Delhi District Court
Crystal Hues Limited vs Umety Solution Private Limited on 29 January, 2026
1
IN THE COURT OF MRS. VEENA RANI, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT)-8, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024
CNR No. DLSE01-010086-2024
Crystal Hues Limited
Through its Authorized Representative
Registered Office: 1412, 14th Floor,
Chiranjiv Tower 43, Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110019 ........Plaintiff
Versus
Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director,
Office at :Regus Incube-513-514 B,
Register 03, 5th Floor, Punj Essen House,
17-18, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019
Phone No.9717940408
Also At
8th Floor, Pegasus Tower, Block A,
Sector 68, Noida, Basi Bahuddin Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh 201307
Phone No.9717940408
e-Mail: [email protected]
CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024, Crystal Hues Limited Vs. Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
2
[email protected]
[email protected] .........Defendant
Date of filing of suit : 26-09-2024
Arguments heard on : 27-01-2026
Date of Judgment : 29-01-2026
JUDGMENT
1) The Plaintiff-herein has filed the present suit u/s 6 of The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division And Commercial Appellate Division of The High Courts Act, 2015 against defendants for seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.13,86,264/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs eighty six thousand, two hundred and sixty four) along with pendentelite and future interest @ 24 % per annum from bill payment due date till the realization of the amount along litigation expenses and damages against the defendants.
Brief facts of the case:-
2) The plaintiff-herein is an advertising and translation Company incorporated under the provisions of The Indian Companies Act, 1956, and is engaged in the business of designing, marketing, promotion and advertising the products through brochures, product packaging, manuals, multimedia presentations and websites as per the demands of its domestic as well as foreign clients and is running its business under the name and style of Crystal Hues Limited at the above mentioned addresses and local office amongst other office situated at Flat No. 1412, Chiranjiv Tower, 43 Nehru place, New Delhi CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024, Crystal Hues Limited Vs. Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.3
-110019.
3) The present plaint is being filed by the plaintiff through its Authorized Representative, Sh. Subhash Chandra Rai, who has been duly authorized vide Board Resolution dated 22.11.2023.
4) As to the nature of transaction, the plaint avers that the Defendant approached the Plaintiff for translation and voice-over services. While an initial work order between the plaintiff-herein (Crystal Hues Ltd.) and 'Veative Labs Pte Ltd' (not a party in the present suit) was signed on 04.04.2023 (Ex.PW-1/5), subsequently a fresh Work Order was signed on 01.07.2023 (Ex.PW-1/3) between the Plaintiff-herein (Crystal Hues Ltd.) and the Defendant-herein (Umety Solutions Ltd.).
i) As to the performance and invoicing of contract dated 04.04.2023 (Ex.PW-1/5) the plaintiff-herein (Crystal Hues Ltd.) raised the invoice dated 06.04.2023 (Ex.PW-1/6) to the VEATIVE LABS PTE Ltd. (not a party in the present suit).
ii) As to the performance and invoicing of the contract dated 01.07.023 (Ex.PW-1/3), the Plaintiff-herein raised Invoice dated 14.07.2023 (Ex.PW-1/4) to the defendant-herein (Umety Solutions Ltd.).
iii) Both the above-said contracts (Ex.PW-1/5 and Ex.PW-1/3) and both the invoices (Ex.PW-1/6 and Ex.PW-1/4) pertained to the same work but the parties in both the contracts and the invoices are different.
iv) There is Export Invoice in USD dated 01.11.2023 raised by the plaintiff-
herein (Crystal Hues Ltd.) to UMETY SOLUTIONS Inc. USA CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024, Crystal Hues Limited Vs. Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
45) As to the acknowledgment of liability, it is averred that the Defendant repeatedly acknowledged its liability via email. Notably, in response to a Legal Notice dated 16.10.2023, the Defendant replied on 18.10.2023 expressing an intention to pay. On 01.11.2023, the Defendant shared its GST details and requested a copy of the invoice in US Dollars (USD) for administrative reasons, which the Plaintiff provided on 07.11.2023. Despite these assurances, the Defendant has failed to liquidate the outstanding dues.
