Interim Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 18 CS (COMM.) 643/24
NICHOLAS HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. TGB BIOSCIENCES PVT
LTD AND ORS
24.03.2025
Present: Sh. Rishabh Sharma, Ld. counsel for plaintiff.
Defendant is already ex parte.
Matter is listed today for ex parte PE.
I exercise my power Under Order XV A Rule 6 (o) and (p)
CPC, directing that evidence in the matter shall be recorded by learned
Local Commissioner, appointed by this Court on commission basis.
Accordingly, it is directed that the evidence in the matter shall be recorded
on commission basis by Sh. Anant Rao, Advocate, having mobile
number 9999421467. The fee of the learned Local Commissioner is
fixed as Rs.5,000/- per witness. The evidence shall be recorded at Judicial
Library, Rohini District Court Complex or any other place as per the
convenience of learned Local Commissioner on the date and time agreed,
but not later than the date fixed by this Court for submitting report. It is
hereby clarified that plaintiff shall bear the expenses of learned Local
Commissioner for recording of plaintiff’s evidence. Further, at the time of
PE, plaintiff shall arrange the typist/stenographer for recording of evidence,
failing which, learned Local Commissioner shall arrange the same and
plaintiff has to bear Rs.1,000/- per day for the same, which shall be in
addition to the fee prescribed for learned Local Commissioner per witness.
Ahlmad/Nazir/Reader shall make available himself/herself
with the Court file and diet money for the said purpose is fixed as Rs.500/-
per visit. Learned Local Commissioner shall record verbatim in question
and thereafter record answers verbatim. In case of any objection being
raised by the plaintiff, same shall be recorded verbatim which shall be
adjudicated by this Court. Learned Local Commissioner on the same day
shall supply the copy of evidence recorded to the plaintiff on its own cost.
-- 1 of 23 --
The Ld. Local Commissioner shall also submit typed copy thereof in the
Court.
Let list of witnesses be filed by the plaintiff within ten days.
Plaintiff is directed to contact and appear before learned Local
Commissioner on 03.04.2025 at 2.00 P.M., who thereafter may fix dates of
recording evidence as per his/her convenience.
The Reader attached to this Court is directed to inform the
learned Local Commissioner telephonically also in this regard.
A copy of this order be given dasti to Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff.
List the matter for report of learned Local Commissioner/
final arguments now on 30.04.2025.
(Vinod Yadav)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts/24.03.2025
At this stage, Sh. Vinay Pathak, Ld. Counsel for D1 has appeared
in court. He has been apprised of the order passed in the matter.
(Vinod Yadav)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts/
-- 2 of 23 --
19 CS (COMM.) 184/24
State Bank Of India Vs. Aman Kumar
24.03.2025
Present: Sh. Pradeep Lakhar, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Defence of defendant already lying struck off vide order dt.
30.01.2025.
Arguments u/o 8, Rule 10 CPC heard.
List for judgment on 05.04.2025.
(Vinod Yadav)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts/24.03.2025
-- 3 of 23 --
20 CS (COMM.) 228/21
Canara Bank Vs. RAVINDER KAUL AND ORS.
24.03.2025
Present: Sh. S.K. Jha, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff through VC.
Defendant is already ex parte.
At request of Ld. counsel for plaintiff, list for ex parte final
arguments now on 19.05.2025.
(Vinod Yadav)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts/24.03.2025
-- 4 of 23 --
21 CS (COMM.) 431/21
ELECTRORAMA Vs. APEX SOLUTIONS
24.03.2025
Present: Sh. Prashant Jain, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Defendant is already ex parte.
The matter is listed for ex parte final arguments.
My attention has been drawn to para No.20 of the affidavit by
way of evidence of PW1 wherein although Certificate u/s 65B IE Act is
lying mentioned, however, the same could not be inadvertently exhibtied in
the evidence.
Let PW1 be called again for tendering the aforesaid
certificate.
List for further proceedings on 04.06.2025.
(Vinod Yadav)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts/24.03.2025
-- 5 of 23 --
22 CS (COMM.) 64/24
State Bank Of India Vs. Nagender
24.03.2025
Present: Sh. Pradeep Kalhar, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Defendant is already ex parte.
Ex parte evidence in the matter stands concluded.
Ex parte final arguments heard.
List for judgment on 05.04.2025.
(Vinod Yadav)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts/24.03.2025
-- 6 of 23 --
23 CS (COMM.) 88/18
State Bank of India Vs. KESHAV GOYAL
24.03.2025
Present: Sh. Pradeep Kalhar, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. Prashant Gupta, Ld. Counsel for defendant.
