Delhi District Court
Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd vs Ms. Mala on 28 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-06
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSE01-007526-2023
CS (COMM) No.669/2023
Ms. Mala
Proprietor of MK Medical and Surgical
C-44/4, Ground Floor,
Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-2,
New Delhi 110020
Through its SPA Holder
Shri Gaurav Chadda
... Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd.
At: Shop No.C-4,
Metro Bazar
Near Nangloi Metro Station
New Delhi 110041
....Defendant
Date of institution of the suit : 18.07.2023
Date on which judgment was reserved : 11.07.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 28.07.2025
AND
CNR No. DLSE01-004139-2024
CS (COMM) No.313/2024
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Digitally signed
by NEERA CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 1 of 52
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.07.28 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala
13:22:14 +0530
M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd.
C-4, Metro Bazar
Near Nangloi Metro Station
New Delhi 110041
Through its AR / Director
Shri Satish Kumar Singh
... Counter Plaintiff
Versus
Ms. Mala
Proprietor of MK Medical and Surgical
C-44/4, Ground Floor,
Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-2,
New Delhi 110020
.... Counter Defendant
Date of institution of the suit : 25.04.2024
Date on which judgment was reserved : 11.07.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 28.07.2025
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY AND COUNTERCLAIM FOR RECOVERY
1. By way of this common judgment, I shall decide the suit of the Plaintiff filed for recovery of Rs.11,81,459/- alongwith interest bearing CS (COMM) No.669/2023 and counterclaim registered as a separate suit bearing CS (COMM) No. 313/2014 filed by Counter Plaintiff for recovery of Rs.10,35,005/- alongwith interest.
Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 of 52 NEERA BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.07.28 13:22:19 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala
2. To avoid confusion, Ms. Mala, who is Plaintiff in CS (COMM) No.669/2023 has been mentioned as Plaintiff/Counter Defendant and M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. has been mentioned as Defendant/Counter Plaintiff in this judgment.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER DEFENDANT AS SET UP IN THE PLAINT
3. Brief facts of the case as stated by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant in the plaint are that:
a) The Plaintiff/Counter Defendant is the proprietor of M/s MK MEDICAL AND SURGICAL and engaged in the business of medical and surgical equipments etc.
b) The Defendant/Counter Plaintiff is a private limited company. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff placed orders to supply material to them and the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant provided the same to the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff. The Plaintiff/Counter Defendant has raised total bills in the name of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff amounting to Rs.57,07,829/- which has acknowledged by Defendant/Counter Plaintiff wherein Defendant/Counter Plaintiff had agreed to make payment of Rs.57,07,829/- out of which Defendant/Counter Plaintiff made part payment of Rs.47,55,039/-
which has been duly encashed by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant Digitally signed by by cheques/E-Payment and balance became due upon NEERA NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.07.28 13:22:24 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 52 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala Defendant/Counter Plaintiff of Rs.9,52,790/- and interest of the principal amount is Rs.2,28,669/-. Total sum to be paid by Defendant/Counter Plaintiff to Plaintiff/Counter Defendant is Rs.11,81,459/- (principal amount Rs.9,52,790/- + interest @ 24% per annum = Rs.2,88,669/-).
c) Plaintiff/Counter Defendant is maintaining a running account in the name of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff in its books of accounts which has been maintained in the regular and ordinary course of business. As per Statement of Account/Ledger, a sum of Rs.11,81,459/- (alongwith interest) is outstanding due upon the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff.
d) Plaintiff/Counter Defendant made regular demands of her outstanding dues by personal visits and telephonic to the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff on several occasions, but the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff avoided and neglected on one pretext or the other and failed to pay the said outstanding dues.
e) Plaintiff/Counter Defendant is entitled to recover the said due and outstanding amount of Rs.11,81,459/- from the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff and the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff is bound to pay the same to the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant.
f) The Plaintiff/Counter Defendant sent legal notice dated Digitally signed by 24.03.2023 to the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff. The NEERA NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.07.28 13:22:28 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 of 52 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala Defendant/Counter Plaintiff is also liable to pay the interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization.
g) The Plaintiff/Counter Defendant preferred a Pre-litigation/Pre-Institution Mediation before the Competent Authority, i.e. SEDLSA, on 10.04.2023, however Defendant/Counter Plaintiff did not appear before the Competent Authority. Furthermore, the Non-Starter Report for the Pre-
Institution Mediation was issued by the Competent Authority, SEDLSA, dated 17.05.2023.
4. Hence, the present suit was filed.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANT/COUNTER PLAINTIFF AS SET UP IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
5. Brief facts of the case as stated by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff in the Written Statement are that:
a) The suit filed by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant against the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant made short supply of goods as well as defective beds against the last two Bills bearing Invoice No.MK/2021-22/657 dated 02.03.2022 for Rs.21,19,870/-
and another Invoice No. MK/2021-22/713 dated 14.03.2022 for Digitally signed by NEERA Rs.17,42,152/-. In Invoice no. MK/2021-22/657, Plaintiff/Counter NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.07.28 13:22:33 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 5 of 52 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala Defendant has shown the quantity of 100 No. of PEAD ICU BED and 200 Pieces of BED SIDE LOCKER DELUX, whereas in actual, only 40 PEAD ICU BEDS and 40 BED SIDE LOCKERS DELUX were supplied by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant against the said Invoice. Similarly, against another Invoice No. MK/2021- 22/713, only 50 PEAD ICU BEDS and 1200 PCS. BUFFER BLUES were supplied by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant against the 100 PEAD ICU BED and 1200 Pcs. BUFFER BLUE. The weight of one PEAD ICU BED is 55 to 60 Kg. approximately and dimension/size of said bed is approximately 5-foot length, 2.7 foot width and 2 feet height and about 27 Feet area of one PEAD ICU BED and BED SIDE LOCKER DEL having size of 16 inch Length X 16 inch breath and 32 inch height total area of one BED SIDE LOCKER DELUX is about 4.7 Feet and simultaneously more than 40 PEAD ICU BRU and 40 Lockers cannot be loaded in the Trucks body as shown by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant in said Invoices.
b) Plaintiff/Counter Defendant has shown the truck No. UP16HT 1085 by which the said goods as mentioned in said two Invoices were supplied. Said Eicher Pro 2095XP CNG CBC Truck has body size maximum length of about 19 to 20 Foot, hence the number of pieces of the said PEAD ICU BED and said LOCKERS as mentioned in the Invoices as aforesaid are false and based on concocted story.
Digitally
signed by
NEERA
NEERA BHARIHOKE
BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.07.28
13:22:37
+0530
CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 6 of 52
CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala
c) The present suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as a total of 90 PEAD ICU BEDs and 40 Lockers were supplied by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant against the 200 PEAD ICU BEDs and 200 Lockers against the said two Invoices no. MK/2021-22/657 and MK/2021-22/713. The said supplied PEAD ICU Beds were having manufacturing defects which resulted in an adverse impact on the image, prestige and reputation of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff and despite repeated requests and reminders made by Defendant/Counter Plaintiff, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant did not remove the said defects and due to the said unwarranted acts of Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff faced financial loss of Rs.1,26,000/- as its repairing and service charges apart from mental tension and agony.
d) The present suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as while taking the purchase order of PEAD ICU Beds, it was promised by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant that she is the manufacturer of said Pead ICU Beds and on this assurance only, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff gave the purchase order but later on when all the supplied beds were found to be having manufacturing defects, then it came to the knowledge of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff that Plaintiff/Counter Defendant is not the manufacturer of the same and said Beds were managed by her to sell the same to Defendant/Counter Plaintiff. Despite the said facts also Digitally signed by NEERA NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.07.28 Defendant/Counter Plaintiff so many times sent email and 13:22:41 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 of 52 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala telephoned Plaintiff/Counter Defendant to replace or rectify the said manufacturing defects of the supplied beds as Defendant/Counter Plaintiff was regularly getting complaints from the Health department but Plaintiff/Counter Defendant did not do anything in this regard and due to said unwarranted acts of Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff faced much financial Losses. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff hired the technician to rectify the said manufacturing defects of said supplied beds upon his own costs about 10% of the bed price i.e. amounting to Rs.1,26,000/- whereas it was the legal duty of Plaintiff/Counter Defendant to replace or rectify the said manufacturing defects of the beds as the said beds were having warranty of one year.
e) The suit of the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant is not tenable in the eyes of law as the plaint does not disclose cause of action against the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff since the suit filed by her is based upon false and fabricated story and Plaintiff/Counter Defendant is not entitled to seek any relief based on said false and concocted story. Ledger Account as shown and filed by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant is false as fake cash entries about Rs.12,523/- have been mentioned therein. Apart from the said cash entries, there are also two false and incorrect Bills/Invoice No. MK/2021-22/657 and MK/2021-22/713 for amount of Rs.21,19,870/- and Rs.14,42,152/-.