6) As to the pre-institution mediation (section 12A) it is averred that the Plaintiff initiated mediation (Ref No. 1448/12/SE/MED/DLSA/2023). However, due to the non-appearance of the Defendant on 19.01.2024 and 02.02.2024, a Non-Starter Report was issued on 01.03.2024.
7) As to the jurisdiction and cause of action, the plaintiff avers that the Cause of Action arose on 01.07.2023 (Work Order), 14.07.2023 (Invoice), and 18.10.2023 (Acknowledgment of Debt).
8) As to the Territorial Jurisdiction, The Plaintiff avers that it has its registered office is in Nehru Place, and the contract was executed/performed within the jurisdiction of PS Kalkaji, New Delhi.
9) As to the Pecuniary Jurisdiction, the suit is valued at Rs.13,86,264/-, falling within the domain of this Hon'ble Commercial Court.
DEFENDANT'S WRITTEN STATEMENT:
10) The defendant has raised preliminary objections. The Defendant, through Sh. Akshay Hansen (Authorized Representative) allege Lack of Jurisdiction/Cause of Action and stating that the Indian invoices were CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024, Crystal Hues Limited Vs. Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.5
cancelled and the transaction was re-billed to Umety Solutions Inc. (USA).
11) The defendant has raised the following defense(s) :
a) Novation of Contract: It is alleged that via Debit Note No. USPL/2324/DN-003 dated 31.12.2023, the Indian invoice was nullified.
The Defendant's books show a "Zero Balance," indicating no liability for the Indian entity since the plaintiff re-invoiced and billed to UMETY SOLUTIONS Inc. USA. The Defendant contended that since the Plaintiff issued a new invoice (No. CH/SEZ/2023/11/04) to the US-based entity for USD 14,109.30, any remaining financial obligation rests solely with the US entity and not the Defendant herein.
b) No subsisting debt : The defendant in the Written Statement has denied that the debt is subsisting against the Indian company. It is submitted that the Plaintiff suppressed the fact that the original Work Order and Invoice were cancelled in favor of a transaction with the foreign entity, thereby shifting the entire financial liability.
Replication
12) The Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of defendants, wherein the averments and assertions of the written statement have been denied and plaintiff has reiterated its stand as taken in the plaint. Issues
13) From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 07-05-2025:-
(i) Whether this court lacs territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the dispute between the parties as alleged by defendant in CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024, Crystal Hues Limited Vs. Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.6
para no.1 of the preliminary objections of the written statement? OPD
(ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of an amount of Rs.13,86,264/- as prayed in prayer clause (i) of the suit ?OPP.
(iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, at what rate and for which period ?OPP.
(iv) Relief. Evidence of parties 14) In support of his case, plaintiff has examined Sh. Subhash Chandra Rai,
its Chief Finance Officer/AR as PW1. He filed his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.PW1/A, wherein he has reiterated and reaffirmed the same facts as stated in the plaint and exhibited and marked the documents i.e. Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/11. Ex.PW1/1 was de-exhibited and was Marked as Mark "A".
15) Plaintiff has also examined its Zonal Manager(South), as PW2, who also filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A bearing his signature at point A and B. The said two witnesses PW1 and PW2 were duly cross examined by the ld. Counsel for the defendant.
16) On the other hand, despite repeated opportunities the defendant has failed to lead its evidence, therefore, the opportunity of the defendant to lead evidence was closed vide order dated 20-09-2025.
17) Both the parties i.e. plaintiff and the defendants have filed their written submission and copies of the same were supplied to opposite party.
Findings and Observations:
18) I have heard and considered the rival submissions of both the parties and CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024, Crystal Hues Limited Vs. Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.7
perused the material on record as well written submission filed on record. My issue wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE No. (i)Whether this court lacs territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the dispute between the parties as alleged by defendant in para no.1 of the preliminary objections of the written statement? OPD
19) The onus to prove this Issue No.1 lied on the defendant who contended that the present suit is liable to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to disclose any cause of action within the jurisdiction of this Court.
