Delhi District Court
The Lens And Graphics Delhi vs Ram Print Solution on 30 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-03
(SHAHDARA) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY: SH. SANJAY SHARMA-II, DHJS
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024
CNR No.: DLSH01-001929-2024
The Lens & Graphics (Delhi)
Through its Partner: Mr. Aakash Vidhawan
32, Patparganj Industrial Area, FIE
Delhi-110092
..... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Ram Print Solutions
A-83/1, 25 Foota Road
Meet Nagar, Shahdara
Delhi-110094
2. Smt. Ritu (Partner)
W/o Sh. Manoj Kumar
R/o A-83/1, 25 Foota Road
Meet Nagar, Shahdara
Delhi-110094
3. Ram Kumar Gupta (Partner)
S/o Sh. Om Prakash Gupta
R/o A-1/860, Gali No. 7C
D-Block, Ashok Nagar
Shahdara, Delhi-110094
4. Mrs. Tina (Partner)
W/o Sh. Pushpendra Singh
R/o B-53, Gali No. 14
Jagatpuri Extn., Delhi-110093
..... Defendants
Date of Institution : 22.03.2024
Date of Arguments : 29.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 30.03.2026 Digitally signed
by SANJAY
SHARMA
SANJAY
J U D G M E N T SHARMA Date:
2026.04.02
14:18:06
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 1 of 46
THE SUIT:
1. The plaintiff, a registered partnership firm, through Mr.
Aakash Vidhawan, Partner, instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.
14,68,709.42/- (comprising principal amount of Rs. 12,44,669/-
and Rs. 2,24,040.42/- as interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f.
01.02.2023 to 01.02.2024) alongwith pendente-lite and future
interest @ 18% per annum against the defendants.
THE PARTIES:
2. The plaintiff is a wholesale distributor of ' per-sensitized
CTP aluminum plates, chemicals and other printing materials '
which is used in 'offset printing industry'.
3. The defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm. The defendant
No. 2 to 4 are its partners.
THE TRANSACTIONS:
4. Initially, the defendant No. 3 had approached the plaintiff
for business on 30 days credit basis and delivered ' undated'
cheques as 'security'. The plaintiff supplied goods worth Rs.
14,14,643/- to the defendants, vide Tax Invoices, as under:
Sl No. Invoice No. Date Amount
1. 1405 08.11.2019 Rs. 1,45,182/-
2. 1424 09.11.2019 Rs. 32,145/-
3. 1429 11.11.2019 Rs. 45,359/-
4. 1548 29.11.2019 Rs. 55,333/-
5. 1579 03.12.2019 Rs. 22,681/-
6. 1632 12.12.2019 Rs. 1,44,978/-
7. 1643 12.12.2019 Rs. 1,43,775/-
8. 1658 14.12.2019 Rs. 1,43,346/-
9. 1930 22.01.2020 Rs. 1,58,458/-
10. 1940 23.01.2020 Rs. 19,352/-
11. 1949 23.01.2020 Rs. 1,31,194/-
12. 1960 24.01.2020 Rs. 12,915/-
13. 1975 25.01.2020 Rs. 47,253/-
14. 1988 28.01.2020 Rs. 17,192/-
SANJAY Digitally signed by
SANJAY SHARMA
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024
SHARMA
The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors.
Date: 2026.04.02
14:18:16 +0530
Page No. 2 of 46
15. 2009 31.01.2020 Rs. 58,766/-
16. 2093 10.02.2020 Rs. 1,07,717/-
17 2182 24.02.2020 Rs. 29,276/-
18 2357 20.03.2020 Rs. 99,721/-
5. The plaintiff was maintaining a ledger pertaining to
transactions with the defendants. Initially, there was delay in
payment. However, since March, 2020, the defendants stopped
making payment to the plaintiff.
6. On 23.03.2021, the defendant No. 2 to 4 dissolved the
defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 4 received 75% share and
the defendant No. 3 received 25% share of the defendant No. 1.
The defendant No. 4 opened a new proprietorship concern in the
same name 'Ram Print Solutions' and Mr. Pushpendra Singh, her
husband is managing the business of the said concern.
7. The plaintiff contacted the defendants several times for
payment of outstanding amount. The defendants paid an amount
of Rs. 1,50,000/-, vide cash and banking mode, including Rs.
60,000/- paid by the defendants' client, namely, ' M/s. Laxmi
Prints' on 02.04.2022, 11.04.2022, 02.05.2022 and 16.05.2022.