Digitally signed by NEERA NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.07.28 13:22:45 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 8 of 52 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala
f) The present suit is false, baseless and without cause of action. The suit is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Rather after adjusting the entire payments made by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff against the supplied materials, there remained outstanding balance dues about Rs.10,35,005/- of the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff towards the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant and to grab the said hard money of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff, present suit has been filed on the basis of false and concocted story.
REPLY ON MERITS:
g) In its reply on the merits, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has denied the submissions made in the plaint. While denying the submissions made in the plaint, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has reiterated submissions referred to above and also that:.
(1) Plaintiff/Counter Defendant was required to supply the said short PEAD ICU BED and Lockers against the 2 invoices i.e. Bills/Invoice No. MK/2021-22/657 and MK/2021-22/713 for Rs.21,19,870/- and Rs.14,42,152/-
respectively as promised by her but she did not supply the same. Hence on 1st April 2022, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant issued Debit Note for the said short supply of goods and cost of repairing and service charge as per the attached Books of account and debit Note. Plaintiff/Counter Defendant has Digitally made the short supply of 110 PEAD ICU BED and 160 BED signed by NEERA NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.07.28 13:22:49 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 9 of 52 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala SIDE LOCKER DELUXE against the two Invoices No. MK/2021-22/657 and MK/2021-22/713 apart from the Repairing and Service Charges @ 10% of the cost of defective PEAD ICU BED supplied. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff claimed set off of Rs.9,38,195/- as on 17.03.2022 as per the books of account. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs.19,73,200/- against the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant.
(2) The Plaintiff/Counter Defendant owes to the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff the sum of Rs.10,35,005/- on account of short supply of beds, locker and repairing, service charge of beds after setting off Rs.9,38,195/- as on 17.03.2022. Details of the same are given as under:
A. Cost of short supply of 60 pcs. PEAD ICU BED against Invoice No.MK/2021-22/657 Rs. 8,40,000/-
B. Cost of short supply of BED side locker deluxe against Invoice No. MK/2021-22/657 Rs. 3,07,200/-
C. Repairing and Service Charges @ 10% of the cost of each bed of the defected supplied 40 PEAD ICU BED Rs. 56,000/-
D. Cost of short supply of 50 pcs. PEAD ICU BED against Invoice No. NEERA BHARIHOKE MK/2021-22/713 Rs.7,00,000/-Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.07.28 13:22:53 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 10 of 52
CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala E. Repairing and Service Charges @ 10% of the cost of each bed of the defected supplied 50 PEAD ICU BED Rs.70,000/-
Grand Total (A+B+C+D+E) Rs.19,73,200/-
(3) The Defendant/Counter Plaintiff claimed a set off of the said sum i.e. Rs.9,38,195/- as on 17.03.2022 against the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant's claim and prayed for the judgement and decree for the amount of his claim which exceeds Plaintiff/Counter Defendant's claim i.e. Rs.10,35,005/- and also for interest @ 18% per annum thereupon from the date of filling of the Written Statement for which appropriate court fee of Rs.12,495/- has been paid by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff.
h) Plaintiff/Counter Defendant has played fraud with the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff by supplying the short supply of the defective Beds/materials despite taking the advance payment and as such there remained outstanding balance dues of about Rs.10,35,005/- of the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff to be recovered from Plaintiff/Counter Defendant after adjusting the dues of Plaintiff/Counter Defendant.
6. After filing of Written Statement by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff, by directions of my learned Predecessor the court fees alongwith the NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.07.28 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 11 of 52 13:22:57 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala counterclaim/set off was returned to Defendant/Counter Plaintiff for filing a separate Counterclaim which was registered as CS (COMM) No.313/2024 and Replication was filed after return of the court fees and counterclaim.
REPLICATION OF THE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER DEFENDANT
7. Replication has been filed by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, wherein the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant has denied the contents of the Written Statement and reiterated the contents of the plaint.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANT/COUNTER PLAINTIFF AS SET UP IN THE COUNTERCLAIM [CS (COMM) No.313/2024]
8. Brief facts of the case as stated by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff in the counterclaim are that:
a) The Defendant/Counter Plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies Act 1956. Mr. Satish Kumar Singh, Director of the Defendant/Counter who is the Authorized Representative of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff authorized by the Board of Directors to institute the present suit and to depose etc. for and on behalf of the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff vide Board Resolution dated Digitally 10.02.2023.
signed by NEERA NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.07.28 13:23:00 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 of 52 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala
b) The Defendant/Counter Plaintiff deals in kitchen equipment, Refrigeration Equipment, Hospital furniture & Medical, Surgical Equipments and other Products etc. and has been in commercial transactions with the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant by supplying the said goods/materials to each other.
c) The Plaintiff/Counter Defendant is the sole proprietor of "MK Medical & Surgical" and is responsible for the acts and affairs of said concern. Both parties have been placing the purchase order to each other and accordingly both the parties have been supplying the said goods/materials to each other at the given address against the different Bills/ Invoices and against supplied goods/materials by the parties to each other, both are making payments on account basis.
d) Defendant/Counter Plaintiff lastly placed the purchase order for supply of 100 No. of PEAD ICU BED and 200 pieces of BED SIDE LOCKER DELUX on the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant but the same were not supplied to him as per the specification and standard of said purchase order. Counter Plaintiff / Defendant has reiterated the same submissions in respect of short supply of goods as well as defective beds against the last two Bills bearing Invoice No. MK/2021-22/657 dated 02.03.2022 for Rs.21,19,870/- and NEERA another Invoice No. MK/2021-22/713 dated 14.03.2022 for BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Rs.14,42,152/- as stated in its Written Statement to the suit filed by Date: 2025.07.28 13:23:05 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 13 of 52 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant i.e. CS (COMM) No.669/2023 and are therefore not being reproduced.
e) Similarly, submissions, as stated in its Written Statement to the suit filed by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant i.e. CS (COMM) No.669/2023, have been reiterated that simultaneously more than 40 PEAD ICU BED and 40 Lockers cannot be loaded in the Trucks body as shown by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant in said Invoices and are therefore not being reproduced.
f) Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has reiterated as stated in its Written Statement to the suit filed by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant i.e. CS (COMM) No.669/2023 that despite repeated requests and reminders made by Defendant/Counter Plaintiff, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant did not remove the said defects causing financial loss apart from mental tension and agony.
g) Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has reiterated as stated in its Written Statement to the suit filed by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant i.e. CS (COMM) No.669/2023 that it was promised by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant that she is manufacturer of said PEAD ICU Beds and on this assurance only, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff given the purchase order but later on, when all the supplied beds were found of having manufacturing defects, then it came to the Digitally signed by NEERA knowledge of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff that Plaintiff/Counter NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.07.28 13:23:09 +0530 Defendant is not the manufacturer of the same and said Beds were CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 14 of 52 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala managed by her to sell the same to Defendant/Counter Plaintiff. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff made e-mail and telephoned Plaintiff/Counter Defendant to replace or rectify the said manufacturing defects of the supplied beds as Defendant/Counter Plaintiff was regularly getting complaints from the health department, but Plaintiff/Counter Defendant did not do nothing in this regard and due to said unwarranted acts of Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff faced much financial Losses. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff hired the technician to rectify the said manufacturing defects of said supplied beds upon his own costs about 10% of the bed price i.e. amounting to Rs.1,26,000/ whereas it was the legal duty of Plaintiff/Counter Defendant to replace or rectify the said manufacturing defects of the beds as the said beds were having warranty of one year.
h) Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has reiterated its submissions as stated in its Written Statement to the suit filed by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant i.e. CS (COMM) No.669/2023 about the Ledger account as shown and filed by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant in his Suit i.e. CS(COMM) No.669/2023 and about the submission of the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff as to how there remained outstanding balance dues to be recovered by it of about Rs.10,35,005/- from the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant and are NEERA BHARIHOKE therefore not being reproduced.Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.07.28 13:23:13 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 15 of 52
CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala
i) Plaintiff/Counter Defendant has reiterated as stated in its Written Statement to the suit filed by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant i.e. CS (COMM) No.669/2023 that Plaintiff/Counter Defendant was required to supply the said PEAD ICU BED and LOCKERS against the said 2 Invoices as promised by Plaintiff/Counter Defendant but she did not supply the same. Hence on 1st April, 2022, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant issued Debit Note for the said short supply of goods as aforesaid and cost of repairing and service charge as per the attached Books of account and Debit Note.
Plaintiff/Counter Defendant has made the short supply of 110 PEAD ICU BED and 160 BED SIDE LOCKER DELUX against the two Invoices No. MK/2021-22/657, MK/202l-22/713, apart from the repairing and service charges @ 10% of the cost of each bed of the defected supplied PEAD ICU BED. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff claimed the set off of Rs.9,38,795/- as on 17.03.2022 as per the books of account. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff claimed total sum of Rs.19,73,200/- against the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant as under:
A. Cost of short supply of 60 pcs.
PEAD ICU BED against Invoice
No.MK/2021-22/657 Rs. 8,40,000/-
B. Cost of short supply of BED side
locker deluxe against Invoice No.
Digitally
signed by
NEERA
NEERA BHARIHOKE
MK/2021-22/657 Rs. 3,07,200/-
BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.07.28
13:23:17
+0530
CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 16 of 52
CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala C. Repairing and Service Charges @ 10% of the cost of each bed of the defected supplied 40 PEAD ICU BED Rs. 56,000/-
D. Cost of short supply of 50 pcs.
PEAD ICU BED against Invoice No. MK/2021-22/713 Rs.7,00,000/-
E. Repairing and Service Charges @ 10% of the cost of each bed of the defected supplied 50 PEAD ICU BED Rs.70,000/-
Grand Total (A+B+C+D+E) Rs.19,73,200/-
9. Hence, the present counterclaim was filed.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER DEFENDANT AS SET UP IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
10. Brief facts of the case as stated by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant in the Written Statement are that:
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS: -
i. The verification clause of the counter claim is defective as the counter claim has not been verified by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff in accordance with the rules of the Hon'ble High Court.
NEERA BHARIHOKE ii. The counter claim of the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has Digitally signed by been filed without any cause of action in favour of the NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.07.28 13:23:21 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 17 of 52 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala Defendant/Counter Plaintiff and against the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant and the counter claim is therefore barred under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
iii. The Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has reiterated the submissions made in the plaint of suit No. CS (COMM) No.669/2023 and has denied the submissions made by the Counter Plaintiff / Defendant in its plaint bearing Suit No. CS (COMM) No.313/2024 except about description of parties and has submitted that the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff is liable to pay the outstanding amount to the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant as claimed in suit No. CS (COMM) No.669/2023.
iv. Plaintiff/Counter Defendant has prayed for dismissal of counterclaim while reiterating its submissions as made in the plaint of suit No. CS (COMM) No.669/2023.
REPLICATION OF THE DEFENDANT/COUNTER PLAINTIFF
11. Replication has been filed by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff, wherein the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has denied the contents of the Written Statement and reiterated the contents of the Counterclaim.
NEERA 12. On 06.11.2023, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA but mediation failed.
BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.07.28 13:23:24 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 18 of 52CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala FRAMING OF ISSUES
13. Vide order dated 09.08.2024, based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by my learned Predecessor :-
(1) Whether there was short supply of ICU Beds and side lockers as claimed by the defendant/counter Plaintiff? OPD (2) Whether the goods supplied by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant were defective as claimed by the defendant/counter Plaintiff?
OPD.
(3) Whether the defendant/counter Plaintiff is entitled to set off of the amount of Rs.9,38,195/- and recovery of Rs.10,35,005/- as detailed in para 8-I of the counter claim? OPD.
(4) Whether the defendant/counter Plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future interest? If yes, on what amount and at what rate? OPD.
(5) Whether the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant is entitled to the recovery of Rs.11,81,459/- as claimed in CS(COMM)669/2023? OPP.
(6) Whether the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant is entitled to pendente lite and future interest? If yes, on what amount and at what rate? OPP.
(7) Whether the parties are entitled for costs in their respective suit/counter claim? If yes, the quantum? OP Parties.
(8) Relief.
14. Vide order dated 09.08.2024, it was decided that evidence would be recorded in the main Suit i.e. CS (COMM) 669/2023 and the suit and NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 19 of 52 by NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala Date: 2025.07.28 13:23:29 +0530 the Counterclaim were clubbed. Learned Counsel for the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff agreed to start the evidence. Therefore, the matter was directed to be taken up for evidence of the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff on 26.09.2024 and 05.10.2024.
DEFENDANT/COUNTER PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
15. On 26.09.2024, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff examined DW-1 Shri Satish Kumar Singh. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. DW-1/A. He reiterated the contents of the Written Statement and relied upon the following documents: -
i. Board Resolution dated 10.02.2023 in favour of deponent is Ex.DW-1/1.
ii. Debit Note no. 1 dated 01.04.2022 for Rs.7 Lacs for the short supply of goods against the Invoice No. MK/2021-22/713 dated 14.03.2022 is Ex.DW-1/2.
iii. Debit Note no. 2 dated 01.04.2022 for Rs.70,000/- for the repairing and service charge of the defected supplied goods against the Invoice No. MK/2021-22/713 dated 14.03.2022 is Ex.DW-1/3.
iv. Debit Note no. 3 dated 01.04.2022 for Rs.11,47,200/- for the short supply of goods against the Invoice No. MK/2021-22/657 dated 02.03.2022 is Ex.DW-1/4.
v. Debit Note no. 4 dated 01.04.2022 for Rs.56,000/- for the repairing and service charge of the defected supplied goods against the Invoice No. MK/2021-22/657 dated 02.03.2022 is Ex.DW-1/5.
vi. Computer generated Ledger Account of the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant for period 01.04.2018 to 19.04.2024 (inadvertently Digitally signed by NEERA NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.07.28 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 20 of 5213:23:33 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala typed in evidence affidavit 19.05.2024) alongwith Certificate under Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act is Ex.DW-1/6.
16. DW-1 Shri Satish Kumar Singh was cross-examined on 02.12.2024 by learned Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter Defendant. On the same day, DW-1 Shri Satish Kumar Singh was discharged.
17. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff also examined Shri Suresh Chauhan as DW-2 on 02.12.2024 in support of her case. He was cross examined by learned Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter Defendant on 02.12.2024 and he was discharged on the same day.
18. On 02.12.2024, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff's Evidence was closed on the statement of Shri Satish Kumar Singh, Authorized Representative of the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff and the matter was fixed for Plaintiff/Counter Defendant's Evidence.
PLAINTIFF/COUNTER DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
19. On 27.01.2025, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant examined PW-1 Shri Gaurav Chadha. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW-1/A. He reiterated the contents of the plaint and relied upon the following documents: -
(1) The copy of the Certificate of Goods and Services Tax is Ex.PW-
NEERA 1/A. BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.07.28 13:23:37 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 21 of 52 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala (2) Copy of Tax Invoices are Ex.PW-1/B (Colly.).