20) To establish jurisdiction in a commercial suit, two primary statutes must be read together:
a) Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Mandates that a Commercial Court has jurisdiction over disputes arising within its territory.
b) Section 20 of the CPC, 1908: Specifies that a suit can be filed where:
i) S.20(a) The Defendant resides or carries on business; OR
ii) S.20(c) The cause of action arises, wholly or in part.
21) For the Delhi Commercial Court to have jurisdiction, the Plaintiff must prove that a part of the cause of action occurred in Delhi. In the present case ;
a) PW-1/5-- the work order dated 04.04.2023 (PW-1/5) between plaintiff CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024, Crystal Hues Limited Vs. Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 8
(Crystal Hues Ltd.) and VEATIVE LABS PTE LTD. was made and executed at Delhi ;
b) PW-1/3--the work order dated 01.07.2023 (PW-1/3) between plaintiff (Crystal Hues Ltd.) and the defendant (Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.) was executed in Delhi;
c) PW-1/4--the bill raised by the plaintiff (Crystal Hues Ltd.) to the defendant (Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.)
d) PW-1/7 - emails
e) PW-1/11 - Certificate u/s 63(4) BSA 2023
22) It is a settled principle that the place of execution of a contract constitutes a material part of the cause of action. If a contract is signed/executed in Delhi, the Delhi Courts (Commercial Division/Courts) inherently possess territorial jurisdiction, even if the performance or breach occurs elsewhere.
23) In Bausch and Lomb India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sunit Ashrar & Company, CS (Comm) 85/2022 it was reaffirmed: "The making of the contract is part of the cause of action... the suit may be filed either at the place where the contract was made or where it was to be performed."
24) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P. Velayutham vs. Pro-Fac Facilitators Pvt. Ltd., 2024 INSC 920 (decided Nov 26, 2024), clarified the intersection of Section 16 CPC (suits for immovable property) and the Commercial Courts Act. The Court held that even if a contract relates to property outside Delhi, if the relief sought is "personal obedience" (like specific performance of a CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024, Crystal Hues Limited Vs. Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
9contract signed in Delhi without a prayer for possession), the court where the contract was executed or where the defendant resides may still exercise jurisdiction.
25) In the present case there is a strong "territorial nexus" to file the present commercial suit in Delhi under Section 20(c) of the CPC read with Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act.
26) Thus the ISSUE No.1 relating to the territorial jurisdiction of this court is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.2 Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of an amount of Rs.13,86,264/- as prayed in prayer clause (i) of the suit ? OPP.
27) The Plaintiff is suing the Defendant for failing to pay for translation and voice-over services rendered under a Work Order Agreement dated 1 st July 2023. The Plaintiff completed the work successfully and issued an invoice on 14th July, 2023, for Rs.13,86,264 (including GST). The Plaintiff claims the right to sue arose from the following specific main / primary events:
i) The signing of the Work Order dated 04.04.2023 (Ex.PW-1/5)
ii) The issuance of the Invoice dated 05.04.2023 (Ex.PW-1/6).
iii) The completion of the work in Apr. 2023
iv) A fresh work order dated 01.07.2023 (Ex.PW-1/3) was executed between the parties to which the invoice dated 14.07.2023 (Ex.PW-1/4) was raised by the plaintiff. However, the prior contract was never CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024, Crystal Hues Limited Vs. Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.10
cancelled.
v) Legal Notice dated 16.10.2023 (Ex.PW-1/8) was sent and the same was not only acknowledged by the defendant, and intention to pay was also expressed by the defendant vide e-mail dated 18.10.2023 (Ex.PW-1/9).
vi) The Defendant's formal Acknowledgment of Debt vide email dated 18.10.2023 (Ex.PW-1/9).
