Final Order 20

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. BRIJESH KUMAR GARG
DISTRICT JUDGE COMMERCIAL COURT-01,
SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 51/2024
CNR No. DLSH01-000369-2024
SARAOGI SUPER SALES PVT. LTD.
Registered Office at : -
X-49, Pratap Gali
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi – 110 031
Through its Authorized Representative
Mr. Dharmender
Mobile : 7290097138
E-mail : saraogisupersales.dharmender@gmail.com
.....Plaintiff.
Versus
VIMAL KUMAR
PROP. VIKRANT TRENDS
Karman Tola, Arrah,
Bhojpur, Bihar – 802301
Mobile : 9122357647
E-mail : singhvimal@gmail.com
.… Defendant.
Date of institution of the case : 18.01.2024
Date of conclusion of the final arguments : 24.05.2025
Date of judgment : 25.07.2025
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
The present commercial suit for recovery of a sum of
Rs.17,90,834/-, along with pendent-lite and future interest @
18% per annum has been filed, on behalf of the plaintiff, on
18.01.2024.
CS (Comm.) No.51/2024 page 1 of 14 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
-- 1 of 14 --
2. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff is a Private
Limited Company, incorporated under the provisions of The
Companies Act, 2013 and is engaged in the business of wholesale
trading and retail of readymade garments through-out India. The
present suit is instituted through Sh. Dharmender, its Authorized
Representative, who has been duly authorized vide Board
Resolution dated 06.05.2022.
3. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendant,
approached the plaintiff for purchasing the readymade garments
and on his request, the plaintiff started supplying the goods to the
defendant on credit basis and raised various bills/invoices, which
were duly acknowledged by the defendant and the plaintiff also
maintained the current/running account in due course of business.
4. It is further stated in the plaint that w.e.f. January, 2019,
the defendant started placing the orders for supply of readymade
garments and the plaintiff supplied the readymade garments to
the defendant, against the Tax Invoices/Bills, against which few
payments were also made by the defendant into the bank account
of the plaintiff at ICICI Bank Limited, Nangloi Branch, Delhi.
5. It is further stated in the plaint that as per the ledger
account maintained by the plaintiff, a total amount of
Rs.17,90,834/- was outstanding against the defendant, as on
05.01.2024.
6. It is further stated in the plaint that despite several
CS (Comm.) No.51/2024 page 2 of 14 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
-- 2 of 14 --
requests by the plaintiff, the defendant did not respond and had
not made any payment.
7. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendant is liable
to pay an amount of Rs.17,90,834/- along with pendent-lite and
future interest @ 18% p.a. and hence the present suit.
8. After filing of the present suit, the summons of the suit
for settlement of issues were issued to the defendant. But, the
same could not be served on him by ordinary means. Therefore,
the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff moved an application under
Order V Rule 20 CPC, for service of the defendant by substituted
means, by way of publication. The said application was allowed
vide order dated 21.08.2024, and accordingly, the summons of
the suit for settlement of issues were duly served upon the
defendant, vide publication in national newspaper, “The Hindu”,
and in Hindi Newspaper “Rashtriya Sahara”, vide publications
dated 05.10.2024 and 14.10.2024 respectively. But despite due
service, none had appeared on behalf of the defendant and no
written statement was filed on his behalf. Therefore, vide order
dated 20.11.2024, the defendant was proceeded ‘exparte’.
9. During ‘exparte’ plaintiff’s evidence, the plaintiff has
examined its Authorized Representative Sh. Dharmender, who
filed his affidavit Ex. PW1/A and proved the various documents
on record as Ex. PW1/1 to PW1/8.
10. ‘Exparte’ final arguments were concluded by Sh. Varun
CS (Comm.) No.51/2024 page 3 of 14 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
-- 3 of 14 --
Bedi, Advocate, for the plaintiff, on 24.05.2025. During the
course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has
reiterated the contents of the plaint and the affidavit Ex. PW1/A
and has prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may be decreed, in its
favour, and against the defendant, with interest and Costs.
11. During the course of final arguments, it was observed by
the Court that the plaintiff was allegedly having business
transactions with the defendant w.e.f. 02.01.2019, and
accordingly, the ledger account Ex. PW1/1 (Colly) was also filed
on record. But, in support of the said ledger account, the plaintiff
has filed the tax invoices, E-way Bills etc., only, for the period
w.e.f. 06.04.2022 onwards. Therefore, a query was raised by the
Court, regarding the proof of the entire ledger account Ex.
PW1/1 (Colly). On which, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff had
argued that the proof of each and every entry of Ledger Account
Ex. PW1/1 was not required, as the said ledger account was
being maintained by the plaintiff, during the usual course of
business transactions with the defendant. The Ld. Counsel for
the plaintiff has also relied upon the following judgments, in
support of his contentions :
(i) Balmukand vs. Jagan Nath ;1962 SCC OnLine Raj 38 ;
(ii) Gopasunder Sabatho and another vs. Chunnilal and
another ; 1954 SCC OnLine Orissa 53 and
(iii) Narain Dass and others vs. Firm Ghasi Ram ; 1938
SCC OnLine All 303.