(3) Copy of Ledger of Accounts maintained by Plaintiff/Counter Defendant is Ex.PW-1/C. (4) Copy of legal notice dated 24.03.2023 is Ex.PW-1/D. (5) Certificate under Order XI Rule 6 of the Commercial Courts Act is Ex.PW-1/E. (6) The copy of Goods and Services Tax B2B is Ex.PW-1/F. (7) The copy of postal receipt is Ex.PW-1/G. (8) Non-Starter Report dated 17.05.2023 is Ex.PW-1/H.
20. PW-1 Shri Gaurav Chadha also tendered Certificate u/s 63 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 as Ex.PW-1/1.
21. It was observed that copies of bills i.e. Ex. PW-1/B, were tendered collectively. However, in the affidavit of evidence (collectively) was not mentioned. Ex. PW-1/B in the affidavit of evidence would be treated as Ex. PW-1/B (collectively.) PW-1 was allowed to tender Certificate u/s 63 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 as Ex. PW-1/I.
22. PW-1 Shri Gaurav Chadha was cross examined on 27.01.2025 and 25.04.2025 and he was discharged on 25.04.2025. Plaintiff/Counter Defendant's Evidence was closed on the statement of Shri Gaurav Chadha on 25.04.2025.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.07.28 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 22 of 52 13:23:41 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala
23. It was ordered that since the present matter was clubbed with CS (COMM) No.313/24 and the evidence was recorded in the present matter in terms of order dated 09.08.2024 of my learned Predecessor, the evidence recorded in the present matter would be read for this matter as well as CS (COMM) No.313/24 and photocopy of the complete evidence recorded in the present matter was directed to be placed in the file of CS (COMM) No.313/24.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
24. It was argued on behalf of Plaintiff/Counter Defendant that the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant had supplied 100 PAED ICU beds and not Bedside Locker Deluxe to the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff under the Invoice No.MK/2021-22/657 since the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff had cancelled the order for the same. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter Defendant denied that there was any short supply under the Invoice No. MK/2021-22/713 and submitted that Plaintiff/Counter Defendant had duly supplied 100 PEAD ICU BEDS and 1,200 pcs Buffer Blue 5" to the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff under the same. Reliance has been placed by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant on the ledger account filed by Plaintiff/Counter Defendant in support of its submissions.
25. On the other hand, learned Counsel for Defendant/Counter Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant had made short supply of PEAD ICU Beds as well as Bedside Locker Deluxe to the Digitally signed by Defendant/Counter Plaintiff under the Invoice No.MK/2021-22/657 as NEERA NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.07.28 13:23:45 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 23 of 52 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala well as shortage of supply under the Invoice No. MK/2021-22/713. It was also argued on behalf of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff that there were defects in the goods supplied leading to Defendant/Counter Plaintiff bearing expenses towards repair/removal of those defects besides suffering of losses by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff. He also invited to the cross examination of PW-1 where PW-1 also admitted that there were manufacturing defects in the PEAD ICU beds supplied by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant.
26. Learned Counsel for Defendant/Counter Plaintiff also argued that the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff specifically produced DW-2 as a witness who runs the transport business in the name of Thakur Transport Tempo Service and DW-2 has categorically deposed that the truck in which the PEAD ICU beds were supplied by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant cannot carry 100 number of beds and 200 pieces of Bedside Locker Deluxe at the same time. He argued that the testimony of DW-2 supports the stand of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff of short supply which is supported by the debit notes raised by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant against the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant.
27. Learned Counsel for Defendant/Counter Plaintiff submitted that on account of the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff having suffered because of short supply of goods by Plaintiff/Counter Defendant and Defendant/Counter Plaintiff having to borne the expenses towards removal of defects in the Beds supplied by the Plaintiff/Counter NEERA Defendant, the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff raised the Debit Notes on the BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 24 of 52 Date: 2025.07.28 13:23:50 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala Plaintiff/Counter Defendant and filed a Counter claim against the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant. It was argued on behalf of the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff that it is not the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant who is entitled to any amount from the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff. Rather it is the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff who is entitled to recover the sum claimed through Counterclaim which has been registered separately as CS (COMM) No.313/24.
28. In rebuttal, the learned Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter Defendant submitted that the defects in the beds were removed/repaired by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant and not by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff. He also argued that PW-1 has categorically stated that he had not supplied the bedside lockers to the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff as Defendant/Counter Plaintiff had cancelled the order of the same and therefore only beds were supplied under the Invoice No.MK/2021-22/657 and the goods ordered by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff under the Invoice No. MK/2021-22/713 were supplied to the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant. He also argued that the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant had sent the beds to the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff but in dismantled form and it was the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff who assembled the same. He argued that therefore the truck which carried the ICUPEAD beds could easily carry the goods as per the order placed by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff under these invoices.
29. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter Defendant submitted that the Digitally signed by debit notes alleged to have been raised by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff NEERA NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.07.28 13:23:55 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 25 of 52 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala on the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant are forged and fabricated. He argued that the same were never served upon nor were the debit notes ever sent to the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter Defendant submitted that the debit notes have been created by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff to wriggle out of its liability towards the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant for which the present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant.
FINDINGS
30. I have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record very carefully.
31. My issue-wise findings are given as under:-
Issue No.1 : Whether there was short supply of ICU Beds and side lockers as claimed by the defendant/counter Plaintiff?
Onus to prove this issue was placed on the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff.
32. The case of the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant is that it had raised total bills in the name of the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff for a sum of Rs.57,07,829/-which were duly acknowledged by Defendant/Counter NEERA Plaintiff and Defendant/Counter Plaintiff had agreed to make the payment BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA of Rs.57,07,829/-and Defendant/Counter Plaintiff had paid part payment BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.07.28 13:23:59 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 26 of 52 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala of Rs.47,55,039/- to Plaintiff/Counter Defendant and the balance payment of Rs.9,52,790/-has not been paid by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff.
33. The transaction between the parties has not been denied by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff. However, the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has submitted that it had orally placed the purchase order for supply of 100 no. of PEAD ICU BEDS and 200 pieces of BED SIDE LOCKER DELUX to the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant but the same were not supplied to him as per the specification, standard of said purchase order and that the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant made short supply of goods as well as defective beds against the last two Bills bearing Invoice No. MK/2021-22/657 dated 02.03.2022 for Rs.21,19,870/- and another Invoice No. MK/2021-22/713 dated 14.03.2022 for Rs.14, 42,152/-.
34. The Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has submitted that both parties had been placing the purchase order to each other and accordingly both the parties have been supplying the said goods/materials to each other at the given address against the different Bills/ Invoices and against supplied goods/materials by the parties to each other, both are making payments on account basis.
35. The Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has submitted that Plaintiff/Counter Defendant has made a short supply of goods against the law two bills bearing Invoice No. MK/2021-22/657 dated 2.3.2022 for Rs.21,19,870/- and another Invoice No.MK/2021-22/713 dated 14.3.2022 NEERA BHARIHOKE for Rs.17,42,152/-. The Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has also stated that in Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.07.28 13:24:03 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 27 of 52 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala Invoice No.MK/2021-22/657, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant has shown the quantity of 100 no. of PEAD ICU BED and 200 Piece of BED SIDE LOCKER DELUX whereas in actual only 40 PEAD ICU BED and 40 BED SIDE LOCKERS were supplied by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant against this Invoice. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has also alleged that against the other Invoice No.MK/2021- 22/713, only 50 PEAD ICU BED and 1200 Pcs BUFFER BLUE were supplied by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant against 100 PEAD ICU BED and 1200 Pcs BUFFER BLUE.
36. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has submitted that the weight of one PEAD ICU BED is 55 to 60 Kg. approximately and dimension/size of said bed are approximately 5 foot length, 2.7 foot width and 2 feet height and about 27 Feet area of one PEAD ICU BED. BED SIDE LOCKER DELUX is 15 Kg. having size of 16 Inch Length X 16 inch breath and 32 inch in height total area of one BED SIDE LOCKER DELUX is about 4.7 Feet and at any cost simultaneously more than 40 PEAD ICU BED and 40 Lockers cannot be loaded in the Trucks body. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has relied on testimony of DW-2 in support of its submissions.
