Final Order 14

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: CS (Comm) 169/2023 Devender Kr. Vs. Rakesh Bansal
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02:
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
CNR No.DLNW010021442023
Civil Suit (Comm.) 169/2023
In the matter of:
Sh. Devender Kumar,
Prop. Of M/s. B.R. Disposable,
S/o Sh. Bhoodev Prasad,
R/o B-683, Bunker Colony PH-4,
Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052.
Also : K-324, JJ Colony, Wazirpur,
Delhi-110053.
.....Plaintiff
(Through Sh. Suhail Shah, Advocate)
Versus
Sh. Rakesh Bansal,
Prop. Of M/s. Bansal Sales Corporate,
17/30, Central Market, Ashok Vihar,
Delhi-110052.
Also at: Bldg. No.21, Central Market,
Ist Floor, near Affreen Boutique, Ashok Vihar,
Delhi-110052.
.....Defendant
(Defendant already ex parte vide order dt. 15.10.2024)
Date of Institution of Suit : 06.03.2023
Date of hearing final arguments : 01.07.2025
Date of judgment : 01.07.2025
Suit for recovery of Rs.6,20,000/- (Rupees six lacs twenty thousand only)
along with pendente lite and future interest
Page 1 of 8
-- 1 of 8 --
CS (Comm) 169/2023 Devender Kr. Vs. Rakesh Bansal
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT:
1. This is a suit for recovery filed on behalf of plaintiff against the
defendant, thereby seeking a decree in the sum of Rs.6,20,000/- (Rupees
six lacs twenty thousand only) along with pendente lite and future interest.
2. The facts of the case in brief, as borne out from the record are that
plaintiff is the proprietor of M/s. B.R. Disposable, engaged in the business
of manufacturing a plethora of disposable undergarments, disposable bed
sheets, spa slippers, disposable pillow covers, disposable spa towel,
disposable bags, disposable spa salon napkin and disposable spa gown, etc.
It is further stated that defendant is the proprietor of M/s. Bansal Sales
Corporate dealing in non-woven spun lace fabric.
3. It is averred by the plaintiff that he required non-woven spun lace
fabric and for this purpose, he approached the defendant who was having
regular business dealings with him since 2015. It is further stated that it
was agreed between the parties that if plaintiff placed an order, he would
be requiring to make some advance payment for the same to the defendant.
Further, it has been stated that plaintiff placed order for supply of eight
tonnes of non -woven spun lace fabric @ Rs.120/- per Kg. upon the
defendant for which purpose, he made payment of Rs.5,00,000/- on
20.12.2022 through NEFT/RGFT to the defendant. It is further averred by
the plaintiff that defendant assured him to deliver the aforesaid goods by
Page 2 of 8
-- 2 of 8 --
CS (Comm) 169/2023 Devender Kr. Vs. Rakesh Bansal
28.12.2022 positively but the same was not done by the defendant and on
the contrary, the defendant asked plaintiff to make further payment of
Rs.2,00,000/- on the pretext that the goods were stopped on the way for
which he wanted the said amount. It has further been averred that
considering the situation and long term business relations with the
defendant, the plaintiff made further payment of Rs.1,20,000/- to the
defendant on 29.12.2022 through NEFT/RGFT towards further advance
for the aforesaid goods (totalling to Rs.6,20,000/- as advance). It has
further been averred that despite repeated requests/reminders, the
defendant neither supplied the goods in question nor returned the amount
paid to him as advance for supply of the aforesaid goods. It has further
been averred by plaintiff that after receiving the aforesaid advance from
him, the defendant had been trying to flee to Canada where his son lives. It
has further been averred that initially, the defendant kept on lingering on
return of the aforesaid amount of advance and ultimately, assured him that
the said amount would be returned by him, which he has failed to do.
4. Pursuant to the service in the matter, the defendant filed Written
Statement on 03.10.2023 along with an application seeking condonation of
delay, which was allowed vide order dated 23.01.2024.
5. (i) In the written statement, defendant took preliminary
objections to the effect that plaintiff had not approached this court with
clean hands, suit was based on false and frivolous grounds and material
facts had been suppressed and as such, the same was liable to be dismissed
Page 3 of 8
-- 3 of 8 --
CS (Comm) 169/2023 Devender Kr. Vs. Rakesh Bansal
with exemplary cost. Another preliminary objection taken by defendant
was that plaintiff had not complied with the provisions of Section 12A of
the Commercial Courts Act, as also reflected in orders of this court dated
06.03.2023 and 23.05.2023 that pre-institution mediation was filed
subsequent to filing of the present suit. It is further contended by the
defendant that no amount was due against him towards the plaintiff, in
fact, plaintiff owed a sum of about Rs.5,00,000/- to him as well as his
another concern namely M/s. Aparna Woven Pvt. Ltd. and that part
payment of Rs.1,20,000/- in cash was made by him to the plaintiff, when
he refused to take delivery of the goods in question.