28) It is pertinent to consider that while an initial work order between the plaintiff-herein (Crystal Hues Ltd.) and 'Veative Labs Pte Ltd' (not a party in the present suit) was signed on 04.04.2023 (Ex.PW-1/5), subsequently a fresh Work Order was signed on 01.07.2023 (Ex.PW-1/3) between the Plaintiff- herein (Crystal Hues Ltd.) and the Defendant-herein (Umety Solutions Ltd.).
i) As to the performance and invoicing of contract dated 04.04.2023 (Ex.PW-1/5) the plaintiff-herein (Crystal Hues Ltd.) raised the invoice dated 05.04.2023 (Ex.PW-1/6) to the VEATIVE LABS PTE Ltd. (not a party in the present suit).
ii) As to the performance and invoicing of the contract dated 01.07.023 (Ex.PW-1/3), the Plaintiff-herein raised Invoice dated 14.07.2023 (Ex.PW-1/4) to the defendant-herein (Umety Solutions Ltd.).
iii) Both the above-said contracts (Ex.PW-1/5 and Ex.PW-1/3) and both the invoices (Ex.PW-1/6 and Ex.PW-1/4) pertained to the same work but the parties in both the contracts and the invoices are different.
CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024, Crystal Hues Limited Vs. Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
11iv) There is Export Invoice in USD dated 01.11.2023 raised by the plaintiff-
herein (Crystal Hues Ltd.) to UMETY SOLUTIONS Inc. USA
29) It is the case of the plaintiff that it completed the work assigned by the defendant-company i.e. UMETY SOLUTIONS and after submitting the said completed-work raised the invoice accordingly. However, the defendant- herein is heavily relying upon the Export Invoice in USD dated 01.11.2023 raised by the plaintiff-herein (Crystal Hues Ltd.) to UMETY SOLUTIONS Inc. USA so as to assert that since the plaintiff-herein had issued this particular invoice and billed in USD to UMETY SOLUTIONS Inc. USA, the defendant- herein i.e. UMETY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. INDIA gets discharged from the earlier contract dated 01.07.023 (Ex.PW-1/3) and the earlier invoice 14.07.2023 (Ex.PW-1/4).
30) The defense taken by the defendant-herein is further dismantled by the cross-examination of the witness PW-2 (Sh. Junaid Khan - Zonal Manager South, CRYSTAL HUES LTD.) who has categorically supported the version of the plaintiff wherein the following was stated :
"Q.3 In para No.6 of Ex.PW-2/A you have stated that the work order was completed in month of April, 2023. Is it correct?
Ans. Yes, It is correct.
Q.4 When was the translation and Voice Over work was assigned to the plaintiff company?
Ans. It was assigned in the month of April, 2023.
CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024, Crystal Hues Limited Vs. Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.12
Q.5 Can you tell the name of the company which assigned the translation and voice over work to the plaintiff company?
Ans. Umety Solutions assigned the work to the plaintiff company. "
31) In its Written Submissions, the plaintiff has asserted that the above-said witness PW-2 (Sh. Junaid Khan - Zonal Manager South, CRYSTAL HUES LTD.) has been in the loop via emails throughout the transaction. There are various emails which reveal that the Ms. Namrata Jain representative of the defendant-company shared the defendant's requirements to the plaintiff on 3rd and 4th April 2023 via email vide draft work order (page 48) alongwith 268 files to be worked upon by the plaintiff. In all the said emails, the witness PW-2 was kept in Cc. Thereafter, the witness PW-2 (Sh. Junaid Khan - Zonal Manager South, CRYSTAL HUES LTD.) communicated directly with Ms. Namrata Jain (representative of the defendant-company). The witness PW-2 shared was shared with the signed copy of the work-order dated 04.04.2023 (Ex.PW-1/5) and the invoice dated 05.04.2023 (Ex.PW-1/6). The works order was completed within that month i.e. April 2023. However, as per the request made by the defendant, a fresh work order dated 01.07.2023 (Ex.PW-1/3) was executed between the parties to which the invoice dated 14.07.2023 (Ex.PW-1/4) was raised by the plaintiff. The mobile number of Ms. Namrata Jain M: 9717940408 was mentioned on top-left of the said invoice). This was all done at the special request of the defendant-herein. This was followed by various e-mails wherein the plaintiff has raised the demand for the pending payment. In one of such e-mails between PW-2 and Sh. Krishan Wadhwa (representative of the defendant-company) the pending amount was confirmed by the defendant. When the pending payment was not CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024, Crystal Hues Limited Vs. Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
13cleared by the defendant, the Legal Notice dated 16.10.2023 (Ex.PW-1/8) was sent and the same was not only acknowledged by the defendant, and intention to pay was also expressed by the defendant vide e-mail dated 18.10.2023 (Ex.PW-1/9). This email was followed by another e-mail dated 01.11.2023 vide which the defendant-herein asked the plaintiff-herein to issue a fresh invoice ion US Dollar. The plaintiff-herein on the asking of the defendant- herein raised and mailed the requested invoice in USD vide email dated 09.11.2023. However, no payment was ever made by the defendant-herein to the plaintiff-herein.