8. On instruction of Pushpendra Singh, the plaintiff deposited
security cheques on 02.09.2022 for encashment, as under:
Cheque No. Date Amount Drawn on
183057 01.09.2022 Rs. 5,63,646/- IDBI Bank, Yamuna Vihar
New Delhi-110053
183065 01.09.2022 Rs. 4,54,780/- IDBI Bank, Yamuna Vihar
New Delhi-110053
183084 01.09.2022 Rs. 1,06,635/- IDBI Bank, Yamuna Vihar
New Delhi-110053
9. On presentation, the said cheques were returned unpaid
with remarks 'Funds Insufficient', vide memos dated 03.09.2022.
In that regard, the plaintiff sent a notice dated 12.10.2022 to the
Digitally signed
defendants. SANJAY by SANJAY
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.04.02
14:18:23 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 3 of 46
10. On receipt of the said notice, the defendant No. 2 to 4
alongwith Mr. Pushpendra Singh visited the plaintiff and assured
to clear the outstanding amount in monthly installments. The
defendants made last payment of Rs. 25,000/- on 01.02.2023. As
on 28.06.2023, an amount of Rs. 12,44,669/- was due against the
defendants. The plaintiff initiated 'Pre-Institution Mediation'.
However, the plaintiff was issued ' Non-Starter Report' on
10.08.2023. Hence, this suit for recovery against the defendants.
WRITTEN STATEMENT:
11. In written statement, the defendants contended that the
defendant No. 1 was a proprietorship concern registered in the
name of the defendant No. 2 on 03.08.2017. The defendant No. 3
was an employee of the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 4
had no connection with the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 3
and 4 are unnecessarily impleaded in the suit.
12. According to the defendants, the defendant No. 1, a
proprietorship concern, vide GST No. 07ZCPR9317E2Z8, did
business with the plaintiff and paid entire amount for the goods
purchased from the plaintiff from time-to-time till the defendant
No. 1 was closed in March, 2021 on account of losses in
business. Since then, the defendant No. 2 did no business with
the plaintiff.
13. After closure of the defendant No. 1, the defendant No. 4
opened a fresh proprietorship concern in the name and style
'Ram Print Solutions', vide GST No. 07BHOPT7010D1ZB in
April, 2021 and started business with the plaintiff. They
contended that invoices in question were raised against GST No.
07ZCPR9317E2Z8 against the proprietorship concern in the
name of the defendant No. 2. However, the plaintiff impleaded
Digitally
signed by
the defendant No. 3 and 4 as parties to this suit.SANJAY SANJAY
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.02
14:18:31
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 4 of 46
14. At the time of commencement of business, the plaintiff
asked for security cheques from the defendant No. 2 and the
defendant No. 3, a signing authority, provided security cheques
to the plaintiff on instruction of the defendant No. 2. The
defendant No. 2 placed orders upon the plaintiff and made
payments against the said orders, vide cash and banking mode
and as such, the defendant No. 2 made payment of all goods
delivered by the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff misused the said
security cheques by filling amount therein in order to create a
liability against the defendant No. 1 and 2.
15. According to the defendants, the plaintiff has not
explained why it waited till 2022 for a payment due in March,
2020. The plaintiff has not explained why it has not instituted
proceedings under Section 138 NI Act against the defendant No.
1. The plaintiff has also not explained why it waited for another
two years after presentation of the said cheques. The defendants
have not made any payment to the plaintiff since March, 2020
and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation.
16. The defendants contended that the plaintiff mixed business
transactions with the defendant No. 2 and 4. The defendant No. 4
is running a proprietorship concern in the name of ' Ram Print
Solutions' and as such, the defendant No. 4 had distinct business
relationship with the plaintiff. The plaintiff reflected an amount
of Rs. 25,000/- transferred by the defendant No. 4 to the account
of the plaintiff, in its ledger. The defendant No. 1 and 4 are two
separate proprietorship concerns having distinct GST numbers
and their transactions cannot be clubbed into one ledger.
17. The plaintiff, a partnership firm, was not registered with
Registrar of Firms and therefore, the suit is barred under Section
Digitally signed
69(2) of 'The Partnership Act, 1932'. by SANJAY
SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.02
14:18:41 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 5 of 46
18. The defendants denied that the defendant No. 1 is a
partnership firm comprising the defendant No. 2 to 4 as its
partners. They denied that the defendant No. 1 was dissolved on
23.03.2021, vide a mutual agreement wherein the defendant No.
4 received 75% share and the defendant No. 3 received 25%
share therein. They denied that the defendant No. 4 fraudulently
opened a proprietorship concern in the name of the defendant
No. 1. They contended that the plaintiff mentioned transactions
with the defendant No. 4 with the transactions between the
plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 and 2, in its ledger. However,
the defendants admitted that the defendant No. 2 made payment
of Rs. 1,50,000/-, vide cash and banking mode, including Rs.