12. I have carefully perused the case file. I have also given
CS (Comm.) No.51/2024 page 4 of 14 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
-- 4 of 14 --
my considered thoughts to the arguments, addressed by the Ld.
Counsel for the plaintiff. I have also perused the various
Judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
13. Perusal of the record shows that the defendant has
remained ‘exparte’ during the trial and has failed to file any
written statement and statement of truth, affidavit of
admission/denial of the documents, as stipulated under the
provisions of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
14. The dispute between the parties is commercial in nature
and is covered within the ambit of section 2 (1) (c) of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case titled as,
‘Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP,
reported as 2019 SCC Online SC 1311’ has held that provisions
of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as
the CC Act) are to be strictly followed and adhered to and no
liberal interpretation of the provisions has to be given and it
should be read with narrow sense. It was observed as follows:
“The object and purpose of the establishment of
Commercial Courts, Commercial Divisions and
Commercial Appellate Divisions of the High Court is to
ensure that the cases involved in commercial disputes are
disposed of expeditiously, fairly and at a reasonable cost
to litigants. Keeping in view the object and purpose of the
establishment of the Commercial Courts and fast tracking
procedure provided under the Act, the statutory provisions
of the Act and the words incorporated thereon are to be
meaningfully interpreted for quick disposal of commercial
litigations so as to benefit the litigants especially those
CS (Comm.) No.51/2024 page 5 of 14 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
-- 5 of 14 --
who are engaged in trade and commerce which in turn
will further economic growth of the country.”
(emphasis supplied)
16. This Court has the territorial jurisdiction over the present
case in view of the contents of paragraph number 17 of the plaint
and the fact that the plaintiff has supplied the goods, to the
defendant from its registered office, at Gandhi Nagar, within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The defendant has also made
part payments to the plaintiff there. It was also held by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in case titled as, ‘Satyapal vs.
Sleek Auto Accessories Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.’ , reported as, ‘AIR
2014 Del 115’, as under :
“6. I completely agree with the conclusion of the trial court
because it is settled law that the debtor has to seek the
creditor and since no place of payment was agreed upon,
payment would have been made to the seller/appellant who
is residing and working for gain at New Delhi. Trial court
has also rightly relied upon Section 49 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872 that it was upon the respondent
no.1/defendant no. 1 to fix the place of payment and which
has not been done, and therefore payment would have been
made by the debtor to the creditor at the place of the
creditor/plaintiff/appellant. As already stated the first
appellate court has not even bothered to refer to the analysis
and reasoning of the trial court for holding that the courts at
Delhi have jurisdiction. Accordingly, the findings of the first
appellate court are set aside and it is held that the courts at
Delhi have territorial jurisdiction.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. It was also held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi,
in case titled as, ‘M/s Auto Movers vs. Luminous Power
Technologies Pvt. Ltd.’ passed in CM (M) 604/2020, dated
16.09.2021, as under :
‘22. When, in the present case, the part cause of action has
arisen also on account of the payments made by the
CS (Comm.) No.51/2024 page 6 of 14 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
-- 6 of 14 --
petitioner/defendant directly into the bank account of the
respondent/plaintiff, even if these were not on regular basis,
since there is nothing to show that the place of payment had
been fixed, even without following the principle that the ‘debtor
must seek out the creditor’, it is clear that the Delhi Courts have
jurisdiction to try the suit and the invoice does not vest
jurisdiction in a court which had no jurisdiction at all.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. This Court has the pecuniary jurisdiction also over the
present suit, which is for recovery of a sum of Rs.17,90,834/-,
with pendentilte and future interest @ 18% per annum, as the
amount claimed by the plaintiff, is as per the specified value, as
defined in section 2 (1) (c) of the CC Act and as per section 6 of
the CC Act, 2015.
19. The plaintiff had supplied the goods to the defendant till,
17.02.2023, vide Invoice no. 22-23/MTBS9610, for an amount of
Rs.83,016/- and the last payment was made by the defendant on
08.03.2023. The present suit has been instituted on 18.01.2024,
and therefore, the present suit is well within the period of
limitation.
20. The plaintiff has also filed the application for pre-
litigation mediation, on 17.10.2023 and a Non Starter Report was
issued by DLSA, Shahdara District, Delhi, on 16.11.2023.
Therefore, the mandatory requirement of Section 12-A of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015, has been complied by the
plaintiff.