37. It has been submitted on behalf of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff that invoices raised by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant show the beds and bedside lockers to have been supplied through truck bearing registration No. UP16HT 1085 and said Eicher Pro 2095XP CNG CBC Truck has body size maximum length of about 19 to 20 Foot, hence the number of pieces of the said PEAD ICU BED and said Lockers as mentioned in the NEERA BHARIHOKE Invoices as aforesaid are false and based on concocted story.
Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.07.28 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 28 of 52 13:24:07 +0530CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has also alleged that a total of 90 PEAD ICU BEDS and 40 Lockers were supplied by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant against the 200 PEAD ICU BEDS and 200 Lockers against the said two Invoices no. MK/2021- 22/657 and MK/2021-22/713.
38. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has also filed a Counter Claim No.313/2024 titled Jyoti Equipments Pvt Ltd Vs. Mala, for recovery of Rs.10,35,005/- after setting off of Rs.9,38,195/- on account of short supply of beds, bedside lockers and repairing and service charges of the defective beds.
39. DW-2 deposed that he runs the transport business in the name of Thakur Transport Tempo Service and that he had been doing the business of loading, unloading and transporting the goods all over India and he was having the Eicher Trucks, Tempo Trucks etc. for the same purpose. He further deposed that he was having the knowledge of Eicher Pro 2095XCNG CBC Truck. He deposed that this truck has the loading body size of 7X20 ft. (7 ft. width and 20 ft. length). It could carry max. 90 PEAD ICU beds at a time. DW-2 also stated that Eicher Pro 2095XCNG CBC Truck cannot carry anything else if it is loaded with 90 PEAD ICU beds. DW-2 stated that Eicher Pro 2095XCNG CBC Truck can carry about 100 bedside lockers deluxe at a time. It cannot carry anything else if it is loaded with 100 bedside lockers deluxe.
40. DW-2 also stated that at a time, Eicher Pro 2095XCNG CBC Truck NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE cannot carry more than 40 pieces of PEAD ICU Beds and 40 pieces of Date: 2025.07.28 13:24:11 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 29 of 52 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala bed side Locker deluxe simultaneously. Similarly, the said truck cannot carry more than 50 pieces of PEAD ICU Bed and 1200 pieces of buffer blue simultaneously.
41. DW-2 was cross-examined by learned Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter Defendant and he admitted that he had given his estimate on the basis of his experience and not on basis of mathematical dimension. He also admitted that the truck which carried the beds to Andhra Pradesh was not driven by him. He denied the suggestion that he had given his estimate on being tutored by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff.
42. During his cross-examination, PW-1 categorically stated that against the bill dated 14.03.2022, he had not supplied any bedside lockers to the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff and volunteered that he had not supplied the same because the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff cancelled the order once the material was ready and the bill was ready. PW-1 stated that he supplied only the ICU bed against the bill dated 14.03.2022. No suggestion was put to PW-1 that his said statement was incorrect.
43. The Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has not produced any document on record of having made any demand or having written any letter or WhatsApp message or e-mail to the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant against the said alleged short supply from the date of receiving the material against these two invoices. During his cross-examination, DW-1 stated that he came to know immediately regarding the defects in the goods and NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 30 of 52 Date: 2025.07.28 13:24:16 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala short supply at the time of delivery of goods and the said two bills. He also stated that first bill was generated on 02.03.2022 and on the same date he came to know about the defect and short supply and volunteered that he intimated the same to Mr. Gaurav Chaddha husband of Ms. Mala. DW-1 also stated that material was delivered in Andhra Pradesh and it takes three to four days for material to reach from Delhi to Andhra Pradesh by Road through Truck. Taking his statements to be true, the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff would have received the consignments under the Bills/Invoice No. MK/2021-22/657 and MK/2021-22/713 for Rs.21,19,870/- and Rs.14,42,152/- by 5th March 2022 and 17th March 2022 respectively.
44. DW-1 also stated during his cross-examination that the intimation about short supply and defective goods was given to Mr. Gaurav Chaddha husband of Ms. Mala by a video call and that he had shown him through video call that material from hospital bed i.e. nuts, bolts, pipes were coming out and was broken from various joints and could not be used. DW-1 volunteered that the husband of Plaintiff/Counter Defendant assured him that he would send somebody to mend the broken or spoiled parts of the 1CU bed. DW-1 stated that the defect was found in all the 40 beds. Information was not sent to Mr. Gaurav Chaddha through any other mode be it email or whatsapp or letter. DW-1 did not state as to against beds received for which invoice, the said video call was made by him as it is the case of the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff that 40 PEAD ICU Beds were supplied against the Bill/Invoice No. MK/2021-22/657, it follows NEERA BHARIHOKE from cross-examination of DW-1 that the said video call was made by Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.07.28 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 31 of 52 13:24:21 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala him on receiving this consignment but not in respect of Bills/Invoice No. MK/2021-22/713 since in his cross-examination, DW-1 stated that second consignment containing 50 beds was sent to Andhra Pradesh and same problem was there in all the beds but did not make any statement about how DW-1 intimated about the said alleged short supply to the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant. Rather DW-1 stated that information was not sent to Mr. Gaurav Chaddha through any other mode be it email or WhatsApp or letter. Therefore, version of DW-1 about short supply is not consistent and is shaky.
45. PW-1 denied the suggestion that he had not supplied the goods against the Bill dated 02.03.2022 and Bill dated 14.03.2022 as per the specification of the order placed by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff on the Plaintiff/ Counter Defendant. PW-1 also stated that the order placed by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff was by the phone and WhatsApp and that he can produce the order placed by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff on the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant through WhatsApp. But learned Counsel for Defendant/Counter Plaintiff did not ask him to produce the same. Therefore, adverse inference is drawn against Defendant/Counter Plaintiff as per section 114 of Indian Evidence Act under which court can presume the evidence would be unfavorable to the party who is hesitant against production of such evidence on record, essentially strengthening the opposing party's case.
46. Further Ex. PW-1/C (Colly) i.e. ledger statement of NEERA BHARIHOKE Defendant/Counter Plaintiff maintained by Plaintiff/Counter Defendant Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.07.28 13:24:26 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 32 of 52 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala also supports this statement of Plaintiff/Counter Defendant since on its third page, there is entry of Rs.4,70,820/- in the column of credit which has been made in favour of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff since the Bedside locker Deluxe, 200 pieces of which were required to be sent as per invoice dated 02.03.2022 costing for Rs. 3,84,000/- alongwith GST @ 18% were mentioned in the said invoice were not sent so credit of the same was reflected in the ledger account in favour of the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff. The same is reflected in Ex. DW-1/6 i.e. ledger account of the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant maintained by Defendant/ Counter Plaintiff. In fact, the entries in Ex. PW-1/C (Colly) and Ex. DW-1/6 are identical except for 6 entries of case which are reflected in Ex. PW-1/C (Colly) and not in Ex. PW-1/6. Therefore, the submission of the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff is incorrect that Ledger Account as shown and filed by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant is false as there are two false and incorrect Bills/Invoice No. MK/2021-22/657 and MK/2021-22/713 for amount of Rs.21,19,870/- and Rs.14,42,152/- since the said two entries for these amounts are also there in the ledger account filed by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff.
47. Therefore, not only the ledger account produced by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant but also the ledger account produced by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff supports the version of the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant. No other explanation has been offered by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff in respect of this credit entry of Rs.4,70,820/- in its favour by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff. NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.07.28 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 33 of 52 13:24:30 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala
48. Further DW-1 during his cross-examination admitted that he had availed the GST input of the invoices bearing no. MK2021-22/657 dated 02.03.2022 and MK2021-22/713 dated 14.03.2022 which prima facie prove that the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff received the material from the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant as per the orders placed by Defendant/Counter Plaintiff.
