Delhi District Court
Ms Tata International Limited vs Prem Narang on 10 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-06
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSE01-002902-2012
CS DJ No.9502/16
M/s TATA International Limited
Block A, Shivsagar Estates,
Dr. Annie Besant Road,
Worli, Mumbai - 400018
... Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Prem Narang
Proprietor,
M/s Narang Sales Corporation
A-8/46, Basement,
Kalkaji Extension,
New Delhi - 110019
....Defendant
Date of institution of the suit : 17.04.2012
(Before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi)
Date of transfer of the suit to this court : 04.10.2025
Date on which judgment was reserved : 24.01.2026
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 10.02.2026
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY & MANDATORY INJUNCTION NEERA BHARIHOKE
1. By way of this judgment, I shall decide the suit of the Plaintiff filed Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 15:20:06 +0530 CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 1 of 50 for recovery of Rs.33,35,004/- alongwith interest and Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendant to issue Form "C" for the material supplied by the Plaintiff.
2. The Plaintiff had initially impleaded Proprietorship concern, and its proprietor separately and therefore impleaded them separately. However, Plaintiff corrected the memo of parties and thereby impleaded Defendant in terms of CPC and therefore, there is only one Defendant in the present suit. Reference to 'Defendants' in this judgment has therefore been made as Defendant.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS SET UP IN THE PLAINT
3. Brief facts of the case as stated by the Plaintiff in the plaint are that:
a) Plaintiff is a Company and is one of the largest export houses in India engaged in various trading activities worldwide, including Aluminum & Mining Industry Products, Leather, Iron & Steel, Power Equipment, Railway Wagons, Castings & Forgings, Infrastructure and Construction Equipment, Auto Components and Bicycles etc. The Plaintiff has its Bicycle manufacturing unit at Ludhiana, Punjab and several distribution points all over India. The Plaintiff also has a distribution point/office at Okhla New Delhi.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA b) The present suit has been filed through Shri Manoj BHARIHOKE Deshmukh, Authorized Representative of the Plaintiff who has been Date: 2026.02.10 15:20:10 +0530 CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 2 of 50 authorized vide Power of Attorney dated 07.07.2009 and Board Circular Resolution No.607 to file the present suit on behalf of the Plaintiff.
c) The Defendant is the Proprietor of M/s Prem Narang. The showroom/godown of the Defendant was located at Faridabad, Haryana. The Defendant claimed to have sold the said showroom/godown. All dealings between the Plaintiff and Defendant were negotiated and transacted through Defendant.
d) Sometime in December 2009, Defendant approached the Plaintiff and expressed interest in selling Plaintiff's products, namely bicycles and parts thereof in Haryana, New Delhi and Western UP. Upon the request of the Defendant, the Plaintiff agreed to supply the products to Defendant. It was agreed between the parties that the Plaintiff would raise proforma invoices upon the Defendant and upon receipt of the same, Defendant would confirm the same over the phone. It was further agreed that the delivery of the goods would be ex-works/factory and that the Defendant would arrange his own transport to have the goods collected from the factory-cum-godown of the Plaintiff at Ludhiana. The parties had also agreed that upon delivery of the goods to the Defendant, the NEERA BHARIHOKE Plaintiff would raise invoices upon Defendant in respect of goods Digitally signed by NEERA supplied and the Defendant would remit the amount of the invoice BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 15:20:14 +0530 within 45 days from the date of the invoice. Defendant was also CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 3 of 50 required to issue Form No. 'C' to the Plaintiff every quarter, in respect of goods supplied by the Plaintiff.
e) Pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, regular supplies of bicycles were made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant from January 2010 onward, against proforma invoices raised by the Plaintiff and accepted by the Defendant. At the time of handing over the goods to the transporters appointed by the Defendant, a gate pass was duly issued to facilitate the egress of goods from the factory of the Plaintiff and the transporters' signatures were obtained on the duplicate of the same which was retained with the Plaintiff. Payments were also received from the Defendant by the Plaintiff in respect of the supplies made to the Defendant as per invoices raised by the Plaintiff.
f) A running account was maintained by the Plaintiff in respect of the aforesaid dealings with Defendant and the payments received from Defendant were credited to the running account maintained by the Plaintiff in respect of Defendant.
g) During the period December 2010 to January 2011, the Plaintiff supplied bicycles to Defendant vide the following invoices:
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by
(i) Invoice No.ENG\DLH\DOM\10-11\134 dated 11.12.2010 NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 15:20:18 +0530 for Rs.7,91,764.80/-CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 4 of 50
(ii) Invoice No.ENG\DLH/DOM\10-11\139 dated 18.12.2010 for Rs.8,41,989.60/-
(iii) Invoice No.ENG/DLH/DOM\10-11\160 dated 12.01.2011 for Rs.8,67,216.24/-
(iv) Invoice No. ENG\DLH/DOM\10-11\164 dated 18.01.2011 for Rs.8,67,216.24/-
The total amount payable by Defendant under the aforesaid invoices was Rs.33,68,186.88/-
h) The Defendant made the following payments subsequent to the supplies made vide Invoice No. ENG/DLH/DOM/10-11/134 dated 11.12.2010 for Rs.7,91,764.80/-.
Date Amount
_____________________________________
24.12.2010 Rs.2,00,000.00/-
28.12.2010 Rs.4,00,000.00/-
06.01.2011 Rs.2,55,000.00/-
07.01.2011 Rs.2,44,994.06/-
08.02.2011 Rs.3,65,000.00/-
08.02.2011 Rs.1,35,000.00/-
17.02.2011 Rs.5,00,000.00/-
_____________________________________
Total: Rs.20,99,994.06/-
_____________________________________
NEERA
BHARIHOKE i) After adjustment of the aforesaid payments totaling to
Digitally signed
Rs.20,99,994.06/- made by Defendant against dues for the supplies by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 made to Defendant by the Plaintiff, prior to the aforesaid four 15:20:21 +0530 transactions detailed hereinabove, a balance amount of Rs.1,22,671.00/- was adjusted towards part payment of Invoice No. CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 5 of 50 ENG/DLH/DOM/10-11/134 dated 11.12.2010. Thus, a total amount of Rs.32,45,515.88/- remained due and payable by Defendant against the aforesaid four invoices.
j) Despite repeated phone calls, e-mails and letters from the Plaintiff to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to remit the payment in respect of the aforesaid invoices, the Defendant failed to do so.
k) In the meanwhile, goods worth Rs.4,91,397.82/- from the goods supplied to Defendant by the Plaintiff under the aforesaid invoices, were returned to the Plaintiff by the Defendant. After adjusting the said amount of Rs.4,91,397.82/- against the total outstanding amount of Rs.32,45,515.88/- payable against the aforesaid invoices, a principal amount of Rs.27,54,118.06/- remained payable by the Defendant on account of goods delivered to Defendant vide the aforesaid invoices.
l) As per mutual agreement between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, the payments were to be made by the Defendant within 45 NEERA days of the invoice. The Plaintiff was thus also entitled to BHARIHOKE interest@18% per annum for the delay in settlement of the invoices.
Digitally signed by NEERABHARIHOKE The interest for the delay in payment till February 10, in respect of Date: 2026.02.10 15:20:26 +0530 the aforesaid four invoices, was calculated at Rs.5,00,337.94/-.
CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 6 of 50m) In view of the failure on the part of Defendant to make the payment in respect of the aforesaid invoices, the Plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 22.02.2012 to Defendant to make a payment of Rs.32,54,456.00/- being the total of the principal amount of Rs.27,54,118.06/- and interest amount of Rs.5,00,337.94/- within 15 days of receipt thereof. Defendant was also called upon to reimburse to the Plaintiff the cost of the legal notice. The Notice sent at Defendant's New Delhi address was duly served upon Defendant.
n) The Plaintiff received a response dated 17.03.2012 from the Defendant. In the said response titled "Reply-cum-Notice", no specific denial of the contents of the notice dated 22.02.2012 sent on behalf of the Plaintiff was made. The Defendant made denial of the contents of the Plaintiff's Notice. In the "Reply-cum-Notice", the Defendant sought to rely upon an agreement dated 21.12.2009, which Defendant claimed was for a period of six months and which was, as per the Defendant's own contention and admission/not renewed. The Defendant also made frivolous and unsubstantiated claim of Rs.52 Lakhs against the Plaintiff against losses allegedly incurred by the Defendant. No such claims as had been made in the said "Reply-cum-Notice", had been raised by the Defendant at any point of time prior to the receipt of the legal Notice dated 22.02.2012. The said false and frivolous claim was raised by the NEERA Defendant only as a counterblast to the legal Notice dated BHARIHOKE 22.02.2012 sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant and with a view to Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE avoid the payment of dues owed to the Plaintiff.