No time left. List for final arguments now on 07.04.2025.
(Vinod Yadav)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts/24.03.2025
-- 7 of 23 --
24 CS (COMM.) 925/23
M/s Naman Enterprises Vs. M/s Subtlestar Industries Private
Limited
24.03.2025
Present: Sh. Virender Kumar, Ld. proxy counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. Vaibhav Sharma, Ld. Counsel for defendant through VC.
The evidence in the matter is being recorded by Ld. LC.
List the matter for recording of evidence before Ld. LC now
on 21.04.2025 and thereafter, before this court for report of Ld. LC on
03.06.2025.
(Vinod Yadav)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts/24.03.2025
-- 8 of 23 --
25 CS (COMM.) 4/24
Rachita Narang Vs. Avni Bansal
24.03.2025
Present: Sh. Rohit Rawat, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. Saransh Goel, Ld. Counsel for defendant.
Fresh Vakalatnama on behalf of defendant along with an
application u/o 9, Rule 7 CPC has been filed. Copy supplied.
2. Heard.
3. For the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice,
the ex parte proceedings against defendant stands set aside, subject
to the following terms and conditions :-
(a) The defendant shall pay cost of Rs.20,000/- to the
plaintiff within two weeks from today, i.e., actual
cost borne by the plaintiff in getting the evidence
recorded through Ld. LC;
(b) The defendant shall have opportunity to cross-
examine PW1, subject to payment of fees of Ld.
LC. The defendant is also permitted to lead
evidence in the matter cost whereof shall be borne
entirely by the defendant.
4. Since the amendment carried out by plaintiff in the suit were with
regard to the damage to the suit property caused by defendant at the
time of vacation of the suit property on 08.05.2024, the defendant
cannot be allowed to file amended WS in the matter.
5. List for recording of evidence before Ld. LC on 07.04.2025 and
thereafter, before this court for final arguments on 21.04.2025.
6. Copy of this order be given dasti.
(Vinod Yadav)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts/24.03.2025
-- 9 of 23 --
26 CS (COMM.) 313/23
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. SH. RAJ KUMAR
27 CS (COMM.) 762/23 CANARA BANK Vs. M/S POOJA
ENGINEERING WORKS AND
TRADERS THROUGH PROP. PAPPI
28 CS (COMM.) 426/24
Durga Steel Company Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Rajendra Gears
29 CS (COMM.) 611/24
STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. DEVANAND NAGVANSHI
-- 10 of 23 --
30 CS (COMM.) 131/23
SHAIL AGGARWAL Vs. AJAY JAIN
24.03.2025
Present: Ms. Kamakshi Garg, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. A.K. Saxena, Ld. Counsel for defendant.
The amended plaint has been filed. Copy supplied.
Let Leave to defend application be filed within four weeks
with advance copy to the other side.
List for arguments on leave to defend application on
08.07.2025.
(Vinod Yadav)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts/24.03.2025
-- 11 of 23 --
31 CS (COMM.) 97/24
Rahul Saini Vs. Sunil Mittal
24.03.2025
Present: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for non-applicant.
Sh. Virender Rajpur, Ld. Counsel for defendant/counter-
claimant.
List for recording of evidence along with connected matter on
08.04.2025.
(Vinod Yadav)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts/24.03.2025
-- 12 of 23 --
32 CS (COMM.) 364/24
Mpcl Industries Ltd Vs. Zen Refrigeration
24.03.2025
Present: Sh. Tushant Singh, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
None for defendant.
Matter has been called out several times since morning. No
one has appeared on behalf of the defendant. In the interest of justice, today
I defer passing adverse orders.
The Vakalatnama in the matter was filed by defendant on
21.12.2024 on which date no prayer was made by Ld. counsel for defendant
for supply of paper book. There is presumption that complete set of paper
book had been received by defendant in the matter.
List for further consideration on 21.04.2025.
(Vinod Yadav)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts/24.03.2025
-- 13 of 23 --
33 CS (COMM.) 365/24
Mpcl Industries Ltd Vs. Jay Ambey Refriration
-- 14 of 23 --
CS (COMM) : 198/2025
RADHA GARG VS. NARENDER SHARMA
24.03.202
Fresh suit has been received by way of assignment. It be checked and
registered.
Present: Sh. Shivam Mehta, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Heard. File perused.
Issue summons in the matter against defendant on filing of
PF/RC, through all permissible modes, returnable for 21.04.2025. Steps be
taken within seven days.
There is an application filed u/s 14 (1) of Limitation Act. The
plaintiff had earlier filed a civil suit which was going on in the court of Ld.