49. There is no other entry of credit in favour of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff either in Ex. DW-1/6 or Ex. PW-1/C (Colly). The estimated number of beds or lockers or combination of both or combination of beds and buffer blue which can be carried in the Eicher Pro 2095XCNG CBC Truck cannot outweigh the evidentiary value of these documents which are identical in their entries till 17.03.2022 except for cash entries which are reflected in ledger account produced by Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, Ex. PW-1/C and ledger account produced by Defendant/Counter Plaintiff. The deposition of DW-2 therefore does not shake the testimony of PW-1.
50. In support of the alleged short supply of goods and the repairing and servicing of Defective beds, the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff also relied on Debit Notes, Ex. DW-1/1 to Ex. DW-1/5 wherein Ex. DW-1/2 and Ex. DW-1/4 have been described to have been issued against short supply in 2 invoices i.e. Bills/Invoice No. MK/2021-22/713 and MK/2021-22/657 for Rs.21,19,870/- and Rs.14,42,152/- respectively.
51. The Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has submitted that NEERA BHARIHOKE Plaintiff/Counter Defendant was required to supply the said short PEAD Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.07.28 13:24:35 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 34 of 52 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala ICU BED and Lockers against the 2 invoices i.e. Bills/Invoice No. MK/2021-22/657 and MK/2021-22/713 for Rs.21,19,870/- and Rs.14,42,152/- respectively as promised by her but she did not supply the same. Hence on 1st April 2022, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant issued Debit Note for the said short supply of goods and cost of repairing and service charge as per the attached Books of account and debit Note.
52. As observed above, during his cross-examination, DW-1 admitted that he had availed the GST input of the invoices bearing no. MK2021- 22/657 dated 02.03.2022 and MK2021-22/713 dated 14.03.2022. DW-1 stated during his cross-examination that he came to know about the defect and short supply immediately on receiving the material under these two invoices. However, the Debit Notes bear the date of 1st April 2022. This supports the version of the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant that it was only on receipt of legal notice dt. 24.03.2023 given by Plaintiff/Counter Defendant to the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff that the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff generated debit notes. During his cross-examination, a question was put to DW-1 that it was only on receipt of legal notice dt. 24.03.2023 given by Plaintiff/Counter Defendant to the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff to the Defendant, the Defendant/ Counter Plaintiff generated debit note. He did not deny said suggestion. Rather DW-1 gave an evasive reply that he did not know.
53. During his cross-examination, PW-1 denied the suggestion that Ex. DW-1/2 to Ex. DW-1/5 were issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff after the mutual consent between the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant and the NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 35 of 52 BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala Date: 2025.07.28 13:24:39 +0530 Defendant/Counter Plaintiff against the bill dated 02.03.2022 and 14.03.2022. PW-1 also denied the suggestion that to escape the liability, he was deposing falsely that he was not aware or had not received the Debit Notes against the bill dated 02.03.2022 and 14.03.2022.
54. DW-1 stated that he could not tell the exact date of debit notes when it was generated and volunteered that he informed the said facts to his CA. However, neither DW-1 in his examination in chief nor Defendant/Counter Plaintiff in its written statement or Counter plaint has stated as to how the Debit notes were sent to the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant. During his cross-examination, DW-1 only stated that at the time of issuing the said debit notes, he intimated the same to the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant through telephone. DW-1 admitted that He did not intimate to the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant through WhatsApp, e- mail and speed post and in writing regarding issuing of debit notes. Making entries in one's ledger account does not prove the raising of Debit notes or their validity or their genuineness. The debit notes have to be so the one the opposite party as well as have to be reflected in GST return of that month in which the same are raised but Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has not produced any document on record to show that the set compliance was made by Defendant/Counter Plaintiff.
55. Since DW-1 had admitted taken the input of GST against the 2 invoices i.e. Bills/Invoice No. MK/2021-22/657 and MK/2021-22/713 for Rs.21,19,870/- and Rs.14,42,152/- respectively, it was mandatory for the NEERA BHARIHOKE Defendant/Counter Plaintiff to reverse the GST in its Debit Notes.
Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.07.28 13:24:44 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 36 of 52CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala However, neither Ex. DW-1/2 nor does Ex. DW-1/4 has any entry of reversal of GST which supports the case of the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant that these debit notes are sham and forged and fabricated to deny the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant of its legitimate dues.
56. DW-1 stated that after issuing of debit note on 01.04.2022, he reversed the GST which was claimed by him on GST portal but he did not remember the date of said reversal. You said that he did not remember if it was reversed in April, May, June. He also stated that he did not remember the year, month and date of reversal of the said GST and volunteered that as the same was maintained by his CIA hence he was unable to provide the said date, month and year.
57. During his cross-examination on 30.09.2024, a question was put to DW-1 that the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff did not deposit reverse GST return and that is the reason that it is not reflecting on the GST Portal and the account of the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant. DW-1 replied that it was incorrect. DW-1 denied he suggestion that since the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff had taken the input of GST, the goods supplied by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant were as per the terms of purchase order. DW- 1 denied the suggestion that the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff did not deposit reverse GST return and that is the reason that it is not reflecting on the GST Portal and in the account of the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant. He also denied the suggestion that for this reason only he had not brought reverse GST record on that day. He stated that he could produce the NEERA BHARIHOKE reverse GST regarding the debit notes and balance sheet for the same.
Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.07.28 13:24:49 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 37 of 52CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala
58. Cross-examination of DW-1 was deferred on 30.09.2024 for production of his reverse GST return and was continued on 02.12. 2024. On the said date, DW-1 stated that he had not brought the reverse GST Return regarding the Debit Notes and volunteered that since the input of debit notes is available only for three months and not thereafter, therefore, the debit notes for which reverse GST Return was required is more than three months old, it is not available on GST Portal. He denied the suggestion that it is always available regardless of passage of whatever period.
59. DW-1 gave evasive and wrong reply since the GST record of all individual/entity is always available on his own GST portal. Even otherwise, one's own GST Return is also available with a person. The Debit notes Ex. DW-1/2 and Ex. DW-1/4 bear date of 01.04.2022 and evidence of DW-1 has been recorded in 2024 and Written statement and Counter claim has been filed by Defendant/Counter Plaintiff in October, 2023 and January 2024 respectively. Had the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff raised these alleged debit notes, he could have produced at least his GSTR to prove the same. The debit note has to be reported in GSTR-1 of the relevant month in which it was issued. Debit notes are required to be reported in GSTR 1 Table 9C. The note number, note date, site of supply, kind of supply, original invoice date, original invoice number, note type, taxable amount, and note value are among the details one must provide in NEERA BHARIHOKE one's report.
Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.07.28 13:24:54 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 38 of 52CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala
60. Non-production of GST Return by DW-1 amounts to withholding the best evidence from the Court as well as leads to drawing of adverse inference against the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff.
61. In view of these observations, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has failed to prove that there was short supply of bedside lockers by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant since Plaintiff/Counter Defendant has proved that the same were not supplied because the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff cancelled the order once the material was ready and the bill was ready and accordingly, the reverse entry/entry of Rs.4,70, 820/- was made in the credit column of ledger of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff maintained by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant and ledger account filed by Defendant/ Counter Plaintiff also has the entry of Rs.4,70, 820/- in debit column of ledger of the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant maintained by Defendant/ Counter Plaintiff. Further the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has failed to prove that there was short supply of PEAD ICU beds by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant. Even otherwise, CS (COMM) No.313/2024 has been filed as a counterclaim to CS (COMM) No.669/2023 and has been registered as a separate suit but compliance of Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act i.e. Pre-litigation Mediation has not been made by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff and the suit CS (COMM) No.313/2024 is therefore not maintainable.
62. Therefore, issue no. 1 is decided against the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff and in favour of Plaintiff/Counter Defendant. Therefore, issue Digitally signed by NEERA NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.07.28 13:24:58 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 39 of 52 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala No.1 is decided against the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff and in favour of Plaintiff/Counter Defendant.