Date: 2026.02.10 15:20:29 +0530 CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 7 of 50o) The contents of the "Reply-cum-Notice" dated 17.03.2012 received from the Defendant and the claims made therein, were baseless and false, a suitable response dated 28.03.2012, to the same was sent to the Defendant.
p) Despite oral and written reminders as well as the legal Notice dated 22.02.2012, receipt of which was acknowledged by Defendant in its "Reply-cum-Notice" dated 17.03.2012, Defendant failed to pay up the dues of the Plaintiff or issue Form No. C for the supplies made during the 3rd and 4th quarters of the Financial Year 2010- 2011.
4. Hence, the present suit was filed before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
5. Defendant was served and was duly represented by Counsel on 04.07.2012. Vide order dated 28.01.2023, application of the Defendant filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/- by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
6. Vide order dated 24.07.2013, the application of the Defendant for NEERA BHARIHOKE condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement was allowed by Digitally signed Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Written Statement was taken on by NEERA record.
BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 15:20:33 +0530 CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 8 of 50 CASE OF THE DEFENDANT AS SET UP IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
7. Brief facts of the case as stated by the Defendant in the Written Statement are that:
Preliminary Objections:
a) The suit of the Plaintiff is misconceived, devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
b) The suit of the Plaintiff for recovery of the suit amount is also not maintainable as the Defendant is not liable to pay any amount.
On the contrary, it was the Defendant who had to recover amount from the Plaintiff.
c) The suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as the Plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands and concealed material facts.
d) The suit of the Plaintiff is also not sustainable as no cause of action accrued in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant and the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed under Order VII NEERA Rule 11 CPC.
BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 15:20:36 +0530 Brief facts of the case:- CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 9 of 50 e) The Defendant was approached by the officials of the Plaintiff
to take the dealership for Delhi, Haryana and Western UP region for selling bicycles of the Plaintiff and on being committed that there would be huge profit in the said dealership, Defendant entered into a written agreement dated 21.12.09 initially for a period of 6 months with the condition for renewing the same on mutual understanding.
f) Accordingly, the Defendant purchased a shop-cum-godown at Haryana bearing No.12/2, Sector-37, Faridabad, Haryana so that the business of Plaintiff could grow manifold and further around Rs.6 Lacs were incurred towards its renovation/repairing and its furnishing.
g) Prior to the agreement, it was agreed by the Plaintiff that all sizes of cycles, i.e. 12", 14", 16", 18" & 20", 22" & 24"
(Kids/teenager cycles), sports cycles, Ranger Cycles etc. would be provided to the Defendant for selling the same in the market.
h) It was also assured to the Defendant that Plaintiff would arrange a foreign tour of Asian countries (including boarding, lodging and airfare and all transfers) on selling the bicycles more NEERA BHARIHOKE than 1000 pieces and further, it was also projected that Plaintiff Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE would give incentives, bonus and commission of 2% on the total Date: 2026.02.10 15:20:39 +0530 sales made by the Defendant.CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 10 of 50
i) In the agreement, it was also agreed that the Plaintiff had option to terminate the dealership by giving two months' notice and the Defendant had option to terminate the agreement after giving 6 months' notice.
j) In the agreement, it was also agreed that if any dispute would arise between the parties, the same would be referred to sole Arbitrator, whose decision would be final and the venue would be at New Delhi.
k) In the agreement, it was also agreed that the Plaintiff would provide technical details and would bear the expenses in marketing the product of Plaintiff.
l) Whatever was agreed and assured by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, nothing materialized. On the contrary, the Plaintiff discontinued its supply of bicycles from 01.12.10 without giving any notice in writing to the Defendant as per the terms of the agreement as mentioned above and further, no supply was made to Defendant due to which the Defendant suffered huge losses, as much as there were recurring expenses to maintain the space NEERA BHARIHOKE arranged for selling the bicycles and further, the Defendant was Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE even forced to bear the cost of its employees who were employed to Date: 2026.02.10 15:20:43 +0530 manage the business.CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 11 of 50
m) Due to recurring expenses, the Defendant was burdened with huge deficit and due to the same, the Defendant approached the Plaintiff and apprised his financial constraints and further, requested the Plaintiff to restore the supply of the bicycles and pay the amount incurred by the Defendant in maintaining the infrastructure for selling the bicycles, but the requests made by the Defendant time and again were never responded. The Defendant also requested the Plaintiff to provide the statement of accounts with regard to the supply of bicycles made to them during the period from 21.12.09 to 01.12.10 but even the said request was not heeded by the Plaintiff and even till filing of Written Statement, no account had been provided to them and with ulterior motive, the present suit was filed against the Defendant so that they might not be able to ask anything from the Plaintiff.
n) Even as per the agreement, the Defendant was required to be given incentives, bonus & commission and further advertising expenses and replacements of defective parts and bicycles but the same did not materialize and Defendant is entitled for the same. The Plaintiff supplied only 22" & 24" bicycles and the other sizes cycles were never supplied to him despite repeated requests made to the officials of the Plaintiff.
NEERA BHARIHOKE
o) When the business of the Defendant was at its peak, the Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Plaintiff stopped the supply of bicycles after 01.12.10 and due to the Date: 2026.02.10 15:20:46 +0530 same, the Defendant suffered business loss (i.e. salaries of CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 12 of 50 employees, taxes, after/electricity bills, sewer charges etc.) to the tune of Rs.10 Lacs and further, the officials of Plaintiff even started marketing Plaintiff's product without the consent of the Defendant in the assigned area and further, it was conveyed to the retailers that the dealership of the Defendant had been terminated, due to the same around 130-140 retailers of bicycles (i.e. In Western UP, Haryana and Delhi) stopped the payment of Defendant, with whom Defendant had been conducting business and due to which more than Rs.16 Lacs of Defendant got blocked and further, the Defendant was forced to sell his property i.e. 12/2, Sector-37, Faridabad, Haryana at a throw-away price due to which he suffered further loss of Rs.4 Lacs.
p) The Defendant was shocked when he received the notice dated 22.02.12 and in that, Rs.32,54,456/- had been asked by the Plaintiff from the Defendant. On one side, the Plaintiff admitted its guilt for deficiency of services rendered to the Defendant and on the other hand, such claims were raised against them and due to which, the Defendant got perturbed and sent the notice-cum-reply dated 17.03.12 and asked the Plaintiff to withdraw the notice dated 22.02.12 and further to pay a sum of Rs.52 Lacs for the losses, replacements, advertising expenses and incentives, bonus and NEERA commission foreign tours which he had undergone in this dealing. BHARIHOKE Digitally signed The details of losses and other claims are mentioned below:
by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 15:20:50 +05301. Commission, incentives & Bonus -Rs.3 Lacs
2. Immediate Business Loss -Rs.10 Lacs CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 13 of 50
3. Amount blocked by retailers -Rs.16 Lacs
4. Loss on selling the property in Faridabad -Rs.4 Lacs
5. All replacements of cycles/parts and shortage -Rs.8 Lacs
6. Advertisement expenses incurred by my client -Rs.1.50 Lacs
7. Renovation/repairing cost of property of Faridabad -Rs.6 Lacs
8. Interest paid by on overdraft facility -Rs.1.50 Lacs
9. Foreign Tours -Rs.2 Lacs
q) The Plaintiff in spite of withdrawing the notice dated 22.02.12, and paying any amount to the Defendant, filed the present suit.
Reply on Merits
r) It was denied that Mr. Manoj Deshmukh is the authorized person or competent to file the present suit.
s) The Defendant purchased the showroom only on the NEERA BHARIHOKE assurance/projections given by the Plaintiff and once the Plaintiff Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE did not supply the material as per requirements, therefore, the Date: 2026.02.10 15:20:53 +0530 Defendant was compelled to sell the same on throwaway price.
CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 14 of 50t) The Agreement dated 21.02.2009 was executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with respect to the supply of bicycles. In the agreement, it was provided that the agreement may be renewed by the parties on mutually acceptable terms and conditions. Pursuant to the agreement, the bicycles were supplied to the Defendant. In the agreement, it was also provided that the Plaintiff would provide market assistance to the Defendant for sale of the Bicycles. In the said agreement, there was an Arbitration clause for referring the dispute to the Arbitrator. Based on the assurance given by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff purchased Go-down-cum-Shop at Haryana bearing No.12/2, Sector 37, Faridabad. Further, Defendant invested around Rs.6 Lacs towards its renovation and furnishing. It was denied that it was agreed between the parties that the Plaintiff would raise proforma invoices upon the Defendant. Upon receipt of the same, Defendant would confirm the same over the phone. It was denied that it was agreed between the parties that the delivery of the goods would be ex-works/factory and the Defendant would arrange own transport to have the goods collected from the factory-cum- godown of the Plaintiff at Ludhiana. It was also denied that the parties had also agreed upon the delivery of the goods to the Defendant that the Plaintiff would raise Invoices upon the Defendant in respect of the goods supplied and the Defendant would NEERA BHARIHOKE remit the amount of the invoice within 45 days from the date of the Digitally signed by NEERA invoice. It was never agreed that the Defendant would arrange own BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 15:20:56 +0530 transport from the factory-cum-godown at Haryana, Faridabad and CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 15 of 50 orders were always placed through e-mails and never been communicated through phone. Every time, the Plaintiff used to deliver the goods at the godown-cum-showroom of the Defendant and after delivery, the same was duly acknowledged by the officials of Defendant to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff made wrong and false averments without any basis.
u) It was denied that against the Proforma invoices raised by the Plaintiff, regular supply was made to the Defendant. It was denied that at the time of handing over the goods to the transporters appointed by the Defendant, a gate pass was duly issued to facilitate the egress of goods from the factory of the Plaintiff, and the transporters signatures were obtained on the duplicate of the same which was retained with the Plaintiff. The goods were supplied by the transporters of the Plaintiff to the Defendant and every time, the transporters used to take the signatures on the delivery note of the officials of the Defendant at the time of delivery of the goods. The bicycles as agreed were never supplied to the Defendant and the Defendant always made the payment within time to the Plaintiff in respect of supplies received by it. Whenever there used to be delivery of articles, the invoices used to be stamped and duly signed.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by v) The Plaintiff, to defeat the valid claims of the Defendant, is NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 15:21:01 +0530 making false story and there is no iota of truth in the same. The Defendant had always cleared the dues within time.
CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 16 of 50w) The invoices are fake and fabricated and no supply of bicycles as per the invoices was made to the Defendant.
x) It was denied that Rs.32,45,515.88/- was payable by Defendant against the aforesaid four Invoices. Nothing was payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. On the contrary, the Defendant had to recover about Rs.52 Lacs (as detailed in above-mentioned brief facts) from the Plaintiff and for the same the Defendant would file separate suit.
y) It was denied that despite repeated requests, reminders and notice, the Defendant was not responsive. The Defendant always discussed with the officials of the Plaintiff and made a claim as mentioned above but the Plaintiff was evasive.
z) Since there was no outstanding against the Defendant, hence paying any interest on the outstanding does not arise. The Defendant is not entitled for interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of Rs.52 Lacs for the damages and on other account/losses suffered on account of transaction conducted with the Plaintiff as detailed in above mentioned brief facts.
NEERA BHARIHOKE aa) The legal notice dated 22.02.12 sent by the Plaintiff was duly Digitally signed replied vide reply-cum-notice dated 17.03.12 and in the said reply-
by NEERAcum-notice, Plaintiff was called upon to pay Rs.52 Lacs to BHARIHOKE Date:
2026.02.10 15:21:04 +0530 Defendant.CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 17 of 50
bb) The claim raised by the Defendant in reply-cum-notice was not a counter blast to the legal notice. On contrary, the legal notice dated 22.02.12 sent by the Plaintiff mounted undue pressure upon the Defendant so that he should not start any litigation towards his losses.
cc) The claim of the Defendant was valid and genuine and they would prove the same during the course of trial. On every claim raised in the notice dated 17.03.12, the Defendant had got concrete evidence and had valid documents to rebut the claim of the Plaintiff.
No response dated 28.03.12 of any kind was received by the Defendant.
dd) Despite reminder and calls, the Plaintiff failed to pay the damages and losses suffered by the Defendant on account of transaction conducted between them.
8. Relying on the said averments, the Defendant submitted that there is no merit in the present suit, and it deserves to be dismissed. NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 15:21:08 +0530 REPLICATION OF THE PLAINTIFF CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 18 of 50
9. Replication was filed by the Plaintiff, wherein the Plaintiff denied the contents of the Written Statement and reiterated the contents of the plaint.
ADMISSION / DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
10. Learned Counsel for Defendant admitted two documents filed by the Plaintiff as Ex. P-1 and P-2. Remaining documents were denied by the learned Counsel for Defendant. No document was filed by the Defendant alongwith Written Statement. Vide order dated 08.01.2014 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the admission/denial of documents stood concluded.
FRAMING OF ISSUES
11. Vide order dated 16.01.2024, on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.33,35,004/-
together with interest @ 18% from the date of filing of the suit? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to issue Form No. "C" for the material supplied by the Plaintiff, in respect of the third and fourth quarters of the Financial Year 2010-2011? OPP (3) Relief NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10
12. Vide order dated 10.02.2026, Issue No.2 was re-framed as under:-
15:21:13 +0530 CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 19 of 50"Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction directing the Defendant to issue Form No. "C" for the material supplied by the Plaintiff, in respect of the third and fourth quarters of the Financial Year 2010-2011? OPP"
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
13. Affidavits of evidence of two witnesses of Plaintiff were filed, and their affidavits were tendered in evidence on 19.01.2025. On the said date, the Plaintiff examined PW-1 Shri Subhash Chandra Sidram Heddurshettar.
14. On 19.01.2015, the Plaintiff examined PW-2 Mr. Pinchoo Seth. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW-2/A. He reiterated the contents of the plaint and relied upon the documents Ex. PW-2/1 to Ex. PW-2/8.
15. On 20.01.2015, the Defendant opted to cross examine PW-2 prior to cross-examination of PW-1. However, during recording of cross- examination of PW-2, an application bearing IA No.9502/2016 was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff which was decided on 21.01.2017, whereby additional affidavit and documents were taken on record and in the said IA, the Plaintiff had informed that officer of Plaintiff examined as PW-1 has left the office of the Plaintiff. In view of the same, the testimony of PW-1 would not be considered.
NEERA BHARIHOKE
16. PW-1 was cross examined by learned Counsel for Defendant on Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 15:21:17 +0530 20.01.2015 and 13.04.2015.
CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 20 of 5017. The present suit was transferred to District Court, South-East District vide order dated 16.12.2015 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
18. PW-1 was further cross examined by learned Counsel for Defendant on 02.02.2019, 12.04.2019, 03.08.2019, 24.01.2020 and discharged on 24.01.2020. On the same day, Plaintiff's Evidence was closed on the statement of learned Counsel for Plaintiff.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
19. Proprietor of Defendant, Shri Prem Narang, was examined as DW-1 on 16.02.2023. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. DW-1/X. He reiterated the contents of the Written Statement and relied upon the following document: -
Reply-cum-notice dated 07.03.2012 as Ex.DW-1/A. (The same was already exhibited as Ex. P-2)
20. DW-1 was cross-examined by learned Counsel for Plaintiff on 16.02.2023, 17.02.2024 and 20.04.2024. On the same day, DW-1 was discharged and Defendant's Evidence was closed. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff submitted that an appropriate application for rebuttal of Plaintiff's Evidence shall be filed. However, on next date of hearing, he stated that Plaintiff does not wish to lead rebuttal evidence and the matter was NEERA BHARIHOKE adjourned for final arguments.
Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 15:21:21 +0530 CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 21 of 50FINAL ARGUMENTS
21. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff submitted that goods under four invoices were supplied to Defendant and the same were sold ex-works/ex- factory but Defendant did not make the payment and has raised frivolous grounds. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff argued that Plaintiff has filed its ledger account in support of its claim while Defendant has not filed any document much less the ledger account of Plaintiff maintained by Defendant. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff prayed for decreeing the suit.
22. Per contra, Learned Counsel for Defendant argued that Plaintiff stopped the supply of bicycles after 01.12.10 and due to the same, the Defendant suffered business loss and invoices placed on record are false in view of same having been raised after 01.12.10. He also submitted that goods were not sold on ex-factory basis and were transported by Plaintiff to godown of Defendant. Learned Counsel for Defendant submitted that the ledger account filed by Plaintiff was forged and prayed for dismissal of the present suit.
23. In rebuttal, Learned Counsel for Plaintiff denied the submissions made by Learned Counsel for Defendant and submitted that Plaintiff has proved its case by trial and submitted that the suit deserves to be decreed.
24. Rival submissions of the parties considered and perused the record NEERA BHARIHOKE very carefully.
Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKEFINDINGS Date: 2026.02.10 15:21:26 +0530 CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 22 of 50
25. My issue-wise findings are given as under:-
Issue No.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.33,35,004/- together with interest @ 18% from the date of filing of the suit?
The onus to prove this Issue was placed on the Plaintiff.
26. The facts, as stated by Plaintiff in Plaint in respect of mode of business between the parties, and submissions of Defendant in response to those submissions in Written Statement are that:
(1) The Plaintiff is engaged in various trading activities worldwide and has its bicycle manufacturing unit at Ludhiana, Punjab and several distribution points all over India, one being at Okhla, New Delhi.
The Defendant denied the same for want of knowledge.
(2) Defendant is a proprietorship concern belonging to Mr. Prem Narang, located at Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi. Show room/godown was located at Faridabad, Haryana. The Defendant claimed to have sold the said showroom/godown. All dealings between the Plaintiff and Defendant were negotiated and transacted through Defendant. Sometime in December 2009, Defendant approached the Plaintiff and expressed interest in selling the Plaintiff's products, namely bicycles and parts thereof in Haryana, NEERA BHARIHOKE New Delhi and Western UP. Upon the request of the Defendant, the Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Plaintiff agreed to supply the products to Defendant.
Date: 2026.02.10 15:21:30 +0530 CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 23 of 50The Defendant admitted the same but submitted that it was allured by the officials of the Plaintiff to take the dealership for Delhi, Haryana and Western UP region for selling bicycles of the Plaintiff and there would be huge profit in the said dealership. The Defendant therefore entered into a written agreement dated 21.02.09 initially for a period of 6 months with the condition for renewing the same on mutual understanding and also purchased a shop-cum-godown at Haryana so that the business of Plaintiff could grow manifold and further around Rs.6 Lacs were incurred towards its renovation/repairing and its furnishing. Defendant also referred to the various terms and conditions of the agreement and has stated that when the business of the Defendant was at its peak, the Plaintiff stopped the supply of bicycles after 01.12.10 and due to the same, the Defendant suffered business loss (i.e. salaries of employees, taxes, after/electricity bills, sewer charges etc.) to the tune of Rs.10 Lacs and further, the officials of Plaintiff even started marketing Plaintiff's product without the consent of the Defendant in the assigned area and further, it was conveyed to the retailers that the dealership of the Defendant had been terminated, due to the same around 130-140 retailers of bicycles (i.e. In Western UP, Haryana and Delhi) stopped the payment of Defendant, with whom Defendant had been conducting business and due to which more than Rs.16 Lacs of Defendant got blocked and further, the NEERA BHARIHOKE Defendant was forced to sell his property i.e. 12/2, Sector-37, Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Faridabad, Haryana at a throw-away price due to which he suffered Date: 2026.02.10 15:21:34 +0530 CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 24 of 50 further loss of Rs.4 Lacs. Plaintiff also did not give incentive, bonus and commission. Thereby, Defendant suffered business losses.
(3) The Plaintiff submitted that it was agreed between the parties that the Plaintiff would raise proforma invoices upon the Defendant and upon receipt of the same, Defendant would confirm the same over the phone.
The Defendant denied the same and submitted that orders were always placed through e-mails and never been communicated through phone.
(4) The Plaintiff has submitted that it was further agreed that the delivery of the goods would be ex-works/factory and that the Defendant would arrange his own transport to have the goods collected from the factory-cum-godown of the Plaintiff at Ludhiana.
The Defendant has denied the same and has submitted that every time, the Plaintiff used to deliver the goods at the godown-cum- showroom of the Defendant and after delivery, the same was duly acknowledged by the officials of Defendant to the Plaintiff.
(5) The Plaintiff has submitted that the parties had also agreed NEERA that upon delivery of the goods to the Defendant, the Plaintiff would BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by raise invoices upon Defendant in respect of goods supplied and the NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 Defendant would remit the amount of the invoice within 45 days 15:21:37 +0530 CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 25 of 50 from the date of the invoice.
The Defendant has denied the same.
(6) The Plaintiff has submitted that Defendant was required to issue Form No. 'C' to the Plaintiff every quarter, in respect of goods supplied by the Plaintiff.
The Defendant has not given any reply to this submission.
(7) The Plaintiff has submitted that pursuant to the agreement between the parties, regular supplies of bicycles were made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant from January 2010 onward, against proforma invoices raised by the Plaintiff and accepted by the Defendant. At the time of handing over the goods to the transporters appointed by the Defendant, a gate pass was duly issued to facilitate the egress of goods from the factory of the Plaintiff and the transporters' signatures were obtained on the duplicate of the same which was retained with the Plaintiff. Payments were also received from the Defendant by the Plaintiff in respect of the supplies made to the Defendant as per invoices raised by the Plaintiff.
The Defendant has denied these submissions and has submitted that the goods were supplied by the transporters of the Plaintiff to the NEERA BHARIHOKE Defendant and every time, the transporters used to take the Digitally signed by NEERA signatures on the delivery note of the officials of the Defendant at BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 15:21:41 +0530 CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 26 of 50 the time of delivery of the goods. The bicycles as agreed were never supplied to the Defendant and the Defendant always made the payment within time to the Plaintiff in respect of supplies received by it. Whenever there used to be delivery of articles, the invoices used to be stamped and duly signed.
27. Witnesses of Plaintiff as well as Defendant were cross-examined on submission of Defendant that it suffered losses due to reasons stated in Para No. 7 (p), mode of placing of orders, date till which the parties were carrying on business with each other and the mode of transportation as well as about C-Forms.
28. In its Written Statement, the Defendant has stated and in affidavit of evidence, DW-1 has deposed that "On being allured by Plaintiff, Defendant entered into a written agreement dated 21.02.09 initially for a period of 6 months with the condition for renewing the same on mutual understanding and also purchased a shop-cum-godown at Haryana so that the business of Plaintiff could grow manifold and further around Rs.6 Lacs were incurred towards its renovation/repairing and its furnishing."
29. During his cross examination conducted on 26.08.2023, DW-1 admitted that he had not placed on record any such documents to substantiate the same.
NEERA BHARIHOKE
30. DW-1 had also stated in para 14 of his affidavit of evidence that Digitally signed property Defendant had purchased in Faridabad, Haryana upon the by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 15:21:45 +0530 CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 27 of 50 assurances of Plaintiff, Defendant was forced to sell at a throw-away price due to which he suffered further loss of Rs.4 Lacs. In his further cross- examination, DW-1 admitted that he had not placed on record any such documents to substantiate the same. He volunteered that he could try to trace out the said documents, but he did not produce.
31. Therefore, the Defendant failed to prove that it suffered losses as alleged by the Defendant.
32. During cross examination of PW-2 on 13.04.2015, a question was put to PW-2 that after expiry of six months from the execution of the agreement dated 21.12.2009, what was the basis on which the goods were supplied to the Defendant to which he stated that the material was supplied on the requirement of the buyer. He was asked a question as to how the orders were placed by the Defendant and PW-2 replied that the orders were placed either telephonically or by e-mail or in person also. There had been extensive cross examination of witness of Plaintiff by learned Counsel for Defendant in respect of placing of order by the Defendant on the Plaintiff by e-mail and PW-2 was unable to show any e-mail on record through which the order was placed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff.