ADJ, North West being CS DJ No.493/2021, titled as Naresh Kr. Garg &
Anr. Vs. Narender Sharma. The said suit was withdrawn with the liberty to
file the present suit. Issue notice of this application to the defendant on
filing PF/RC.
Along with the plaint, there is also an application seeking ad
interim ex parte injunction.
Issue notice of this application also to the defendant on filing
PF/RC returnable for the NDOH. Let the compliance u/o 39, Rule 3 CPC be
made within a week.
Till the NDOH, the parties are directed to maintain status
quo with regard to ownership and possession of the suit property, i.e., Plot
No.28, (First Floor), Block & Pocket No.D-14, Sector-3, Rohini,
Delhi-110085, as detailed in the site plan.
List on 21.04.2025.
Dasti.
(Vinod Yadav)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts/24.03.2025
-- 15 of 23 --
CS (COMM) : 199/2025
RISHABH GARG VS. SHYAM BABU BAPPUDDI
24.03.2025
Fresh suit has been received by way of assignment. It be checked and
registered.
Present: Sh. Bhaskar Jain, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Heard. File perused.
Issue summons in the matter against defendant on filing of
PF/RC, through all permissible modes, returnable for 09.07.2025. Steps be
taken within 15 days.
(Vinod Yadav)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts/24.03.2025
-- 16 of 23 --
CS (COMM) : 366/2023
PARMANAND SINGH VS. ANSHU GUPTA
24.03.2025
Case file is taken up today on receipt of report filed by Ld. LC
Present: Sh. K.K. Mishra, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. Gaurav Bindal, Ld. Counsel for defendant.
My attention has been drawn to application filed by plaintiff
u/o 11, Rule 1(5) CPC seeking to place on record the certificate u/s 65B
Indian Evidence Act. Ld. counsel for defendant submits that he has not
received copy of the application.
The application is formal in nature, therefore, copy of the
same is not required to be supplied to Ld. counsel for defendant.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India vide judgment dated 14.07.2020 in CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 20825-
20826 OF 2017, titled as ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR Vs.
KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL AND ORS. WITH CIVIL
APPEAL NO.2407 OF 2018 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3696 OF 2018, the
Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act can be produced at any stage, if
the trial is not over. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under :-
“xxxx
57. Subject to the caveat laid down in paragraphs
50 and 54 above, the law laid down by these two
High Courts has our concurrence. So long as the
hearing in a trial is not yet over, the requisite
certificate can be directed to be produced by the
learned Judge at any stage, so that information
contained in electronic record form can then be
admitted, and relied upon in evidence.
xxxx”
In view of the above, the aforesaid certificate is taken on
record.
The application accordingly stands disposed off.
List before Ld. LC for the date already fixed in the matter.
(Vinod Yadav)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts/24.03.2025
-- 17 of 23 --
CS (COMM) : 383/2024
MACHA CONSUMER PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VS. CHAI SUTTA BAR
TRADING PVT. LTD.
24.03.2025
Case file is taken up today on an application seeking early hearing in
the matter.
Present: Sh. Kunal Khanna, Ld. Counsel for applicant/defendant.
Heard.
Issue notice of this application to non-applicant/plaintiff on
filing PF, returnable for 26.03.2025. Notice is also allowed through counsel.
Application accordingly stands disposed off.
(Vinod Yadav)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts/24.03.2025
-- 18 of 23 --
13 CS (COMM.) 319/22
ANIL AGGARWAL Vs. BMS DISTRIBUTORS
24.03.2025
DW1 Sh. J.K. Mishra, S/o late Sh. V. Mishra, aged about 48 years,
AR of defendant, hving office at 2nd Floor, Plot No.35, Kailash
Bhawan, Community Centre, Wazirpur Indl. Area, Delhi-110052.
(recalled for further examination after 10.01.2025)
On SA
I further hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit which is
already Ex.DW1/A bearing my signatures at points A and B. I rely upon the
following documents :-
Sl.
No.
Document(s) Ex.
1 Original authorization letter of DW1 Ex.DW1/1
2 Copy of ledger account Mark-DW1/2
3 Copy of cheque dt. 28.11.2020 and return memo Mark-DW1/3
4 Copy of cheque dt. 28.12.2020 and return memo Mark-DW1/4
5 Copy of cheque dt. 28.01.2021 and return memo Mark-DW1/5
The documents have been wrongly mentioned as Ex.DW1/2
to Ex.DW1/5 in the evidence affidavit. The same are now de-exhibited
and now Mark-DW1/2 to Mark-DW1/5.