21. The averments made in the plaint and the affidavit Ex.
CS (Comm.) No.51/2024 page 7 of 14 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
-- 7 of 14 --
PW1/A have remained uncontroverted, unrebutted and
unchallenged and can be presumed to be admitted as correct. The
defendant has failed to contest the case or put up any defence.
There is no reason to disbelieve the averments made in the plaint
and the relevant documents, which have been filed on record,
appear to be of an unimpeachable character.
22. The contents of the plaint and the documents filed on
record, i.e., Ledger Statement Ex. PW1/1 (colly), 18 Tax
Invoices for the period w.e.f. 06.04.2022 to 28.02.2023, Ex.
PW1/2 (Colly), Copy of Board Resolution in favour of AR
Dharmender, dated 06.05.2022, Ex. PW1/3, GST details of the
defendant, Ex.PW1/4, the Certificate of Incorporation of the
plaintiff company, Ex. PW1/5, Non-starter report dated
16.01.2023, Ex. PW1/6, and the Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act, Ex. PW1/7, have all remained unchallenged,
unrebutted and uncontroverted.
23. But, perusal of the record further shows that in support of
the ledger account Ex. PW1/1 (Colly), the plaintiff has failed to file
all the tax invoices, for the period w.e.f. 02.01.2019 to 14.03.2022.
There is no document on record, to support of the entries in the
ledger account Ex. PW1/1, for the period w.e.f. 02.01.2019 to
04.04.2022.
24. It has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in
case titled as. Balmukand vs. Jagan Nath, reported as, 1962 SCC
OnLine Raj 38 (SUPRA), as under :
CS (Comm.) No.51/2024 page 8 of 14 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
-- 8 of 14 --
“13. The learned fudge further seems to have been of the
opinion that even if the books of accounts in question were
accepted as having been regularly kept in the ordinary
course of business of the plaintiffs, they had not been
corroborated by any other evidence, and, therefore, were
insufficient to charge the defendant with any liability. In
saying so, again, the learned Judge seems to me to have
fallen into a very serious error. The plaintiff's Munim
Surajbhan appeared in the witness-box and made a detailed
statement fully supporting the plaintiffs' case as disclosed in
the plaint. I have been taken through his entire statement
and I find that he has stated at elaborate length how the
contract between the parties for the purchase of 200 bags of
Sarson came to be made for a total price of Rs. 12,335/4/6
and how these bags and been purchased in the presence of
the defendant himself from various persons and how the
witness had explained the entire account to the defendant on
the 20th August, 1951, corresponding to Bhadwa Vadi 4,
Section 2008, and the latter had signed the entry for Rs.
2977/2/6 as having been paid on account of the purchase of
the said commodity and how thereafter demands had been
made from time to time orally and in writing of the
defendant to pay the sum outstanding against him and the
latter had paid nothing against his outstandings save a sum
of Rs. 413/-which he had paid on the 21st May, 1952. There
is no cross-examination worth the name of this witness. The
plaintiff Dharamchand also came into the witness-box as P.
W. 11, and he clearly stated that all the entries in his books
had been made by the preceding witness Surajbhan and that
the two hundred bags of Sarson had been purchased by his
firm under instructions from the defendant and that the latter
had signed the entry of Rs. 2977/2/6 Ex. P-17 in his presence
CS (Comm.) No.51/2024 page 9 of 14 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
-- 9 of 14 --
and so on and so forth. The learned Judge seems to me to
have fallen into a grave error of law when he thought that
this was not corroboration of the entries appearing in the
plaintiff's account books against the defendant. It may be
pointed out at this place that Section 34 of the Evidence Act
does not require any particular form of corroborative
evidence, and that where in a suit the plaintiff produces
books of accounts and a witness oa his behalf gives evidence
in support of the en tries and there is no cross-examination
of the witness with respect to his personal knowledge of the
facts stated, that is sufficient corroboration. See Narain Das
v. Firm Ghasiram (1), in this connection. Again, there is
ample authority for the view that the plaintiff's own
statement, on oath in support of the entries made in his
account-books would be sufficient to fix the defendant with
liability.”
(empahasis supplied)
25. It has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in
case titled as, Gopasunder Sabatho and another vs. Chunnilal
and another, reported as, 1954 SCC OnLine Orissa 53 as under :
18. Now that the question of appropriation is of no importance,
in view of this plea of set-off, the main question of importance
turns upon the question whether the account filed by Sabatho in
connexion with the salt business are to be accepted as genuine
and regularly kept in the ordinary course of business. They are
the Cash Ledger Books for the years 1943-1944 proved by
Sabatho, the proprietor of his firm, speaking to the genuineness
of the accounts from his own personal knowledge that they were
entered by his own clerk. It is admitted by both parties that they
had salt dealings with each other. The only difference being that
CS (Comm.) No.51/2024 page 10 of 14 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
-- 10 of 14 --
Chunilal-Parmeshwarlal allege that they had salt dealings with
Sabatho upto 25-4-44 and not afterwards while, according to
Sabatho, the dealings were closed in the month of August 1944.