60,000/- paid by its client, namely, 'M/s. Laxmi Prints' on
02.04.2022, 11.04.2022, 02.05.2022 and 16.05.2022. The
defendants contended that the plaintiff has not reflected cash
amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in its ledger. The defendants contended
that payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- was the last payment made by the
defendant No. 1 and 2 to the plaintiff with the clear
understanding that no amount was due against the defendant No.
1 and 2 and thereafter, the defendant No. 1 and 2 closed their
business operations. The defendants admitted that on 02.09.2022,
the plaintiff deposited the security cheques worth Rs. 11,25,061/-
for encashment and they were returned unpaid with remarks
'Insufficient Funds'. On receiving knowledge of dishonor of the
said cheques, the defendant No. 2 had a conversation with the
plaintiff and the plaintiff admitted that it had presented the said
cheques mistakenly and apologized. The defendants contended
that subsequent registration of the plaintiff with Registrar of
Firms would not cure the defect. The defendants contended that
no amount is due to the plaintiff from the defendants. Digitally signed by
SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.04.02
14:18:51 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 6 of 46
REPLICATION:
19. In the replication, the plaintiff reiterated the averments
made in the plaint and denied the contentions raised in written
statement. The plaintiff contended that the defendants were
actively involved in management of affairs of the defendant No.
1, a partnership firm and settlement agreement dated 23.03.2021
was signed by the defendant No. 2 to 4. The defendant No. 3
delivered security cheques to earn confidence of the plaintiff.
The defendant No. 3 received 25% share of the defendant No. 1.
On receipt of demand notice dated 12.10.2022, Mr. Pushpendra
Singh again assured the plaintiff that the defendants will clear the
outstanding amount in monthly installments. The defendants
made last payment of Rs. 25,000/-, through NEFT, to the account
of the plaintiff on 01.02.2023 and therefore, the suit is within
limitation. On 10.09.2024, Mr. Pushpendra Singh, husband of the
defendant No. 4 approached the plaintiff and delivered three
cheques in the sum of Rs. 4,54,780/-, Rs. 1,06,635/- and Rs.
5,63,646/-, signed by the defendant No. 4, corresponding the
exact amount as mentioned in the security cheques and requested
the plaintiff to withdraw the suit while assuring that entire
balance amount would be paid by the defendants. However, the
defendants have not made any payment.
ISSUES:
20. Vide order dated 17.04.2025, the Court framed issues, as
under:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for
recovery of Rs. 14,68,709.42/-, as prayed?
(OPP)
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendente-lite
and future interest @ 18% per annum?
(OPP)
Digitally signed
(3) Relief. by SANJAY
SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.02
14:18:59 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 7 of 46
THE PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:
21. Mr. Aakash Vidhawan, Partner of the plaintiff appeared as
PW-1. He deposed, on strength of evidence-affidavit Ex.PW1/A.
He relied on documents, as under:
Sl. No. Documents Exhibits
1 GST Registration Certificate of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/1
2 Original Cheques Ex.PW1/2 (colly.)
3 Cheque Returning Memos dated 03.09.2022 Ex.PW1/3 (colly)
4 Settlement Agreement dated 23.03.2021 Ex.PW1/4
5 18 Invoices Ex.PW1/5 (colly.)
6 Ledger w.e.f. 19.04.2019 to 01.02.2023 Ex.PW1/6 (colly.)
7 e-Way Bills Ex.PW1/7 (colly.)
8 GST Return Ex.PW1/8
9 WhatsApp chats with the defendants Ex.PW1/9
10 Demand Notice dated 12.10.2022 Ex.PW1/10
11 Postal Receipts dated 12.10.2022 Ex.PW1/11
12 Tracking Reports Ex.PW1/12
13 'Non-Starter Report' dated 10.08.2023 Ex.PW1/13
14 Form-A 'Register of Firms' Ex.PW1/14
15 WhatsApp conversation and 3 Cheques Ex.PW1/15
16 Affidavit under Section 65B of 'The Indian Ex.PW1/16
Evidence Act, 1872'
THE DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE:
22. Smt. Ritu / the defendant No. 2 appeared as DW-1. She
deposed, on strength of evidence-affidavit Ex.DW1/A. She relied
on documents, as under:
Sl. No. Documents Exhibits
1. GST Regn. Certificate of the defendant No. 1 Ex.DW1/1
2. Certificate under Section 63 of BSA, 2023 Ex.DW1/2
23. Smt. Tina / the defendant No. 4 appeared as DW-2. She
deposed, on strength of evidence-affidavit Ex.DW2/A.