(ii) On merits, the defendant denied contents of paragraph
numbers 1, 2, 4 & 5 for want of knowledge; defendant has, however, not
denied the contents of para No.3; he has not denied contents of para No.6
to the extent that there were regular business dealings between the parties,
however, it has been denied that there was any clause for making some
advance payment before placing an order by the plaintiff; the contents of
para numbers 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 & 23
have been denied by the defendant being wrong/false; and it is further
contended that para No.24 needed no reply.
6. Thereafter, on 16.07.2024, the following issues were framed
on the basis of pleadings of the parties and the matter was listed for
recording of PE before Ld. Local Commissioner on 22.07.2024:-
Page 4 of 8
-- 4 of 8 --
CS (Comm) 169/2023 Devender Kr. Vs. Rakesh Bansal
Issues:
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of the suit
amount, as prayed for? OPP.
2. If answer to the aforesaid issue is in affirmative,
whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest thereupon.
If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
3. Relief.
7. The evidence in the matter was directed to be recorded by the Ld.
Local Commissioner. The defendant did not appear before Ld. Local
Commissioner for recording of evidence. He even did not appear before
the court on various dates. Therefore, he was proceeded ex parte vide order
dated 15.10.2024 and the matter was again notified for ex-parte PE.
8. The plaintiff during the course of ex-parte evidence examined
himself as PW1 in the matter. PW1 in his evidence by way of affidavit
Ex.PW-1/A has reiterated the averments made in the plaint and has proved
on record the following documents :-
Sl.
No.
Document(s) Ex.
1 GST Certificate (earlier Mark-A) Ex.PW1/1
2 GST Certificate (earlier Mark-B) Ex.PW1/2
3 Photocopy of bank Statement dt. 01.12.2022 to
31.12.2022 (earlier Mark-C)
Ex.PW1/3
4 Certificate u/s 65A and B of IE Act Ex.PW1/4
5 Printout of Ledger account of plaintiff Ex.PW1/5
Page 5 of 8
-- 5 of 8 --
CS (Comm) 169/2023 Devender Kr. Vs. Rakesh Bansal
6 Statement of account of plaintiff Ex.PW1/6
7 Pendrive Ex.PW1/7
8 Pendrive transcription Ex.PW1/8
9 Certificate u/s 65A and B of IE Act dt. 22.01.2024 Ex.PW1/9
9. Thereafter, ex parte PE in the matter was closed on vide order dated
13.12.2024.
10. I have heard Sh. Suhail Shah, learned Counsel for the plaintiff and
perused the entire material on record. My issue-wise findings are as
under:-
Issue No.1: Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of the suit amount, as
prayed for? OPP
11. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. For this purpose,
plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and proved inter alia documents, i.e.,
photocopy of bank Statement dt. 01.12.2022 to 31.12.2022 (Ex.PW1/3),
Printout of Ledger account of plaintiff (Ex.PW1/5) and Statement of
account of plaintiff (Ex.PW1/6) which show that an amount of
Rs.6,20,000/- was received by defendant as advance for supply of the
material, which he miserably failed to do.
12. The defendant being ex-parte, the testimony of the plaintiff's witness
has remained unchallenged and unrebutted. There is nothing on record to
disbelieve the unrebutted testimony of the plaintiff's witness or to doubt
the authenticity and veracity of the documents exhibited and proved on
Page 6 of 8
-- 6 of 8 --
CS (Comm) 169/2023 Devender Kr. Vs. Rakesh Bansal
record. From the unrebutted testimony of PW-1 in the matter and the
documents proved on record, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has been able
to make out a good case for passing of decree in its favour.
13. In view of the above, issue No.1 is decided in favour of plaintiff and
against the defendant.
Issue No.2: If answer to the aforesaid issue is in affirmative, whether the
plaintiff is entitled to interest thereupon. If so, at what rate
and for what period? OPP.
14. As regards the quantum of interest, the plaintiff has sought interest
@ 18% p.a. which in my considered view, is on the higher side, as there is
no documentary evidence to substantiate the same. The transaction
between the parties being commercial in nature, I am of the considered
opinion that interest @ 10% per annum would meet the ends of justice.
Issue No.3: Relief?
15. (i) In view of the above, a decree in the sum of Rs.6,20,000/-
(Rupees six lacs twenty thousand only) along with interest @ 10% per
annum from 29.12.2022 till recovery is passed in favour of plaintiff and
against the defendant.
(ii) Plaintiff is entitled to costs of the suit. Plaintiff is also entitled
to counsel’s fee which is quantified as Rs.22,000/-.
16. Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly, subject to payment of requisite
Page 7 of 8
-- 7 of 8 --
CS (Comm) 169/2023 Devender Kr. Vs. Rakesh Bansal
court fees, if any.
17. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary
formalities.
Dictated & Announced in the (Vinod Yadav)
open Court on 01.07.2025 District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts
Page 8 of 8
-- 8 of 8 --