19. The learned subordinate Judge, who had the advantage of
seeing and examining Sabatho in Court, believes this witness and
particularly, when the ledger book is supported by receipts,
vouchers as per several exhibits on record, Ext. 8 series (Exts. 8
to 8h) are receipts passed by G.S. Narayana on behalf of
Chunilal-Parmeshwarlal for having received crushed salt in
different quantities from Gopasundar Sabatho, Salt Merchant,
Tekali. These receipts appertain to the month of March and April
of the year 1944. The transactions evidenced by these receipts
have been entered in the account books of Sabatho. It is to be
mentioned that there is absolutely no question about the
genuineness of these receipts and as such, they do substantially
corroborate the account papers.
(emphasis supplied)
26. It was also held by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, in
case titled as, Narain Dass and others vs. Firm Ghasi Ram,
reported as, 1938 SCC OnLine All 303 as under :
3. ……………………. The next question argued by learned
Counsel for the appellants is that the plaintiff entirely failed to
prove the amount of damages suffered by him. It is contended
that the plaintiff merely produced the "bahis" of his firm and did
not produce any corroborative evidence of the relevant entries
proving the claim of the plaintiff. Under Section 34, of the
Evidence Act entries in books of account regularly kept in the
course of business are relevant but such statements shall not
CS (Comm.) No.51/2024 page 11 of 14 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
-- 11 of 14 --
alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability.
It is obvious that it was the duty of the plaintiff to have produced
corroborative evidence in support of the entries in his account
books. Legislature however does not require any particular
form of evidence in addition to entries in books of account and
any relevant fact which can be treated as evidence within the
meaning of the Evidence Act would be sufficient corroborative
evidence furnished by the entries in books of account if true.
The question is whether in the present case there is any such
corroboration. On behalf of the plaintiff, Kishan Gopal has
been produced to corroborate the entries in the account books.
This witness is employed as 'munim' of the plaintiff's firm. He
proved the entries in the account books and stated that the
plaintiff had spent Rs. 1982-1-3 on account of the defendants in
the purchase of Bejhar and shop rent, etc. Out of this amount,
the witness stated that the defendants had paid only Rs. 400. No
cross-examination has been directed on behalf of the defendants
to question the accuracy of this statement. It is perfectly true
that this witness does not say in so many words that he has
personal knowledge of what he states but it appears that the
parties were satisfied with the statement made by this witness
and the defendants did not consider it necessary to pursue the
matter further and cross-examine this witness with respect to
his personal knowledge of the facts he was stating.
(emphasis supplied)
27. From the perusal of the above judgments, it is clear that the
various Hon’ble High Courts have accepted the Ledger Account,
only, because some corroborative evidence was filed on record.
But, in the present case, there is no corroborative evidence,
CS (Comm.) No.51/2024 page 12 of 14 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
-- 12 of 14 --
pertaining to the period w.e.f. 02.01.2019 to 04.04.2022. No
bills/tax invoices or E-way bills have been placed on record. The
GR Receipts, (Bilties) from the transporter, regarding the delivery
of the goods, by the defendant are also not on record. Furthermore,
the plaintiff has not filed any GST Return, to corroborate the fact
that the goods were duly supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant,
against the tax invoices and the tax was duly deposited by the
plaintiff, and accordingly, the defendant had already taken the tax
benefit, from the GST Department.
28. Perusal of the ledger account Ex. PW1/1 (colly) further
shows that an amount of Rs.18,72,512/- was outstanding against the
defendant as on 04.04.2022. But, there is no corroboration of the
said amount, by any supporting document. Furthermore, the due
amount as on 04.06.2023, which has been claimed by the plaintiff,
in the present suit is only Rs.17,90,834.75p, which is different from
the due amount, as on 04.04.2022. Therefore, in absence of any
corroborative evidence for the due amount of Rs.18,72,512/-, as on
04.04.2022, it cannot be accepted that the said amount was due or
payable by the defendant, as on 04.04.2022. In case, the said due
amount of Rs.18,72,512/- is deleted from the ledger account, for
want of corroborative evidence, no amount shall be due or payable
by the defendant. On the contrary, an amount worth about
Rs.82,000/- would be credit amount, in favour of the defendant.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff
has failed to establish on record that the claimed amount of
Rs.17,90,834 was due or payable by the defendant. Therefore, the
present suit is hereby dismissed.
CS (Comm.) No.51/2024 page 13 of 14 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
-- 13 of 14 --
It is ordered accordingly.
The decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on
this 25th day of July, 2025.
BRIJESH KUMAR GARG
District Judge
(Commercial Court)-01
Shahdara District, KKD, Delhi/rs
CS (Comm.) No.51/2024 page 14 of 14 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
-- 14 of 14 --