33. On 24.01.2020, a suggestion was put to PW-2 that as per Clause 3 of the agreement dated 21.12.2009, Ex. PW-2/D, the Plaintiff was to supply the products only against the purchase order placed by Defendant. PW-2 NEERA admitted and stated that it was by way of pre-invoices. A question was put BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by to PW-2 if any purchase order was placed by the Defendant on the NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 15:21:49 +0530 CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 28 of 50 Plaintiff after 01.12.2010. PW-2 replied that earlier purchase orders were not placed in writing and telephonically information used to be given regarding order by the Defendant and the Defendant used to send proforma invoices and the confirmation of same used to be given usually by telephone by the Defendant. During his cross-examination conducted on 03.08.2019, PW-2 was asked if there was any document qua confirmation of placing an order of supply of the goods by the Defendant on record. PW-2 replied that since the confirmation was telephonic, there is no such document regarding the same. PW-2 was further cross- examined by learned Counsel for Defendant on this aspect which does not require to be referred to because DW-1 in his cross examination admitted that the Defendant used to order goods over the phone and thereafter Plaintiff used to make a note of the items ordered by him and used to dispatch the same. DW-1 stated that the orders were always placed through phone and the fact mentioned in his affidavit that orders were placed through e-mail is wrong. He also admitted that there had never been any correspondence through e- mail with Plaintiff and volunteered that he had never sent e-mail to Plaintiff. DW-1 also stated that he did not have e-mail ID at that time and he did not have e-mail even as on date of his cross-examination. DW-1 also stated that he had not provided his e-mail ID to any government agency/authority at the relevant time. On being put a question that in his affidavit of evidence, DW-1 stated that orders were always placed through e-mail, DW-1 replied that he stated so by mistake. Therefore, the Plaintiff has proved and admitted by DW-1 as well that Proforma invoices were NEERA BHARIHOKE placed telephonically by Defendant. The Plaintiff has relied on proforma Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 invoices, Ex. PW-2/3, in respect of the invoices for which the present case 15:21:52 +0530 CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 29 of 50 has been filed and has therefore proved the same, more so since on 16.02.2023, DW-1 stated that the dealing with the Plaintiff and Defendant commenced sometimes in December 2009 and continued up to January- February, 2011 which belies the submission of Defendant made in written statement as well as by DW-1 in his affidavit of evidence that no purchase order was placed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff after 01.12.2010.
34. Learned Counsel for Defendant also cross-examined PW-2 on the mode of supply of goods to which he replied that the goods were delivered to the Defendants by handing over goods to the Defendant from warehouse of Plaintiff. During his cross examination on 02.02.2019, PW-2 stated that Defendant used to place order with Plaintiff telephonically in majority and also mails were there in some cases and on that basis Plaintiff used to generate proforma invoice, and send to Defendant for acceptance which again Defendant used to accept in majority telephonically. He stated that finally at the time of generation of invoice from Plaintiff company since there were ex works transactions, nominee of Defendant or transporter used to sign and acknowledge the acceptance of goods from company warehouse and take the goods to Defendant. A question was put to PW-2 on 12.04.2019 if it was correct that Plaintiff kept in its record the specimen signature of proprietor/authorized person of its dealer/purchaser. PW-2 replied that it was not necessary and that Plaintiff did not deliver to any person claiming himself to be representative of dealer. He volunteered that NEERA the Plaintiff verifies from dealer and thereafter only delivery is made. BHARIHOKE Digitally signed
35. On next date of his cross-examination, i.e. 03.08.2019, PW-2 was by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 15:21:56 +0530 asked if in the present case any communication to that effect had been CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 30 of 50 placed on record to which he answered that as the transaction was ex- factory, the Plaintiff used to call and confirm with dealer before handing over the goods to transporter and this process was followed in all the invoices raised on the Defendant. PW-2 also stated that there was no record of calls and since Plaintiff used to have one to one conversation with the dealer, so Plaintiff used to confirm with the dealer before loading of goods in the vehicle, whether the vehicle and transporter is sent by the dealer and once he confirmed the vehicle that transporter had been sent by the dealer, the Plaintiff used to send/release goods to dealer. A question was put to PW-2 that from whose office these calls used to be monitored and he replied that from office of Plaintiff at Ludhiana. He also stated that there was only one office at Ludhiana. PW-2 denied the suggestion that there was no telephone connection at warehouse/godown at Ludhiana and stated that office/ warehouse/godown were at the same premises and there was an EPABX system in the premises and there were different extensions also at which different department could be connected. He also stated that major part of the conversation would also be on mobile phones as all employees have mobile phone.
36. During his cross examination on 03.08.2019, a question was put to PW-2 that he had stated in his affidavit that before delivery of material, confirmation was taken from the dealer to whom the material was to be supplied and was asked if in the present case any communication to that effect had been placed on record. PW-2 replied that as the transaction was ex-factory, the Plaintiff in this case used to call and confirm with dealer NEERA BHARIHOKE before handing over the goods to transporter and this process was followed Digitally signed by NEERA in all the invoices raised on the Defendant.
BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 15:21:59 +0530 CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 31 of 5037. During cross examination of PW-2 conducted on 24.01.2010, PW-2 stated that Mr. Amit Gurtu used to handle the customer's accounts of the Defendant the relevant time. He also stated that Mr. Manoj Chawla was the boss of Mr. Amit Gurtu and that Mr. Manoj Chawla was no longer with the Plaintiff and he left somewhere in 2012.
38. On 24.01.2010, the Defendant raised a defense which was not a part of pleadings made by Defendant in its written statement i.e. of there being an employee of Plaintiff by name of Mr. Manoj Chawla who was stated to have been removed from the service because he did number of illegal transactions being in the company and questions were put to PW2 in this regard. It is a settled law that evidence beyond pleadings is not permissible.
39. PW-2 denied that Mr. Manoj Chawla was removed from the service because he did number of illegal transactions, being in the Plaintiff company. A suggestion was put to PW-2 that Plaintiff company had initiated inquiries against Mr. Manoj Chawla qua sham deals which he affected being in service. PW-2 replied that he was not aware.
40. A suggestion was put to PW-2 that gate passes dated 11.12.2010, 19.12.2010 and 12.01.2011 bear name of Mr. Manoj Chawla and does not NEERA BHARIHOKE bear any signature of the Defendant to which PW-2 replied that since the Digitally signed by NEERA transactions were ex-works so the goods were handed over to the BHARIHOKE transporter whom Defendant had nominated/authorized. A question was Date:
2026.02.10 15:22:03 +0530 CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 32 of 50 put to PW-2 if he had any authority letter/nomination letter given by the Defendant to such transporter to collect the goods on his behalf. PW-2 replied that in all the transactions, the Plaintiff followed the same way. He stated the process was that the Defendant used to call the Plaintiff and place the orders and sales team of Plaintiff executed the same on the instructions of Defendant and since transactions were ex work, Plaintiff used to handle the goods to the nominated transport agency and Plaintiff received the payment of all previous invoices barring the last four invoices. He stated that Plaintiff does not have any written authority given by Defendant to any transporter.
41. PW-2 denied the suggestion that the Plaintiff was not in a position to place such document of authority of delivery of goods to the transporter as no goods were supplied to the Defendant based on the material gate pass dated 11.12.2010, 19.12.2010 and 12.01.2011 and stated that Plaintiff had placed all the relevant documents and the process which Plaintiff used to follow for taking order and dispatches and receiving payments. He admitted that he was not in the Plaintiff company when the orders for supply of goods were made to the Plaintiff and on the basis of order, the goods were supplied to the Defendant as reflected in material gate pass dated 11.12.2010, 19.12.2010 and 12.01.2011 and he also replied that he joined the Plaintiff on 01.09.2011 as Finance and Accounts Manager and due to his position, he has access to all the records, documents of this case which showed that Plaintiff had supplied the material. PW-2 admitted that NEERA gate passes, Ex. PW-2/5 were not having signatures of Mr. Prem Narang, BHARIHOKE Digitally signed proprietor of Defendant and denied the suggestion that the Ex. PW-2/5 by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 15:22:08 +0530 CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 33 of 50 were not having signatures of any authorized person of Mr. Prem Narang or that the signatures on Ex. PW-2/5 were forced by Mr. Manoj Chawla.