24. Mr. Ram Kumar Gupta / the defendant No. 3 appeared as
DW-3. He deposed, on strength of evidence-affidavit Ex.DW3/A
Digitally signed by
SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.04.02
14:19:07 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 8 of 46
APPEARANCE:
25. The Court has heard arguments of Mr. Parth Chadha, Ld.
Counsel with Ms. Prachi Maheshwari, Ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff and Mr. Maneesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel with Ms.
Pratibha Pandey, Ms. Yasmeen Khan and Mr. Avnish, Ld.
Counsel for the defendants and examined pleadings and
evidence, oral and documentary, and perused written arguments
filed by the parties.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF:
26. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the plaintiff
has proved invoices Ex.PW1/5 (colly.), e-way bills Ex.PW1/7,
ledger Ex.PW1/6 and GSTR-1 Ex.PW1/8 in order to prove
liability of the defendants to pay the suit amount. He contended
that even after dissolution, the partners are personally liable to
pay debts of the defendant No. 1. He contended that the
defendant No. 2 to 4 were partners of the defendant No. 1 is
proved from settlement agreement Ex.PW1/4, cheques issued by
the defendant No. 3 Ex.PW1/2, distribution of shares on
dissolution of the defendant No. 1 between the defendant No. 3
and 4 to the extent of 25% and 75% respectively, continuance of
business in the name of the defendant No. 1 in the same premises
and machinery with the same clients by the defendant No. 4 and
issuance of cheques corresponding the amount of security
cheques by the defendant No. 4 Ex.PW1/15. He contended that
besides making a general denial, the defendants have not led any
evidence to prove that the defendant No. 1 was a proprietorship
concern and it was not a partnership firm. He contended that
WhatsApp conversations Ex.PW1/9 and Ex.PW1/15 respectively
are also strong evidence of existence of a partnership firm in the
Digitally signed
by SANJAY
name of the defendant No. 1. SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.02
14:19:15 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 9 of 46
27. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the defendant
No. 4 admitted, in her evidence-affidavit, that she had transferred
an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the account of the plaintiff. He
contended that the defendants have not led any evidence that the
defendant No. 3 was employee of the defendant No. 1. He
contended that the defendants have not filed any appointment
letter, salary slip, service agreement etc. He contended that the
plaintiff filed settlement agreement dated 23.03.2021 Ex.PW1/4
whereby the defendant No. 2 transferred her 50% share in favour
of the defendant No. 4 and thereby, the defendant No. 4 has 75%
share in the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 3 has 25%
share in the defendant No. 1. He contended that the suit is within
limitation and not barred under Section 69(2) of 'The Partnership
Act, 1932'. He contended that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree
for recovery of the suit amount. He relied on judgments, as
under:
Sl. No. Title of the Judgment Citation Paragraph
/ Page No.
1 Jay Ambe Industries vs. Garnet RFA No. 5228/2019 29 to 31
Specialty Paper Ltd. decided 07.01.2022
2 Sanjana Agarwal vs. CS (Comm.) No. 32 and 33
Namoshivai Apparels Private 324/2022 decided on
Limited 07.06.2023
3 Rajesh Laxmichand Udeshi @ Appeal (L) No. 15
Bhatia vs. Pravin Hiralal Shah 202/2012 decided on
16.07.2012
4 Tarsem Chand vs. Manjit Kaur CRA-AS-152/2022 21
Vashisht decided on
25.07.2022
5 G. Krishnappa and Ors. vs. IV(2005)BC136 19
Sangli Bank Ltd. and Ors.
6 Shri Deepanshu Goel vs. M/s. CS (Comm.) No. 26 to 28
Vijay Trading Co. & Ors. 179/2017 decided on
08.12.2023
7 Dwarkadas Khetan & Co. vs. AIR 1956 BOM 321 4
Commissioner of Income-Tax,
Bombay
Digitally signed by
SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 SHARMA
The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print
Date: 2026.04.02
Solutions & Ors. 14:19:26
Page No.+0530
10 of 46
CONTENTIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS:
28. Ld. Counsel for the defendants vehemently contended that
this is a classic case of fabrication of a cause of action founded
on incomplete record, contradictory figures and legally
unsustainable assumptions. He contended that the entire case of
the plaintiff is based on erroneous premise that the defendants
were partners in an non-existent firm. He contended that the
pleadings and evidence, oral and documentary, led by the
plaintiff exposed material contradictions striking very foundation
of the plaintiff's case. He contended that the goods supplied by
the plaintiff were duly paid and there is no proof of any
outstanding amount. He contended that the plaintiff failed to
discharge fundamental burden of proof. He contended that the
defendants never denied that the plaintiff supplied the goods.