32) In the present case the emails dated 3 rd and 4th April 2023, along with the 268 files shared by Ms. Namrata Jain, constitute a valid offer. The subsequent execution of the Work Order (Ex.PW-1/3) and the delivery of services by the Plaintiff constitute a concluded contract. The plaintiff has also provided the certificate under S.63(4) BSA, 2023 (Ex.PW-1/11) in support of all the emails between the parties-herein. The Plaintiff completed the work in April 2023. The issuance of the Invoice (Ex.PW-1/4) crystallized the debt. The Defendant's request for a "USD Invoice" on 09.11.2023 is a secondary acknowledgment that the primary obligation (the work) was successfully performed.
33) Under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, the defendant is liable for the breach of contract. The execution of the work order (Ex.PW-1/3) and the subsequent issuance of invoices (Ex.PW-1/4) constitute a binding contract. Since the plaintiff performed their part (completing the work in April 2023), the defendant's failure to pay constitutes a clear breach. Since this is a dispute arising out of a transaction between two entities (Crystal Hues Ltd and the CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024, Crystal Hues Limited Vs. Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
14Defendant) regarding services, it qualifies as a "Commercial Dispute" under Section 2(1)(c). Moreover, the defendant-herein has not disputed the work or its commercial nature. The emails and digital communications are primary evidence. Under Section 63 of the BSA, 2023 (formerly Section 65B of the IEA), electronic records are admissible. The email dated 18.10.2023, where the defendant expressed an "intention to pay," acts as an Acknowledgment of Liability. As per Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao [(2020) 7 SCC 1] the electronic records (emails) are primary evidence if the source is proven.
34) In civil law, the plaintiff does not need to prove the case "beyond reasonable doubt," but rather on the preponderance of probabilities. Once the plaintiff (via PW-2) produced the emails, work orders, and the defendant's own email promising payment, the Onus of Proof shifted to the defendant under Section 102 of the IEA/Section 105 of BSA. In the present case the defendant's request for a "fresh invoice in USD" (dated 01.11.2023) after the legal notice is a clear admission of debt. Under Indian law, an admission is the best evidence against a party. As per the doctrine "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" the defendant's specific request for a new currency invoice implies the exclusion of any dispute regarding the quality or quantity of the work done.
35) The over-reliance of the defendant-herein on Export Invoice in USD dated 01.11.2023 and the assertion of getting discharged from the earlier invoice dated 14.07.2023 (Ex.PW-1/4) is flawed inasmuch that in both the said invoices the invoiced company are effectively the same entity : One is UMETY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. (INDIA) and the other is UMETY CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024, Crystal Hues Limited Vs. Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
15SOLUTIONS Inc. USA. No evidence has been adduced the defendant-herein but even if this Export Invoice is considered, the same will not discharge the defendant-herein. The defendant's attempt to shift liability toward the USA entity is a factual and legal fallacy. The work order was not merely an administrative arrangement; it was a contract wholly supervised, monitored, and executed by Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (India). The existence of a USD invoice dated 01.11.2023 does not change the identity of the party performing the contract. In Amitabh Phoolka v. Phoolka Investments Pvt. Ltd., 2024 (Delhi HC), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that when a party is actively involved in the day-to-day management and execution of a transaction, it cannot hide behind a foreign parent to escape liability. Here, the emails exchanged between the parties act as contemporaneous evidence of the Indian entity's absolute control over the project.