He also denied the suggestion that it was Mr. Manoj Chawla who might have delivered the goods to someone or that for the said act of Mr. Manoj Chawla, Defendant was not liable.
42. Although, it is settled law that evidence beyond pleadings is not permissible and the defense raised in respect of alleged acts of Mr. Manoj Chawla need not be looked into, yet the same is being dealt with. Cross examination of DW-1 in this regard proved that the said defence raised by the Defendant was false.
43. During his cross-examination conducted on 26.08.2023, DW-1 stated that he had made a complaint against the employee of Plaintiff namely Manoj Chawla to the Plaintiff and admitted that no copy of complaint was filed on record. He volunteered that on the basis of such complaint, Manoj Chawla was terminated from the services by the Plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that he had not filed copy of such complaint as he did not make any complaint to the Plaintiff. In response to this suggestion, DW-1 responded that he had approached one person whose name he did not remember but he used to reside next to house of DW-1 to whom he had given written complaint regarding the conduct of Manoj Chawla and Plaintiff company even suspended Manoj Chawla NEERA BHARIHOKE thereafter. However, DW-1 again said that one Ramesh Mani is the head Digitally signed of Tata (Plaintiff) and he did not remember his exact designation who may by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 15:22:11 +0530 be CFO or GM of Plaintiff who called DW-1 to his office at Okhla and CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 34 of 50 DW-1 narrated the entire incident verbally to him. DW-1 further stated that the said Ramesh Mani told DW-1 that Plaintiff had received number of complaints against Manoj Chawla and Defendants should continue to work with Plaintiff and that Manoj Chawla would be suspended.
44. DW-1 further admitted that he had not stated about the fact of his meeting with Ramesh Mani in his written statement as well as his affidavit of evidence. At that stage he volunteered and gave a new version that after his meeting with Ramesh Mani, DW-1 was asked to meet someone from the legal team of the Plaintiff who used to sit in their GK-1 office and he narrated the entire incident to the SEC person regarding the conduct of Manoj Chawla and the said person assured DW-1 that they would take appropriate action against Manoj Chawla. DW-1 denied the suggestion that he had not placed any written complaint as mentioned by him on the day of his cross examination as he had not made any written complaint. He also denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely regarding meeting with the concerned official of the Plaintiff to complain against the conduct of Manoj Chawla as no meeting ever took place. He denied the suggestion that he had concocted a false story to cover up the loopholes in his defense.
45. During his cross examination conducted on 17.02.2024, DW-1 gave another version i.e. he stated that there was dispute between him and Mr. NEERA BHARIHOKE Manoj Chawla. He also stated that there was a deal between him and Digitally signed by Senior of Mr. Manoj Chawla who used to sit in Okhla Phase-1. There was NEERA a dispute between Mr. Manoj Chawla, and his Senior and the Senior was BHARIHOKE Date:
2026.02.10 15:22:15 +0530 CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 35 of 50 suspended and thereafter Mr. Manoj Chawla became the Senior who called DW-1 at the office of Plaintiff at Okhla and asked DW-1 as to why he was being supplied cycles at such a less rate and whether DW-1 was paying something underhand. DW-1 proceeded to say that he replied in the negative and Mr. Manoj Chawla then told him that cycle would no longer be supplied to him at the old rate and supply would only be made at the new rate. DW-1 further stated that he told Mr. Manoj Chawla that he would not be able to purchase cycle at the new rate. On being asked to the date on which the said meeting took place, DW-1 said that he did not remember the exact date, but it would have been sometime in 2010-2011.
46. Therefore, it is noticed that on 26.08.2023, in the same breath, DW- 1 gave different versions as to how he gave the complaint against Manoj Chawla and then changed his version and stated that he made oral complaint to Ramesh Mani against Manoj Chawla. During his cross examination conducted on 17.02.2024, DW-1 gave a different version altogether and stated that Senior of Mr. Manoj Chawla was suspended whereas on 26.08.2023, he had stated that Mr. Manoj Chawla was suspended. These contradictions discredit the testimony of DW-1 as regards the alleged complaint stated to have been made against Manoj Chawla by DW-1. Further as stated above, during his cross examination, DW-1 admitted that he had not stated about the fact of his meeting with NEERA BHARIHOKE Ramesh Mani in his Written Statement as well as his affidavit of evidence.
Digitally signed by NEERATherefore, the submissions made by DW-1 as well as the portion of cross BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 15:22:19 +0530 examination pertaining to Mr. Manoj Chawla cannot be taken into account CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 36 of 50 being evidence beyond pleadings (which even otherwise DW-1 failed to prove).
47. During his cross-examination conducted on 16.02.2023, DW-1 stated that transportation was arranged by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff used to bear the transportation expenses as the arrangement was F.O. R. basis. On being asked as to what the full form of F.O.R. is, DW-1 stated that it meant goods were to be delivered at his place of business at the cost of the Plaintiff.
48. F.O.R. means the seller bears all transportation costs and risks to deliver goods to a specified destination or carrier, at no extra cost to the buyer. The price quoted includes freight, packing, and insurance, with risk passing to the buyer only upon arrival. On perusal of invoices filed by the Plaintiff in support of its claim, it is noticed that the Plaintiff has not claimed any such expenses in the invoice, thus belying the said submission of the Defendant.
49. During his cross examination conducted on 26.08.2023, DW-1 stated that he had not filed any copy of builty/transportation receipt bearing his signatures and volunteered that the material was not supplied hence the question of filing of builty did not arise. DW-1 stated that earlier Defendant received the material from Plaintiff for which Defendant used NEERA to sign and return the transportation receipt to the exporter and used to BHARIHOKE keep copy for record. He admitted that Defendant had not filed any such Digitally signed receipt on record. DW-1 volunteered that Defendant used to keep the copy by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 15:22:22 +0530 CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 37 of 50 of the bill of the goods supplied and was not concerned with maintaining any record qua transportation receipts.
50. In para 19 of his affidavit of evidence, DW-1 had deposed that the goods were supplied by the transporters of the Plaintiff to the Defendant and every time, the transporters used to take the signatures on the delivery note of the officials of the Defendant at the time of delivery of the goods. During his cross-examination conducted on 20.04.2024, DW-1 admitted that he had not produced on record the alleged delivery notes in respect of supplies claimed by Defendant to have been made at factory of Defendant. He also admitted that he had not produced the said delivery notes or copies thereof because no such delivery notes existed. In view of not producing anything on record to prove that Plaintiff used to deliver goods at godown of Defendant in respect of earlier admitted transactions, Defendant failed to prove that the Plaintiff used to deliver the goods at the godown-cum- showroom of the Defendant and after delivery, the same was duly acknowledged by the officials of Defendant to the Plaintiff.
51. On the other hand, the Plaintiff has placed original Gate passes dated 11.12.2010, 19.12.2010 and 12.01.2011, Ex. PW-2/5, on record. PW-2 was cross-examined on 6 dates starting from 20.01.2015 till 24.01.2020 and it was only on 24.01.2020 that PW-2 was confronted with the Gate passes, Ex. PW-2/5, that the same did not have signatures of Mr. NEERA Prem Narang i.e. proprietor of Defendant. His signatures could not have BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA been there as Plaintiff has nowhere stated that it used to deliver goods to BHARIHOKE Mr. Prem Narang i.e. proprietor of Defendant. Rather the case of Plaintiff Date: 2026.02.10 15:22:27 +0530 CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 38 of 50 is that goods were delivered to transporter after telephonic confirmation from the Plaintiff and/or Dealer. For similar reasons the suggestion that Ex. PW-2/5 did not have signatures of any authorized person of Mr. Prem Narang is of no avail and the suggestion that Ex. PW-2/5 bear signatures which were forged by Mr. Manoj Chawla are unfounded in view of observations made above in respect of Mr. Manoj Chawla and also that the said submission/suggestion was beyond pleadings.