However, the case of the defendants is that entire payment has
been made towards the goods supplied by the plaintiff. He
contended that this is not a case of denial of transaction but of
complete discharge. He contended that the plaintiff's ledger
demonstrates that the payments were made till 2022. However,
the plaintiff stated, in Para No. 3 of the plaint, that no payment
was received since onset of COVID in March, 2020. He
contended that the plaintiff's ledger reflects payments exceeding
Rs. 21,00,000/- whereas the value of invoices placed by the
plaintiff is around Rs. 14,00,000/-. He contended that admittedly,
the plaintiff received payments exceeding invoice amount and
therefore, the claim for outstanding amount is not sustainable. He
contended that the plaintiff stated, in Para No. 5 of the plaint, that
it supplied goods worth Rs. 14,14,643/- whereas PW-1 Mr.
Aakash Vidhawan admitted total value of invoices as Rs.
14,13,923/- and as such, there is difference of Rs. 720/-.
Digitally signed by
SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.04.02
14:19:37 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 11 of 46
29. Ld. Counsel for the defendants contended that PW-1 Mr.
Aakash Vidhawan could not explain as to why the plaintiff
sought a decree for recovery of Rs. 14,68,709.42/-. He contended
that admittedly, the plaintiff supplied goods worth Rs.
14,14,643/- and admitted receipt of Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs.
60,000/- and as such, balance amount would be Rs. 12,04,643/-.
He contended that the plaintiff alleged that an amount of Rs.
12,44,669/- was due. However, the plaintiff has failed to explain
difference of Rs. 40,026/-. He contended that amount of Rs.
12,69,669/-, demanded, vide demand notice dated 12.10.2022, is
not matching with the said amount of Rs. 12,64,643/-. He
contended that the plaintiff failed to explain the difference of Rs.
5,026/-. He contended that the aforesaid inconsistencies in ledger
are not typographical errors but they reflect absence of credible
statement of account. He contended that a party, who cannot
state the exact outstanding amount, cannot invoke jurisdiction of
the Court for a decree for recovery. He contended that GST
record is not reliable as the said GST record contains multiple
invoices against distinct GST numbers. He contended that PW-1
Mr. Aakash Vidhawan admitted that GSTR-I Ex.PW1/8 reflects
three distinct GST numbers. He contended that the said invoices
were raised against distinct entities and they cannot be
considered as the amount due from the defendants. He contended
that each GST number represents a distinct taxable entity and
invoices raised against distinct GST number must be proved
separately. He contended that the plaintiff attempted to
amalgamate separate claims against distinct entities into one
claim against the defendant No. 1. He contended that the plaintiff
improperly impleaded the defendant No. 3 and 4 and it had not
Digitally
signed by
shown any distinct cause of action against them. SANJAY SANJAY
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.02
14:19:44
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 12 of 46
30. Ld. Counsel for the defendants contended that the plaintiff
has not segregated transactions between its partnership firm and
private limited company. He contended that PW-1 Mr. Aakash
Vidhawan admitted that 'Lens and Graphics (India) Pvt. Ltd.' is
a separate legal entity. However, the payments made by the
defendants to that company are reflected in ledger of the
plaintiff. He contended that amalgamation of accounts of two
distinct entities impairs integrity of the plaintiff's case. He
contended that had the plaintiff produced ledger of its company,
it would have revealed further payments received from the
defendants. He contended that the plaintiff's ledger reflects that
it received an amount of Rs. 10,75,980/- w.e.f. 08.11.2019 to
20.03.2020 and Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash and as such, the plaintiff
received an amount of Rs. 12,25,980/- against total invoice of
Rs. 14,13,923/- and therefore, balance could not have exceeded
Rs. 1,87,943/-. However, the plaintiff is claiming an amount
more than Rs. 12,00,000/-. He contended that in case payments
post - 2020 are added, there was excess amount in favour of the
defendants. He contended that the plaintiff deliberately inflated
figures and withheld complete ledger and company record in
order to mislead the Court. He contended that admittedly, the
cheques Ex.PW1/2 were issued as 'security' cheques. He
contended that admittedly, the said cheques were returned
unpaid. However, the plaintiff has not initiated any proceeding
under Section 138 NI Act. He contended that the plaintiff issued
demand notice dated 12.10.2022. However, the plaintiff has not
explained the reason for not initiating proceedings under Section
138 NI Act. He contended that in replication, the plaintiff added
a new bank account while stating that the defendant No. 4 issued
cheques Ex.PW1/15 towards repayment of balance amount.