36) Moreover, in the present case though the defendant-witness Sh. Vikash Kumar (A/R of M/S UMETY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.) filed his affidavit of evidence but the same was never adduced and the said person never stepped into the witness box for chief-examination or cross-examination). Thus no evidence was ever lead by the defendant-herein to counter the version of the plaintiff-herein. Since the defendant failed to examine any witnesses to rebut PW-1 and PW-2 or explain the emails, an Adverse Inference under Section 114(g) of the IEA now Section 119 (1) of BSA was drawn. As per Rishi Kumar Gupta v. K.G. Project Limited [(2023) SCC OnLine Del 4540] it was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that in commercial suits, if the defendant fails to provide a specific denial to the invoices and emails placed on record, the plaintiff's version is deemed to be proved on the scale of preponderance of CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024, Crystal Hues Limited Vs. Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
16probabilities. As per the Apex Court in Dr. N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane [(1975) 2 SCC 326] the standard of proof in civil cases is the "preponderance of probability." If the evidence makes the plaintiff's version "more likely than not," the case is proven. As per Iswar Bhai C. Patel v. Harihar Behera [(1999) 3 SCC 457] if a party to the suit does not appear in the witness box to state their case on oath and does not offer themselves for cross-examination, a presumption arises that the case set up by them is incorrect.
37) In the present case there is an Element of work being done at the instant of the defendant-herein as the work was assigned by the Defendant. In the eyes of the law, the Plaintiff performed the work for the Defendant, There exists a Privity of Contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Defendant-herein remains the Principal Debtor. Under Section 104 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872), the burden of proving a specific fact--in this case, the discharge of the contract--lies on the party asserting it. The Defendant's claim that their books show a "Zero Balance" is an evidentiary matter that does not affect the legal right of the Plaintiff. While books of accounts are relevant, they are not, by themselves, sufficient to charge a person with liability--nor are they sufficient to discharge a liability created by a signed Work Order. A "Zero Balance" in the Defendant's ledger simply means they have moved the liability elsewhere in their internal accounting; it does not mean the debt has been legally "paid" or "satisfied" under the law of contract. The Debit Note dated 31st December 2023 is a unilateral accounting entry by the Defendant. A party cannot "novate" a contract or "nullify" a debt simply by making an entry in their own books of accounts without the written, express consent of CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024, Crystal Hues Limited Vs. Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
17the creditor (the Plaintiff) to release them from liability. The Defendant's contention that the issuance of a new invoice to a US-based entity (USD 14,109.30) discharges the liability of the defendant-herein is legally flawed.
38) The Defendant's over-reliance on the Export Invoice dated 01.11.2023 (issued in USD to Umety Solutions Inc., USA) to claim discharge from the original Invoice dated 14.07.2023 (Ex.PW-1/4) is a legal non-sequitur. The issuance of the USD invoice was a mere administrative accommodation performed at the Defendant's behest and does not constitute a Novation of Contract under Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Construction & Ors. v. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah, (2000) 1 SCC 586, for a novation to take place, there must be a complete substitution of a new contract in place of the old one, with the clear intention of all parties to extinguish the old liability. A mere change in the billing entity for accounting convenience does not extinguish the primary liability of the Indian entity.
39) In Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao & Anr., (1999) 3 SCC 573, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"Where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness-box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross- examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct."
40) Consequently, the Plaintiff's testimony remains unrebutted, and the Defendant's plea of "discharge of liability" remains a hollow assertion unsupported by any proved facts.
CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024, Crystal Hues Limited Vs. Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
1841) As far as the aspect of the Debt Acknowledgment on part of the defendant is concerned, on 18th October 2023, the Defendant formally acknowledged the debt. This occurred after the work was completed and the invoice was raised. An acknowledgment of debt by the Defendant is a "Statement of Account" that creates a fresh cause of action against them.
42) There is force in the contentions of the plaintiff that the defendant had admitted its liability to pay in the email dated 18th Oct. 2023. As per Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. v. Chemical Supplier [2025 SCC OnLine Del 7533] (Decided on 30/10/ 2025) it was examined whether an email response accepting a debit note amounted to an admission of debt. Held therein that when an email is sent in response to a statement of account or a debit note, and the contents suggest acceptance of a specific liability, it constitutes a valid admission. The defendant-herein has not disproved the said communication.
43) The defendant-herein has also raised the issue of Arbitration Clause at the time of final argument while submitting their written submissions. Under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, a party must apply for reference to arbitration "not later than the date of submitting their first statement on the substance of the dispute." If a party participates in a civil suit
--filing a written statement, framing issues, and leading evidence--without invoking the arbitration clause, they are deemed to have waived their right under Section 4 of the Act. Invoking an arbitration clause at the stage of Final Arguments is legally impermissible, as the party's conduct constitutes an "abandonment" of the arbitration agreement in favor of the Civil Court's jurisdiction.
CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024, Crystal Hues Limited Vs. Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
1944) The provision of Section 8(1) mandates that the objection must be raised at the earliest--specifically before or at the time of filing the first substantive statement (the Written Statement). The provision of Section 4 (Waiver) provides that if a party proceeds with a proceeding (like a trial) despite knowing a requirement of the agreement (the arbitration clause) hasn't been complied with, they are deemed to have waived the right to object. As per Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. [(2011) 5 SCC 532], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the right to refer a matter to arbitration is not absolute and can be waived. It accordingly held-therein:
"A party who has a right to have the dispute decided by arbitration... may waive that right by not raising the objection at the threshold. If a party files a written statement and participates in the suit, it is a clear case of waiver."
45) The judgment in Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Verma Transport Co.
[(2006) 7 SCC 275] clarified that "submitting the first statement on the substance of the dispute" marks the end of the window to invoke Section 8. By the time a suit reaches final arguments, the party has not only submitted a statement but has subjected themselves to the entire judicial process. It was observed thus:
"Section 8 of the 1996 Act... imposes a duty on the party to move an application not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute. The waiver of right to arbitration, in our opinion, is implicit in the conduct of the party who does not raise the objection within the statutory period and allows the civil court to proceed with the trial."
CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024, Crystal Hues Limited Vs. Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
2046) More recently, in BGM and M RPL JMCT JV v. Eastern Coalfields Ltd.
[2024 INSC], the Apex Court reiterated the principle of judicial economy. The Court emphasized that arbitration cannot be used as a tactical tool to delay or derail proceedings that have already reached a terminal stage. If a party has subjected themselves to the rigors of a full trial, including the rendering of evidence, they are deemed to have acquiesced to the Court's jurisdiction under Section 4, and the arbitration clause is rendered "spent" for that specific dispute.
47) The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Madhu Sudan Sharma & Ors v. Omaxe Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine Del 7136] dealt specifically with the impact of delayed applications. The Court ruled that allowing a Section 8 application at the stage of final arguments would lead to "procedural anarchy" and waste precious judicial time. It held that the doctrine of waiver under Section 4 of the Act is triggered the moment a party allows the Court to frame issues and record evidence without protesting the forum's jurisdiction, as such participation is fundamentally incompatible with the intent to arbitrate. It was observed thus:
"The parties having participated in the proceedings for a long time, the matter being at the stage of final arguments, it would be a travesty of justice to allow the defendants to now invoke the arbitration clause. The defendants by their conduct of filing written statements, participating in the framing of issues and leading evidence, are deemed to have waived their right to invoke arbitration in terms of Section 4 of the Act."