52. PW-2 was asked to produce on record procedure regarding mode of supply of goods on 12.04.2019 and he stated that there was no document in this regard. However, he explained in detail the procedure in his cross- examination conducted on 03.08.2019 and the same has been reproduced in Para 32 and 33 above. The Defendant has not been able to shake the testimony of PW-2 in this regard that the transaction was ex-factory. Invoices, Ex. PW-2/4, also specify that the supply of goods was Ex-Works which also means the same as ex-factory. which has been corroborated and proved by the unshaken testimony of PW-2 and thus Plaintiff has proved that the delivery of the goods was made ex-works/factory and that the Defendant used to arrange his own transport to have the goods collected from the factory-cum-godown of the Plaintiff at Ludhiana.
53. In view of admission of DW-1 made on 16.02.2023 that the dealing between the Plaintiff and the Defendant continued up to January-February NEERA BHARIHOKE 2011, it is proved that the Defendant had wrongly stated in the suit as well Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE as affidavit of evidence of DW1 that Plaintiff stopped the supply of Date: 2026.02.10 15:22:30 +0530 bicycles after 01.12.10. The Plaintiff has raised invoices dated 11.12.2010, CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 39 of 50 18.12.2010, 12.01.2011 and 18.01.2011 and all are prior to February 2011, therefore within the time period stated by DW-1 to be the period when Defendant and Plaintiff continued dealing with each other.
54. During his cross examination conducted on 17.02.2024, DW-1 admitted that he had checked his bank statement and account statement prior to signing and filing of the return statement. He admitted that the Defendant had not filed its bank statement or Ledger account in respect of his dealing with Plaintiff. In para 8 of the plaint, the Plaintiff referred to the payment of Rs.20,99,994/- made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff company. A question was put to DW-1 if he could specify against which invoices or supply he had made the payments detailed in para 8 of the plaint. DW-1 stated that he could not answer that question without checking his records, namely his bank statement and his account statement. He also stated that he was not carrying with him his account statement from which he could verify the invoices against which the said payment had been made by the Defendant. In e mail dated 07.02.2011, Ex. PW-2/7, also whereby the Plaintiff demanded its outstanding, the rate of ex-factory was quoted to Defendant.
55. At that stage the Statement of Account filed by Plaintiff, Ex. PW- 2/2, was put to DW-1 and a question was asked if he could identify from the same the invoices against which supplies were not received by Defendant. DW-1 replied that he could not answer this question without NEERA BHARIHOKE first verifying his records. He also said that he did not remember what his Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: annual turnover at the relevant time was and that he had filed income tax 2026.02.10 15:22:35 +0530 CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 40 of 50 return for the FY 2010-2011 and FA 2011-2012. He said that he was dealing only with goods of the Plaintiff company at the relevant time.
56. The matter was adjourned to 20.04.2024. However, DW-1 did not produce on record account statement maintained by the Defendant in respect of the Plaintiff and denied the suggestion that he had done so to conceal the actual sales made by the Plaintiff. He also denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely in respect of the place of supply of goods.
57. Therefore, DW-1 not only did not produce its ledger account on record but also gave evasive replies to all questions put to him in respect of the invoices in question. He replied to almost all questions that he could not answer without verifying from record of Defendant but did not inform anything in affirmative or negating even on dates fixed after adjournment nor did Defendant produce anything in support of its submissions made in Written Statement or affidavit of evidence alleging that the invoices having been raised are forged and fabricated.
58. On the other hand, the Plaintiff proved not only proforma invoices Ex. PW-2/3 as held in Para No.32 above but also ex-works delivery of goods of value as mentioned in the invoices, Ex. PW-2/4, by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.
NEERA BHARIHOKE
59. The Plaintiff supplied bicycles to Defendant vide the following Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE invoices, Ex. PW-2/4:
Date: 2026.02.10 15:22:38 +0530 CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 41 of 50(i) Invoice No.ENG\DLH\DOM\10-11\134 dated 11.12.2010 for Rs.7,91,764.80
(ii) Invoice No.ENG\DLH/DOM\10-11\139 dated 18.12.2010 for Rs.8,41,989.60
(iii) Invoice No.ENG/DLH/DOM\10-11\160 dated 12.01.2011 for Rs.8,67,216.24 And
(iv) Invoice No. ENG\DLH/DOM\10-11\164 dated 18.01.2011 for Rs.8,67,216.24 The total amount payable by Defendant under the aforesaid invoices was Rs.33,68,186.88/-.
60. In his affidavit of evidence/examination in chief, PW-1 deposed that the Defendant used to remit the amount of the invoice within 45 days from the date of the invoice. There has been no cross-examination of PW-2 on this aspect. No suggestion was put to PW-2 that the said submission of Plaintiff/PW-2 was wrong.
61. In Para 8 of plaint, the Plaintiff has referred to 8 payments having been made by the Defendant to Plaintiff totaling Rs.20,99,994.06. These payments are duly reflected in the Ledger Account filed by the Plaintiff which shows that it was a running account. The Defendant denied the NEERA BHARIHOKE entries in Ledger Accounts by submitting that the same are incorrect. The Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Defendant has not filed Ledger of the Plaintiff maintained by Defendant.
Date: 2026.02.10 15:22:42 +0530 CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 42 of 5062. The Defendant has contended that the Plaintiff has mentioned different outstanding in different correspondences exchanged with the Defendant. It has been contended by the Defendant that in the legal notice dated 22.02.2012, Ex. P-1, sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, the Plaintiff demanded Rs.32,54,456/-. In the e-mail dated 07.02.2011, Ex. PW-2/7, the Plaintiff wrote to the Defendant that it had an outstanding of Rs.21 Lakhs out of which the Defendant had cleared Rs.5 Lakhs and another Rs.3.5 Lakhs will be adjusted as credit note for goods returned but even thereafter there is a gap of about Rs.11.5 Lakhs and in the e-mail dated 11.02.2011, the Plaintiff wrote to Defendant that it had an outstanding of over Rs.16 Lakhs. The date of 2 nd e-mail was 11.02.2011 and not 02.11.2011 since it is a trail mail and forwarding mail bears date of 02.14.2011.There has been no cross-examination of PW-2 in this regard. However, the objection is being dealt with.
63. On perusal of ledger, it is noticed that as on 08.12.2010 and till 11.12.2010 (i.e. date of raising first of these 4 invoices) the amount payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff was Rs.16,34,772.16/-. On 11.12.2010 and on 18.12. 2010, first and second invoice for an amount of Rs.7,91,764.80/- and Rs.8,41,989.60/- respectively were raised. Thus, the outstanding amount became Rs.32,68,526.56/-. Before raising of third invoice, since the Defendant made payment of Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.4,00,000/-, Rs.2,55,000/- and Rs. 2,44,994/-, the outstanding was NEERA BHARIHOKE reduced to Rs.21.68.532.56/- as on 07.01.2011 and as 45 days had expired Digitally signed by NEERA by that date from the date of raising of first invoice and second invoice, BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 15:22:46 +0530 Rs.21.68.532.56/- was payable by Defendant.
CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 43 of 5064. Third and fourth invoices were raised on 12.01.2011 and 18.01.2011 and their credit period of 45 days had not lapsed by the time the Plaintiff wrote e-mail dated 07.02.2011, part of Ex. PW-2/7. Therefore, the Plaintiff rightly wrote that Rs.21.68.532.56/- was payable by the Defendant on that date. The Plaintiff had also written that the Defendant had already made payment of Rs.5 lakhs which is reflected in ledger to have been paid on 08.02.2011, (Rs.3,65,000/- and Rs.1,35,000/-) but since mode of this payment is not known, this payment is reflected in Ledger Account. Furthermore, the Plaintiff had written that Rs.3.5 will be adjusted as credit note for goods returned and therefore, the Defendant was informed that there would still be gap of Rs.11.5 Lakhs.
65. In the e-mail dated 11.02.2011, part of Ex. PW-2/7, the Plaintiff wrote to the Defendant that it had an outstanding of over Rs.16 lakhs. This e-mail was written just 4 days after the first mail of 07.02.2011. There is no difference in the amount claimed through these two e-mails. The e-mail dated 07.02.2011 as well as 11.02.2011 mentions outstanding to be Rs.16 lakhs. The e-mail dated 07.02.2011 stated that amount of returned goods would be adjusted and not that it stood adjusted.