Digitally signed by
SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.04.02
14:19:55 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 13 of 46
31. Ld. Counsel for the defendants contended that the plaintiff
never presented the said cheques for encashment. He contended
that the plaintiff has also not furnished any explanation for non-
presentation of the said cheques for encashment. He contended
that PW-1 Mr. Aakash Vidhawan made contradictory statements
regarding purpose of retaining security cheques. He contended
that at one stage, he stated that the said cheques were blank and
at another stage, he stated that the said cheques were filled in the
presence of the defendants. He contended that PW-1 Mr. Aakash
Vidhawan admitted that handwriting and ink on the cheques
were different. He contended that PW-1 Mr. Aakash Vidhawan
gave evasive answers pertaining to date of issuance of the said
cheques. He contended that PW-1 Mr. Aakash Vidhawan
admitted that there was no liability against the defendant No. 4.
He contended that modus operandi of the plaintiff is to obtain
blank cheques at the time of commencement of business dealing
with a new entity. He contended that similarly, the plaintiff had
obtained cheques Ex.PW1/15 from the defendant No. 4 at the
time of commencement of business with her. He contended that
the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant No. 1 is a
partnership firm and the defendant No. 2 to 4 are its partners. He
contended that PW-1 Mr. Aakash Vidhawan admitted that he has
no document to prove that the defendant No. 1 is a partnership
firm comprising the defendant No. 2 to 4 as its partners. He
contended that the plaintiff has not produced partnership deed
and registration with Registrar of Firms. He contended that the
plaintiff relied on settlement agreement Ex.PW1/4. He contended
that PW-1 Mr. Aakash Vidhawan stated that the defendant No. 3
provided him the settlement deed Ex.PW1/4. However, he has
Digitally
signed by
not questioned the defendant No. 3 in this regard. SANJAY SANJAY
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.02
14:20:04
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 14 of 46
32. Ld. Counsel for the defendants contended that the
defendants proved that the defendant No. 1 was a sole
proprietorship concern of the defendant No. 2 and it functioned
till March, 2021 and the defendant No. 3 was its employee. He
contended that the defendants proved that after closure of the
defendant No. 1, the defendant No. 4 started a new proprietorship
concern with distinct GST number in April, 2021. He contended
that this fact is proved by the plaintiff's invoices raised against
new GST number. He contended that the plaintiff has failed to
prove the precise amount of the goods supplied, payments
received and amount due. He contended that the plaintiff could
not elicit anything from cross-examination of the defendants. He
contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for recovery
of the suit amount. He relied upon judgments, as under:
Sl. No. Title of the judgment Citation Paragraph
/ Page No.
1 Sh. Manik Lal Rauth vs. Sh. CS (Comm.) No. 5 and 6
Kumar Manglam 233/2019 decided on
15.10.2022
2 Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings 2018 (10) SCC 707 12 and 13
Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Official
Liquidator of Mahendra
Petrochemicals Ltd. and Ors.
3 M/s. SPG Consumer Products CS (Comm.) No.
Pvt. Ltd. vs. Siddhi Gupta 612/2023 decided on
19.03.2025
4 Kapil Khanna vs. Continental RFA (Comm.) No. 44 and 47
India Private Limited 47/2024 decided on to 50
29.10.2024
ISSUE NO. 1:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for
recovery of Rs. 14,68,709.42/-, as prayed?
(OPP)
33. The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm. The plaintiff
instituted a suit for recovery of amount qua 'per-sensitized CTP
Digitally signed
aluminum plates' supplied to the defendants. SANJAY by SANJAY
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.02
14:20:14 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 15 of 46
(a) Whether the suit is barred under Section 69(2) of
'The Partnership Act, 1932'?
34. Ld. Counsel for the defendants contended that the plaintiff
was not registered with Registrar of Firms and therefore, the suit
is barred under Section 69(2) of 'The Partnership Act, 1932'.
35. It may be noted that the plaintiff instituted a suit for
recovery of an amount of Rs. 13,94,029/- alongwith pendente-
lite and future interest, vide CS (Comm.) No. 489/2023 titled as
'The Lens & Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Anr. '
on 27.09.2023. However, the Court taken note of the fact that the
plaintiff was not registered with Registrar of Firms, vide order
dated 27.09.2023 and thereafter, the plaintiff withdrawn the said
civil suit with liberty to file a fresh suit, vide order dated
18.10.2023.
36. The plaintiff was registered with Registrar of Firms on
10.11.2023, vide Certificate of Registration of Firms Ex.PW1/14.
37. The plaintiff instituted the instant suit on 22.03.2024.
38. This Court, vide order dated 13.12.2024, held that a fresh
suit filed by a partnership firm after registration with Registrar of
Firms on the basis of same cause of action within period of
limitation is maintainable, as under:
"14. However, the plaintiff had withdrawn the
earlier suit with liberty to file a fresh suit, vide order
dated 18.10.2023. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the
present suit on 22.03.2024 after registration of the
firm with Registrar of Firms on 10.11.2023 within
period of limitation.