Issue No.2 : Whether the goods supplied by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant were defective as claimed by the defendant/counter Plaintiff/Counter Defendant?
Onus to prove this issue was placed on the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff.
63. The Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has not submitted about there being any defects in the material supplied by Plaintiff/Counter Defendant except beds.
64. The Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has submitted that the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant supplied defective beds. During his cross- examination, PW-1 admitted that parts of some of the beds which were supplied to the defendant vide bill dated 02.03.2022 had manufacturing defects. He denied the suggestion that parts of all the beds which were supplied to the defendant against the bill dated 02.03.2022 and 14.03.2022 were defective. PW-1 volunteered that the beds which were supplied vide bill dated 14.03.2022 were inspected by a representative of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff namely Shri Nilesh and he approved the same and thereafter, the beds were supplied. NEERA BHARIHOKE The following question was put to PW-1:
Digitally signed by NEERABHARIHOKE "Q.: Who was Nilesh in the defendant company?Date: 2025.07.28 13:25:02 +0530
PW-1 responded as:CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 40 of 52
CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala Ans.: When I had gone to the office of the defendant for the first time in 2021 in June/July, I was informed by Satish in presence of Nilesh that Nilesh is his partner. In the year 2023, Nilesh informed me on phone call made by me to him that Nilesh is an employee of the defendant company."
65. PW-1 denied the suggestion that Nilesh was not the employee of the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff and he never inspected the goods against the bill dated 14.03.2022.
66. The Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has not produced any evidence or witness to rebut the above statement of PW-1 or to prove that the beds which were supplied vide bill dated 14.03.2022 were defective and therefore, the issue in respect of the said supply to be defective is held against the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff and in favour of the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant. It is held that the beds which were supplied vide Invoice No.MK/2021-22/713 dated 14.03.2022 were not defective.
67. Therefore, the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff proved that the beds which were supplied vide Invoice No.MK/2021-22/657 dated 02.03.2022 were defective. Therefore, issue No.2 is decided partly in favour of the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff and against the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant and it is held that the beds which were supplied by the Plaintiff/Counter NEERA BHARIHOKE Defendant vide Invoice No.MK/2021-22/657 dated 02.03.2022 were Digitally signed by NEERA defective. BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.07.28 13:25:06 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 41 of 52 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala Issue No.3 : Whether the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff is entitled to set off of the amount of Rs.9,38,195/- and recovery of Rs.10,35,005/- as detailed in para 8-I of the counter claim?
Onus to prove this issue was placed on the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff.
68. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has submitted that the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant owes to the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff a sum of Rs.10,35,005/- on account of short supply of beds, locker and repairing, service charge of beds after setting off Rs.9,38,195/- as on 17.03.2022. Details of the same are given as under:
A. Cost of short supply of 60 pcs. PEAD
ICU BED against Invoice
No.MK/2021-22/657 Rs. 8,40,000/-
B. Cost of short supply of BED side
locker deluxe against Invoice No.
MK/2021-22/657 Rs. 3,07,200/-
C. Repairing and Service Charges @ 10%
of the cost of each defective bed
supplied i.e. 40 PEAD ICU BED Rs. 56,000/-
supplied through Invoice No.
MK/2021-22/657
D. Cost of short supply of 50 pcs. PEAD
ICU BED against Invoice No.
MK/2021-22/713 Rs.7,00,000/-
E. Repairing and Service Charges @ 10%
of the cost of each defective bed
NEERA
BHARIHOKE supplied i.e. 50 PEAD ICU BED
Digitally signed by
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.07.28
13:25:10 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 42 of 52
CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala supplied through Invoice No. MK/2021-22/713 Rs.70,000/-
Grand Total (A+B+C+D+E) Rs.19,73,200/-
69. As has been observed while deciding issue No.1 against the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff that there was no short supply of material by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant to the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff, the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff is not entitled to cost of short supply of 60 pcs. PEAD ICU BED against Invoice No.MK/2021-22/657 for which the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has claimed an amount of Rs.8,40,000/- and towards cost of short supply of BED side locker deluxe for which the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has claimed an amount of Rs.3,07,200/-. For the same reasons, the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff is not entitled to cost of short supply of 50 pcs. PEAD ICU BED against Invoice No. MK/2021- 22/713 for which the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has claimed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-.
70. Further while deciding issue No.2, it has been held that the beds which were supplied vide Invoice No.MK/2021-22/713 dated 14.03.2022 were not defective, the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff is not entitled to repairing and service charges @ 10% of the cost of each defective bed supplied i.e. 50 PEAD ICU BED supplied through Invoice No. MK/2021- 22/713 for which the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has claimed an amount of Rs.70,000/-.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.07.28 13:25:14 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 43 of 52 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala
71. While deciding issue No.2, it has also been held that the beds which were supplied by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant vide Invoice No.MK/2021-22/657 dated 02.03.2022 were defective.
72. PW-1 has deposed that he had sent Mr. Shani to cure the defects in PEAD ICU beds but he could not tell the exact date and time. PW-1 denied the suggestion that he had not sent any technician to cure the defects in the Pead ICU beds that is why he was not remembering its date and time.
73. On the other hand, the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has submitted that the defects in beds were cured at his cost. During his cross- examination, DW-1 stated that since Mr. Gaurav Chaddha had assured him to repair the beds which were sent against the bill dt. 02.03.2022 hence, on believing him, DW-1 took the delivery of second bill dt. 14.03.2022. DW-1 denied the suggestion that material supplied to the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff was not faulty.
74. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has submitted that it suffered a huge business and financial loss because of the defects in the beds. It has also been stated by Defendant/Counter Plaintiff that Defendant/Counter Plaintiff so many times sent email and telephoned Plaintiff/Counter Defendant to replace or rectify the said manufacturing defects of the supplied beds as Defendant/Counter Plaintiff was regularly getting complaints from the Health department but Plaintiff/Counter Defendant did not do anything in this regard and due to said unwarranted acts of Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff faced much Digitally signed by NEERA NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.07.28 13:25:18 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 44 of 52 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala financial Losses. However, the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has not produced the said alleged mails on record nor has the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff filed copy of any complaint stated to have been received by it from Health Department.
75. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has also submitted that it hired the technician to rectify the said manufacturing defects of said supplied beds at its own cost about 10% of the bed price whereas it was the legal duty of Plaintiff/Counter Defendant to replace or rectify the said manufacturing defects of the beds as the said beds were having warranty of one year. However, the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has not examined the said technician nor has the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff placed on record any bills or payment proof in respect of the alleged rectification of the said manufacturing defects of beds supplied at its own cost.
76. The Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has raised Debit Note, Ex. DW- 1/5 in lieu of the spending/cost of repairing and service charges of Rs.56,000/- and has accordingly claimed repairing and service charges @ 10% of the cost of each defective bed supplied i.e. 50 PEAD ICU BED supplied through Invoice No. MK/2021-22/657 totaling Rs.56,000/-. However, the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has not produced any witness or material in support of the said claim raised by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff.
77. The reliance on Debit Note Ex. DW-1/5 by Defendant/Counter NEERA Plaintiff is unfounded in view of the observations made above that the BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 45 of 52 Date: CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala 2025.07.28 13:25:23 +0530 Defendant/Counter Plaintiff failed to prove that intimation of the same was given by Defendant/Counter Plaintiff to the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant. Furthermore, the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has not produced its GST Return which mandates that all Debit Notes have to be reflected in GST Return of the same month when the Debit Note is raised.
78. What is equally significant and demolishes the case of the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff totally is that DW-1 had produced its audited balance sheet for the year 2022-2023 on 02.12.2024 when Cross examination of DW 1 was conducted and the same was taken on record as Ex. DW-1/PX1. Original was seen and returned. DW-1 admitted that Ex. DW-1/PX1 did not reflect the outstanding of the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff or the debit and credit entries of the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff. DW-1 volunteered that the same are not reflected in the balance sheets of private limited companies and denied the suggestion that the same are reflected in the balance sheets of private limited companies. He also denied the suggestion that balance sheets are maintained to keep authentic account of the liabilities and outstanding of each party and not the Ledger.