66. The ledger account reflects that on 01.11.2010, there is an entry of Rs.3,42,551/- against the heading 'SALE RETURN'. The said amount has NEERA BHARIHOKE been written in column of credit and since the Plaintiff maintained running Digitally signed by NEERA account, the amount of Rs.3,42,551/- was adjusted. The Defendant has not BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 15:22:50 +0530 brought its account statement/bank statement/ledger to rebut the ledger CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 44 of 50 filed by the Plaintiff. However, the ledger account maintained by Plaintiff supports submissions made in the plaint as well as documents filed with Plaint. The contention of the Plaintiff having mentioned different outstanding in e-mail dated 07.02.2011 and e-mail dated 11.02.2011 is incorrect. As regards the payment demanded under the legal notice dated 22.02.2012, Ex. P-1, sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, the Plaintiff demanded Rs.32,54,456/-. However, the Plaintiff arrived at a figure of Rs.27,54,118.06/- to be payable by Defendant after adjusting all deductions from the total amount of four invoices i.e. out of Rs.33,68,186.88/- and demanded Rs.27,54,118.06/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum thus Rs.32, 54,456/- as on 22.02.2012. In the present suit also, the Plaintiff has claimed principal amount to be Rs.27,54,118.06/-.
67. In Para 8 of plaint, the Plaintiff submitted that Defendant paid Rs.20,99,994.06/- to the Plaintiff subsequent to supplies made and the same was admitted by the Defendant in his Written Statement. DW-1 could not explain the reason for making these payments between 24.12.2010 to 17.02.2011 during his cross-examination, thus establishing that the Defendant had business relationship with the Plaintiff at least till February, 2011.
68. In the ledger, the amount of Rs.16,34,772.06 is shown as outstanding as on 08.12.2010 before raising 4 invoices for which the NEERA BHARIHOKE present suit has been filed. However, the said figure has been calculated Digitally signed by NEERA after reducing payable amount by Rs.3,42,551/- on 01.11.2010 which is BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.10 15:22:54 +0530 towards amount of goods returned. It is noticed that in the calculation as CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 45 of 50 made by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has made separate deduction for amount of goods returned. This figure of Rs.3,42,551/- needs to be added to Rs.16,34,772.06 to determine amount payable by the Defendant which comes to be Rs.19,77,323.16/-. Amount paid by the Defendant after raising 4 invoices: Rs.20,99,994.06/-. Extra payment in hands of Plaintiff:
Rs.1,22,671/- (Rs.1,22,670.90/- rounded off to Rs.1,22,671/-).
69. The Defendant has taken objection that amount of Rs.1,22,671/- as well as the amount of returned goods has not been adjusted by the Plaintiff. The said objections are not sustainable. The Plaintiff has filed the ledger account which is a running account and amount of Rs.1,22,671/- will therefore not be visible. The Plaintiff has shown in ledger account the details of goods returned under the heading SALE RETURN, which total to Rs.4,91,397.82/- (as stated by Plaintiff in para 11 of plaint) i.e. Rs.3,42,551/- on 01.11.2010, Rs.97,793.35/- on 04.06.2011, Rs.5,594/- on 04.06.2011 and Rs.45,458.80/- on 03.01.2012.
70. To dispel the doubts raised by Defendant, calculation of amount payable by Defendant is made hereinbelow:-
(i) Total amount payable for 4 invoices in question:
Rs.33,68,186.88/-
(ii) Amount payable before raising these 4 invoices:
Rs.19,77,323.16/-
Digitally signed by NEERA
(iii) Total amount payable after raising these 4 invoices:
NEERA BHARIHOKE
BHARIHOKE Date:
2026.02.10
Rs.53,45,510.24.
15:22:58
+0530
(iv) Amount paid by the Defendant after raising of 4 invoices:CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 46 of 50
Rs.20,99,994.06/-
(v) Amount remaining to be paid: Rs.32,45,515,98/-
(vi) Amount after adjusting the amount of returned goods of Rs.4,91,397.82/-=Rs, 27,54,118.06/-.
71. The payable amount as per this method of calculation matches the figure arrived at by Plaintiff and the objections of Defendant fall to ground that Plaintiff has not adjusted the amount of Rs.1,22,671/- and/or the amount of returned goods while arriving at figure of Rs.27,54,118.06/- as principal amount payable by the Defendant.
72. As regards objection of the Defendant that last two invoices are of same amount. It is noticed that last two invoices are dated 12.01.2011 and 18.01.2011 and have different invoice numbers. The goods supplied by these invoices are identical and therefore, amount claimed is also identical and there is no merit in the objection taken by the Defendant.
73. The Defendant has neither claimed nor proved to have made any other payment or return of goods for more than Rs.4,91,397.82/- to the Plaintiff.
74. In view of these observations, the Plaintiff has successfully proved that it is entitled to suit amount of Rs.27,54,118.06/- as principal amount from the Defendant and Defendant has failed miserably to prove its defence.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE
75. The Plaintiff has claimed pendente lite and future interest @18% Date: 2026.02.10 15:23:02 +0530 CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 47 of 50 p.a. on the suit amount i.e. on amount of Rs. Rs.33,35,004/-. However, this figure has been arrived at by the Plaintiff by adding interest @ 18% p.a. on principal interest Rs.27,54,118.06/-. The Plaintiff was deprived of its dues under the said invoices and also compelled to file the present suit. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to interest on principal amount from the date when it became due till filing of suit amounting to Rs.5,80,885.94/- and thereafter pendente lite and future interest interest @ 18% per annum on principal amount of Rs.27,54,118.06/-.
76. Issue No.1 is therefore decided in favour of Plaintifff and against the Defendant and it is held that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover principal amount of Rs.27,54,118.06/- alongwith pre-suit interest @ 18% per annum amounting to Rs.5,80,885.94/- and pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum on principal amount of Rs.27,54,118.06/- till realization.
Issue No.2 : Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction directing the Defendant to issue Form No. "C" for the material supplied by the Plaintiff, in respect of the third and fourth quarters of the Financial Year 2010-2011?
The onus to prove this Issue was placed on the Plaintiff.
77. Issue No.1 has already been decided in favour of Plaintiff and it has been held that Plaintiff is entitled to principal amount claimed through these four invoices alongwith pre-suit as well as pnedente lite and future NEERA BHARIHOKE interest @ 18% p.a. on principal amount of Rs.27,54,118.06/- till Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE realization. All four invoices specify as:
Date: 2026.02.10 15:23:06 +0530 CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 48 of 50"Kindly send the 'C' Form within 20 days of ending of each quarter.".
78. The Defendant has not issued 'C' Forms to the Plaintiff but Plaintiff is entitled to receive them from Defendant in terms of cited condition mentioned on face of all the four invoices as cited in above para. Therefore, Issue No.2 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant and relief of mandatory injunction is granted to Plaintiff with direction to the Defendant to issue Form No. "C" for the material supplied by the Plaintiff, in respect of the third and fourth quarters of the Financial Year 2010-2011 within two weeks of this judgment.
RELIEF
79. In view of my findings given on Issue No.1 and 2, the present case is decreed in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendant for a sum of Rs.27,54,118.06/- towards the principal amount alongwith pre-suit interest @ 18% per annum amounting to Rs.5,80,885.94/- and pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum on principal amount of Rs.27,54,118.06/- till realization.
80. Mandatory injunction is decreed in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendant mandating the Defendant to issue Form No. "C" for the material supplied by the Plaintiff, in respect of the third and fourth quarters Digitally of the Financial Year 2010-2011 within two weeks from this judgment.
signed by
NEERA
NEERA BHARIHOKE
BHARIHOKE Date:
2026.02.10
15:23:10
+0530
CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 49 of 50
81. The Defendant is also directed to pay to Plaintiff the cost of the suit which shall include 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.
82. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 10.02.2026 (Dr. Neera Bharihoke) District Judge (Commercial Court)-06 South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi 10.02.2026 Certified that this judgment contains 50 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Dr. Neera Bharihoke)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-06
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
NEERA
BHARIHOKE 10.02.2026
Digitally signed by
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2026.02.10
15:23:15 +0530
CS DJ No.9502/16 M/s TATA International Vs. M/s Narang Sales Corporation & Anr. Page 50 of 50