dinesh Khanna Page 8 of 9
-- 8 of 9 --
9. Upon due circumspection of the totality of foregoing facts and
circumstances, including but not limited to scrutiny of material
available on record in the adumbral of the legal position governing the
field, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is
entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 1,31,331.00/- (rupees one lac
thirty one thousand three hundred and thirty one only) alongwith
interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of suit till
its realisation from the defendant.
10. In view of the aforementioned observations, a decree for
recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,31,331.00/- (rupees one lac thirty one
thousand three hundred and thirty one only) along with interest @ 9%
per annum from filing of suit till its realization is passed in favor of
the plaintiff and against the defendant.
11. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favor of the plaintiff.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(Announced in the open Court
on 22.04.2026)
(Akriti Mahendru)
SCJ / RC / North
Rohini Court / Delhi
22.04.2026
CS No. 152/2025 Anant International Marketing P Limtited Vs. Dinesh Khanna Page 9 of 9
-- 9 of 9 --