Interim Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 49 CS SCJ 654/24
SHARAD GOEL Vs. VIVEK GOYAL
20.12.2025
Present : Sh. Aditya Goel, Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff through VC.
Ms. Shweta Dwivedi, Ld. Counsel for defendant through VC.
Be put up for orders at 04:00 pm.
(Mayank Mittal)
SCJ-cum-RC, North-West,
Rohini Courts, Delhi/20.12.2025
At 04:00 pm
Present : None
Matter is fixed for orders on leave to defend application.
I have already heard arguments and perused the record
including written submissions.
It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for defendant that defendant has
a valid, reasonable and substantial defence against the suit brought by the
plaintiff. It is submitted that defendant will show that the suit is liable to be
dismissed due to inherent lacunae/illegalities in the suit brought by
plaintiff. It is submitted that present suit is based upon the invoices only
and accordingly suit cannot be brought u/o 37 CPC. It is further submitted
that the goods were not supplied to defendant and were supplied to M/s
Maiden Pharmaceuticals as shown by the invoices filed and relied upon by
the plaintiff. It is further submitted that defendant has not signed the
invoices as acknowledgment of receiving the goods allegedly supplied by
the plaintiff and plaintiff has not shown any authority given to plaintiff by
defendant to supply the goods to the person who has allegedly signed the
invoices. It is submitted that the fact that defendant is one of the directors
in M/s Maiden Pharmaceuticals is not sufficient for decreeing the suit after
-- 1 of 3 --
-2-
denying the leave to defend as M/s Maiden Pharmaceutical is a company
and accordingly is a separate entity. It is submitted that plaint does not
mention that defendant has placed the order for supply of goods in the
capacity of director of M/s Maiden Pharmaceuticals. In fact as per plaint,
suit has been filed against defendant being proprietor of V.M.K.
Pharmatech. It is submitted that defendant has a good and substantial case
to defend the present suit and should be granted leave to defend
unconditionally.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has vehemently opposed the submissions
advanced on behalf of defendant and has submitted that plaintiff has a very
good case against the defendant where defendant cannot bring any defence.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi in M/s Flint Group India Pvt. Ltd. v. Good Morning India Media
Pvt. Ltd. and in Flicks Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. Gravity Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.
to assert that suit u/o 37 CPC can be based only on invoices and even
unsigned invoices. It is further submitted that defendant cannot dispute the
supply of goods to the defendant as the plaintiff has generated proper GST
invoices. It is submitted that even defendant has not disputed the supply of
goods and has merely disputed the stamp affixed as acknowledgment of
receiving goods. It is submitted that as defendant is one of the directors in
M/s Maiden Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and is also proprietor of V.M.K
Pharmatech, the defendant has purposely affixed stamp of Maiden
Pharmaceutical instead of V.M.K Pharmatech with malafide intention.
From the perusal of record and from the consideration of
submissions including written synopsis, it is noted that a suit u/o 37 CPC
can be instituted on the basis of invoices only. In the case at hand, the
plaintiff has suit the defendant in the capacity of V.M.K Pharmatech,
-- 2 of 3 --
-3-
however, the receiving on invoices is of M/s Maiden Pharmaceuticals. As
defendant is alleging not receiving of any goods by the proprietorship
concern of defendant i.e. M/s V.M.K Pharmatech, and plaintiff has not
placed on record any document showing on the face of it that goods were
actually supplied to M/s V.M.K Pharmatech or to the employee of M/S
V.M.K Pharmatech, it appears that defendant has a reasonable defence to
the suit brought by the plaintiff.
On the basis of above discussion, the leave to defend application is
allowed and defendant is given 30 days time from today for filing WS.
Defendant shall also supply 15 days advance copy of WS to plaintiff.
Plaintiff shall file replication, if any on the next date of hearing.
Be put up for filing of replication and framing of issues on
03.02.2026.
(Mayank Mittal)
SCJ-cum-RC, North-West,
Rohini Courts, Delhi/20.12.2025
-- 3 of 3 --