48) In the present case by voluntarily participating in the full course of the trial--including the framing of issues and the rendering of comprehensive CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024, Crystal Hues Limited Vs. Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
21evidence--the defendant has made a 'conscious election' of this Hon'ble Court's jurisdiction. Under the Doctrine of Waiver (Section 4), the defendant is now estopped from retreating to arbitration. The plea regarding the arbitration clause during the Final Written Arguments is a strategic afterthought that cannot supersede the deemed abandonment of the arbitration agreement evidenced by the defendant's own conduct. The contentions / submissions of the defendant raised in the Final Written Arguments regarding the Arbitration Clause and its purported revival are without merits.
49) Thus the ISSUE No.2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No.3 : Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, at what rate and for which period ?OPP.
50) In a suit filed under Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the recovery of the principal amount is only one part of the restitution. Since the dispute is "Commercial" in nature, the law recognizes that the money withheld by the defendant is capital that the plaintiff could have utilized for business growth. In commercial recovery suits filed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the entitlement to interest is governed by the terms of the contract between the parties, read with Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). In a commercial landscape, 'time is money,' and the withholding of payment by the Defendant amounts to an unauthorized interest-free loan taken from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to be restored to the position it would have occupied had the payment been made on time. While a claim for 24% per annum is common in commercial pleadings, the recent CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024, Crystal Hues Limited Vs. Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
22jurisprudence from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court suggests a nuanced approach toward "reasonableness."
51) In Mrs. Minal Desai v. Mr. Kawaljeet Singh [RFA(COMM) 44/2024 decided on 03.12.2025] the Hon'ble Delhi High Court reiterated that once a suit is classified as "Commercial," the court must apply the specialized interest regime. It upheld the award of 10-18% interest even where the defendant claimed no signed agreement existed, based on the conduct and emails of the parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s D. Khosla and Company v. Union of India [(2024) INSC 587] clarified that the "principal sum adjudged" can include interest for the pre-suit period if stipulated. It affirmed the court's power to award reasonable interest from the date of the claim until recovery to ensure the decree-holder is not penalized by the duration of the litigation.
52) Thus the plaintiff-herein is entitled to the rate of interest @ 18% on the claimed amount of Rs.13,86,264/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs eighty six thousand, two hundred and sixty four) from the date of filing of the present suit i.e. 28.09.2024 till its realization. Thus the ISSUE No.3 is decided in favour of the plaintiff-herein and against the defendant-herein.
53) ISSUE No.4 Relief.
In view of my findings on the issues, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed alongwith the cost of the suit. Defendants is directed to pay amount of Rs.13,86,264/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs eighty six thousand, two hundred and sixty four) along with pendentelite and future interest @ 18 % per annum to the plaintiff from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the decreetal amount.
CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024, Crystal Hues Limited Vs. Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
2354) Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
55) File be consigned to the record room.
Digitally
signed by
Veena Veena rani
Announced in the open court rani
Date:
2026.01.29
14:05:02
Dated: 29.01.2026 +0530
(VEENA RANI)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-08,
South-East District, Saket Courts,New Delhi
CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024, Crystal Hues Limited Vs. Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
24IN THE COURT OF MRS. VEENA RANI, DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-8, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024 CNR No. DLSE01-010086-2024 Crystal Hues Limited Vs. Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
29.01.2026
Present: Sh. Vipin, ld. counsel for the plaintiff.
Ms. Harneet Kaur ,ld. counsel for the defendant.
Vide my separate judgment, the suit of the plaintiff is decree with cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in the open court Veena Veena rani
Date:
rani 2026.01.29
14:04:52
Dated:29.01.2026 +0530
(VEENA RANI)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-08,
South-East District, Saket Courts,New Delhi
CS (COMM.) No.3730/2024, Crystal Hues Limited Vs. Umety Solutions Pvt. Ltd.