15. In Haldiram Bhujiawala and Anr. (supra),
Hoh'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"In fact, the Act has not prescribed that the
transactions or contracts entered into by a firm
with a third party are bad in law if the firm is an
unregistered firm. On the other hand, if the firm is Digitally
not registered on date of suit and the suit is to signed by
enforce a right arising out of a contract with theSANJAY SANJAY
SHARMA
third party-defendant in the course of its business,SHARMA Date:
2026.04.02
then it will be open to the plaintiff to seek 14:20:25
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 16 of 46
withdrawal of the plaint with leave and file a fresh
suit after registration of the firm subject of course
to the law of limitation and subject to the
provisions of the Limitation Act. This is so even if
the suit is dismissed for a formal defect. Section
14 of the Limitation Act will be available
inasmuch as the suit has failed because the defect
of non-registration falls within the words "other
cause of like nature" in section 14 of the
Limitation Act, 1963."
16. In SCJ Colours vs. M/s. P R Technoplast Pvt.
Ltd. & Ors., RFA (Comm.) No. 22/2023 decided on
04.10.2023, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held, as
under:
"7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant
and having perused the paper book, this Court is
of the view that once a partnership firm is
registered, there is nothing in law which prevents
the partnership firm from filing a suit for claims in
relation to transactions, which preceded such
registration of the firm.
8. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in M/s.
Samyuktha Cotton Trading Co. vs. Bheemineni
Venkata Subbaiah & Ors. AIR 2005 AP 1 has held
that the bar contained under Section 69 of the Act
is applicable to the filing of the suit by the firm. It
further held that Section 69 of the Act " does not
insist that the transactions, which are subject
matter of the suit, in relation to, or by a firm, shall
be those which take place after the firm is
registered. Once a firm is registered, there is
nothing in law to disable it from bringing about
claims or from pursuing remedies in a court of
law, in relations to transactions, which preceded
such registration"."
17. The case law relied by Ld. Counsel for the
defendants is pertaining to subsequent registration of
a partnership firm during the pendency of the suit and
in that context, it was held that subsequent
registration of the firm would not cure the initial
defect as the proceedings were ab initio defective as
the firm was not a registered firm on the date of
institution of the proceedings. Subsequent
registration of a partnership firm during the pendency
of the suit for enforcement of a contract against a
third party is an inherent defect which cannot be
cured. That is not the case here. In this case, the SANJAY
plaintiff firm had withdrawn the former suit with SHARMA
liberty to institute a fresh suit subject to law of
limitation and thereafter, the plaintiff got itself Digitally signed by
SANJAY SHARMA
registered and instituted the present suit. Date: 2026.04.02
14:20:33 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 17 of 46
18. Therefore, a fresh suit filed by a partnership
firm after registration with Registrar of Firms on the
basis of same cause of action within period of
limitation is maintainable. Accordingly, the
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the
defendants is dismissed. To come up for arguments
on the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC on
03.02.2025."
39. The defendants have not challenged the said order dated
13.12.2024. The said order has attained finality. Therefore,
contention regarding applicability of Section 69(2) of ' The
Partnership Act, 1932' is without merit.
(b) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
40. Second contention of Ld. Counsel for the defendants is
that the suit is barred by limitation on the premise that the
plaintiff stated that the defendants have not made payment after
March, 2020 and therefore, this suit is barred by limitation.
41. Even if contention of Ld. Counsel for the defendants is
accepted, the suit is not barred by limitation as the period from
15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was excluded from computation of
limitation in Re: Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation,
(2022) 3 SCC 117, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, as under:
"5. Taking into consideration the arguments
advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the
surge of the virus on public health and adversities
faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we
deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of
2022 with the following directions:
I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in
continuation of the subsequent orders dated
08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is
directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till
28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes
of limitation as may be prescribed under any
general or special laws in respect of all judicial or
quasi-judicial proceedings.
II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation
remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become
available with effect from 01.03.2022. Digitally signed
by SANJAY
SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.02
14:20:41 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 18 of 46
III. In cases where the limitation would have
expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till
28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance
period of limitation remaining, all persons shall
have a limitation period of 90 days from
01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period
of limitation remaining, with effect from
01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer
period shall apply.
IV. It is further clarified that the period from
15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand
excluded in computing the periods prescribed
under Sections 23(4) and 29-A of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12-A of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b)
and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which
prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting
proceedings, outer limits (within which the court
or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of
proceedings."
42. Having computed period of limitation of 3 years w.e.f.
01.03.2022, the instant suit filed by the plaintiff on 22.03.2024,
after excluding the period spent in the previous suit, vide CS
(Comm.) No. 489/2023 and 'Pre-Institution Mediation', vide
'Non-Starter Report' dated 10.08.2023, is within limitation.