XXXXX by Sh. Praduman Rai, Ld. counsel for plaintiff
It is correct that authority letter Ex.DW1/1 has been filed by me
today only and it had not been filed prior to filing the WS. It is correct that the
same is undated. It is wrong to suggest that no date thereupon is there because I
had not been duly authorized to file WS as well as affidavit by way of evidence.
Vol. There are 4-5 different cases going on of the defendant and the authorization
letter is common. It is correct that the WS of the defendant has not been
signed on each page. It is correct that the WS is not accompanied by Statement
of Truth as well as affidavit of admission/denial of documents. It is wrong to
suggest that the WS is barred under the provisions of order 6, Rule 15A CPC as
well as the latest judgment of Delhi High Court (Full Bench) in Pragati
-- 19 of 23 --
Constructions Ltd. Case. It is correct that I have not filed any complaint, notice
qua the cheques Mark-DW1/3 to DW1/5 against the plaintiff. It is wrong to
suggest that I have made a concocted defence in the matter. It is wrong to
suggest that I am liable to pay suit amount along with interest @ 24% per
annum for pre-institution, interregnum and future to the plaintiff. It is
wrong to suggest that I have deposed falsely.
RO&AC
(Vinod Yadav)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts/24.03.2025
Statement of Sh. J.K. Mishra, S/o late Sh. V. Mishra, aged about 48 years,
AR of defendant, hving office at 2nd Floor, Plot No.35, Kailash Bhawan,
Community Centre, Wazirpur Indl. Area, Delhi-110052.
On SA
I am AR of defenant in the matter. On instructions, I pray that
DE in the matter may be closed.
RO&AC
(Vinod Yadav)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts/24.03.2025
-- 20 of 23 --
14 CS (COMM.) 715/23
SUNIL MITTAL Vs. RAHUL SAINI
24.03.2025
DW1 Sh. Rahul Saini, S/o Sh. Subhash Chander, aged about 32
years, R/o C-64/65, Deep Vihar, Gali No.4, Rohini, Sector-24,
Delhi-110085.
On SA
I hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit which is
Ex.DW1/A bearing my signatures at points A and B. I rely upon the
following documents :-
Sl.
No.
Document(s) Ex.
1 Registration certificate Ex.DW1/1
2 Defective goods stock of Rs.16,74,494/- lying
with defendant
Mark-DW1/2
3 List of items withheld by Flipkart Mark-DW1/3
Ex.DW1/2 and Ex.DW1/3 have been de-exhibited and
marked as Mark DW1/2 and Mark DW1/3 respectively.
This is my true and correct statement.
XXXXX by Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff.
The purchase order used to be issued by me to the plaintiff
through phone. The plaintiff used to send material with invoices to me. The
transportation of goods was the responsibility of plaintiff. I did not issue
any notice in writing u/s 42 of Sales of Goods Act to the plaintiff in respect
of defective goods. Vol. I had informed him telephonically. I cannot tell the
date and time of said information. I have not written in my WS that I had
informed the plaintiff telephonically about the defects in goods. I did not
inform the plaintiff in writing about the defective goods worth
Rs.16,74,494/-. Vol. It was informed on phone. I have not written the same
in my WS.
Q: What kind of defect did you find in the goods?
-- 21 of 23 --
A: Sometimes, the pasting of the shoes would go off and sometimes
the same would become off colour. At other times, the finishing of the
goods was not proper.
I have not written about the aforesaid defects in my WS.
It is wrong to suggest that courier working with Flipkart would
either reject my goods being over-weight or the address of the customer
(end user) being not traceable. I did not take any acknowledgment in
writing from the plaintiff upon Mark-DW1/2. Vol. I had supplied the same
to the plaintiff. It is correct that Mark DW1/2 does not bear the category of
defect. It is correct that I have not placed on record any document showing the
supply of the aforesaid document by me to the plaintiff.
It is correct that Ex.PW1/3, i.e., the ledger account till the year 2024
shows the account balance of Rs.15,58,044/- (page No.31) towards me. I did not
take the tax input credit in respect of goods received by me through invoices
Ex.PW1/4 colly. It is wrong to suggest that I had taken the tax input crredit of
the goods received by me from the plaintiff. It is wrong to suggest that the suit
amount along with interest is outstanding and payable by me. It is wrong to
suggest that document Mark-DW1/2 and Mark DW1/3 are false and fabricated
documents. It is wrong to suggest that due to failure of my business I could not
sell the goods received from the plaintiff. It is wrong to suggest that I have
deposed falsely.
RO&AC
(Vinod Yadav)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts/24.03.2025
-- 22 of 23 --
.
-- 23 of 23 --