79. It has already been observed that the entries in the Ledger Account produced by both sides are identical i.e. Ex. PW-1/C (Colly) and Ex. DW- 1/6 except for some cash entries which are reflected in the Ex. PW-1/C (Colly) but not in Ex. DW-1/6. After deducting the entries in cash from the Ex. PW-1/C (Colly), the amount reflected in the ledger account of NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.07.28 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 46 of 52 13:25:27 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala both sides come to be the same i.e. Rs. 9,38,195/- to be payable by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff to the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant.
80. It is correct that debit and credit entries of the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff are not reflected in the balance sheets. However, Schedule XIII of Balance Sheet mentions about the Receivables of current year as well as of previous year and the Balance Sheet produced by DW-1 and later exhibited as Ex. DW-1/PX1 is Balance Sheet of the company of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff. The Schedule XIII of this Balance Sheet does not mention the name of Plaintiff/Counter Defendant or about any amount or liability of the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant due towards the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff. The balance sheet is duly audited and the absence of the particulars of Plaintiff/Counter Defendant in Schedule XIII of the Balance Sheet, Ex. DW-1/PX-1 demolishes the defence as well as claim of the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff as regards its Counter claim as well as against denying liability towards the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant. For the same reasons, it stands indisputably proved that the Debit Notes relied upon by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff are forged and fabricated documents. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has failed miserably to have incurred any expenses for service/repairing of the Defects in the PEAD ICU Beds supplied by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant through Invoice No. MK/2021-22/657. Therefore, issue No.3 is decided against the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff and in favour of Plaintiff/Counter Defendant NEERA and it is held that the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff is not entitled to set off BHARIHOKE Digitally signed of the amount of Rs.9,38,195/- and Defendant/Counter Plaintiff is not by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.07.28 13:25:32 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 47 of 52 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala entitled to recovery of Rs.10,35,005/- as detailed in para 8-I of the Counter claim.
Issue No.4 : Whether the defendant/counter Plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future interest? If yes, on what amount and at what rate?
Onus to prove this issue was placed on the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff.
81. In view of having decided issue No.3 against the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff, issue No.4 is also decided against the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff and in favour of Plaintiff/Counter Defendant.
Issue No.5 :Whether the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant is entitled to the recovery of Rs.11,81,459/- as claimed in CS(COMM)669/2023?
Onus to prove this issue was placed on the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant.
82. While deciding issue No.1, it has already been held that the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant supplied the goods/material to the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff in terms of the order placed by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff. The amount due to be recovered by the Plaintiff/Counter defendant from the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff is duly reflected in the Ledger Account produced by Plaintiff/Counter Defendant i.e. Ex. PW-1/C (Colly). The Invoices in question have been raised in the year 2021 & 2022 and the present suit has been filed in 2023 and is therefore, filed within limitation.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.07.28 13:25:36 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 48 of 52 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala
83. During his cross-examination, PW-1 denied the suggestion that in the Ledger Account of the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant has shown the fake cash entries apart from the fake entries of Rs.21,19,870/- and Rs.17,42,152/- against the invoice No. MK/2021- 22/657 and MK/2021-22/713. PW-1 admitted that in the ledger account of the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant at point A, B, C, D, E and F are not the cash entries and volunteered that those were the rate differences against the invoices which were overbilled or overcharged. PW-1 also denied the suggestion that since he had shown the cash entries at points A to F instead of rate differences, hence, the ledger account filed by the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant is false and fabricated. However, he Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has also filed ledger account of the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant as maintained by it. The entries in the Ledger Account produced by both sides are identical i.e. Ex. PW-1/C (Colly) and Ex. DW-1/6 except for some cash entries which are reflected in the Ex. PW-1/C (Colly) but not in Ex. DW-1/6.
84. After deducting the entries in cash from the Ex. PW-1/C (Colly), the amount reflected in the ledger account of both sides come to be the same i.e. Rs.9,38,195/- to be payable by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff to the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant.
85. Since the entries following the outstanding amount of Rs.9,38,195/- to be payable by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff to the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant in Ex. DW-1/6 pertain to Debit Notes which the NEERA Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has failed to prove miserably, the entries in BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 49 of 52 Date: 2025.07.28 13:25:40 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala that regard are forged and fabricated entries made in Ex. DW-1/6 and it is held that those entries have been made by Defendant/Counter Plaintiff to defeat the legitimate claim of the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant.
86. Since the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant has been unable to prove the entries not matching with the entries made in Ex. DW-1/6, the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant is held entitled to recover Rs.9,38,195/- from the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff. The Plaintiff/Counter Defendant has also claimed interest @ 24% on the amount recoverable from the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff from 17.03.2022 to date of filing of the present suit. The interest @ 24% p.a. is also granted to the Plaintiff but at the amount of Rs.9,38,195/- and not on Rs.9,52,790/- from 17.03.2022 till filing of the present suit. Therefore, issue No.5 is decided in favour of Plaintiff/Counter Defendant and against the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff and it is held that Plaintiff/Counter Defendant is entitled to recovery of Rs.9,38,195/- alongwith interest @24% p.a. from 17.03.2022 till filing of the present suit as claimed in CS(COMM)669/2023.
Issue No.6 :Whether the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant is entitled to pendente lite and future interest? If yes, on what amount and at what rate?
Onus to prove this issue was placed on the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant.
87. Since the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant has been deprived of its legitimate dues and was constrained to file the suit bearing CS (COMM) NEERA No.669/2023 to recover the same, the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant is BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 50 of 52 Date: 2025.07.28 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala 13:25:44 +0530 entitled to pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum from date of filing of suit bearing CS (COMM) No.669/2023 till realization.
Issue No.(7) :Whether the parties are entitled for costs in their respective suit/counter claim? If yes, the quantum?
Onus to prove this issue was placed on the parties.
88. From perusal of the observations made while deciding issue No.1 to 4, it is clear that Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has set up a wrong case and raised fabricated Debit Notes against the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant. This led to Plaintiff/Counter Defendant not only contest for its legitimate dues but also to contest against false Counterclaim raised by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff. Hence, it is held that Plaintiff/Counter Defendant is entitled to receive cost of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff besides pleader's fee, fees of learned Local Commissioner and the other costs on the scale provided under section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure as substituted by Commercial Courts Act. If the payment is not made within thirty days, the cost shall also carry simple interest @ 6% per annum.
RELIEF
89. In view of my findings given on issue no.1 to 3, the Counterclaim filed by the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff, registered as CS(COMM) 313/2024 is dismissed.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.07.28 13:25:48 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 51 of 52 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala
90. In view of my findings given on issue no.4 to 6, CS(COMM) 669/2023 is decreed and Plaintiff/Counter Defendant is entitled to recover from the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff a sum of Rs.9,38,195/- alongwith interest @24% p.a. from 17.03.2022 to the date of realization. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff is also directed to pay to the Plaintiff/Counter Plaintiff the cost of Rs.1,00,000/- besides pleader's fee and the other costs on the scale provided under section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure as substituted by Commercial Courts Act. If the payment is not made within thirty days, the cost shall also carry simple interest @ 6% per annum.
91. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
92. This common Judgment be kept in the file of Suit bearing CS (COMM) No.669/23 and copy of this common judgment be kept in the case file of Counterclaim bearing CS (COMM) No.313/2024.
Files be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 28.07.2025 (Dr. Neera Bharihoke) Digitally signed by NEERA District Judge (Commercial Court)-06 South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.07.28 13:25:53 +0530 28.07.2025 Certified that this judgment contains 52 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Dr. Neera Bharihoke) Digitally signed by District Judge (Commercial Court)-06 NEERA NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi 28.07.2025 2025.07.28 13:25:58 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 669/2023 Ms. Mala Vs. M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Page 52 of 52 CS (COMM) No. 313/2024 M/s Jyoti Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mala