43. Secondly, the defendants admitted that the defendant No. 2
made payment of Rs. 1,50,000/-, vide cash and banking mode,
including Rs. 60,000/- on her behalf by her client, namely, ' M/s.
Laxmi Prints' on 02.04.2022, 11.04.2022, 02.05.2022 and
16.05.2022. Therefore, the instant suit filed on 22.03.2024 is
within limitation under Article 113 of ' The Indian Limitation
Act, 1963'.
44. Thirdly, the defendants admitted in Para No. 8 of
Preliminary Submissions that the defendant No. 4 transferred an
amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the account of the plaintiff on
01.02.2023. Therefore, the suit filed on 22.03.2024 for recovery
of balance amount on 'running and non-mutual account'SANJAY
is
SHARMA
within limitation under Article 113 of 'Limitation Act, 1963'. Digitally signed by
SANJAY SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.02
14:20:50 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 19 of 46
(c) Whether the defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm
and the defendant No. 2 to 4 are its partners?
45. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant No. 1 is a
partnership firm and the defendant No. 2 to 4 are its partners. It is
further case of the plaintiff that the defendant No. 2 to 4
dissolved the defendant No. 1 on 23.03.2021 and the defendant
No. 4 received 75% share and the defendant No. 3 received 25%
share of the defendant No. 1, vide settlement agreement
Ex.PW1/4. It is further case of the plaintiff that the defendant
No. 4 immediately started a proprietorship concern in the name
of the defendant No. 1. It is further case of the plaintiff that the
defendant No. 3 issued cheques Ex.PW1/2 (colly.) and the
defendant No. 4 issued cheques Ex.PW1/15 (colly.) in favour of
the plaintiff to discharge liability of the defendant No. 1.
46. The case of the defendants is that the defendant No. 1 was
a proprietorship concern owned by the defendant No. 2, vide
registration dated 03.08.2017, and the defendant No. 3 was an
employee of the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 4 had no
role in the defendant No. 1. It is further case of the defendants
that the defendant No. 4 is a distinct entity having individual
GST and did business with the plaintiff and the cheques
Ex.PW1/15 (colly.) were issued as 'security' cheques by the
defendant No. 4.
47. As regards reliance of the plaintiff on settlement dated
23.03.2021, Ld. Counsel for the defendants stated that the
plaintiff cannot lead secondary evidence in the absence of any
notice to the defendants to produce the said settlement and
further, mere exhibition of a document would not dispense with
proof of the document in accordance with law. He contended that
the said settlement dated 23.03.2021 is inadmissible in evidence
Digitally signed
and therefore, it cannot be read in evidence.SANJAY by SANJAY
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.02
14:20:58 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 20 of 46
48. It is seen that the plaintiff relied on a copy of settlement
agreement dated 23.03.2021 whereby the defendant No. 2
transferred her 50% share in the defendant No. 1 in favour of the
defendant No. 4 and 25% share in the defendant No. 1 in favour
of the defendant No. 3 and thereby, the defendant No. 3 had 25%
share and the defendant No. 4 had 75% share in the defendant
No. 1.
49. Secondary evidence is defined in Section 58 of BSA,
2023, as under:
"58. Secondary evidence. - Secondary evidence
includes -
(i) certified copies given under the provisions
hereinafter contained;
(ii) copies made from the original by mechanical
processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy of
the copy, and copies compared with such copies;
(iii) copies made from or compared with the original;
(iv) counterparts of documents as against the parties
who did not execute them;
(v) oral accounts of the contents of a document given
by some person who has himself seen it;
(vi) oral admissions;
(vii) written admissions;
(viii) evidence of a person who has examined a
document, the original of which consists of numerous
accounts or other documents which cannot
conveniently be examined in Court, and who is
skilled in the examination of such documents.
Illustration
(a) A photograph of an original is secondary evidence
of its contents, though the two have not been
compared, if it is proved that the thing photographed
was the original.
(b) A copy compared with a copy of a letter made by
a copying machine is secondary evidence of the
contents of the letter, if it is shown that the copy
made by the copying machine was made from the
original. Digitally signed
by SANJAY
SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.02
14:21:05 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 21 of 46
(c) A copy transcribed from a copy, but afterwards
compared with the original, is secondary evidence;
but the copy not so compared is not secondary
evidence of the original, although the copy from
which it was transcribed was compared with the
original.
(d) Neither an oral account of a copy compared with
the original, nor an oral account of a photograph or
machine-copy of the original, is secondary evidence
of the original."
(emphasis supplied)
50. Therefore, settlement agreement Ex.PW1/4 is a photocopy
and it is a secondary evidence.
51. Section 60 of BSA, 2023 enumerates the cases wherein
secondary evidence relating to a document may be given, as
under:
"60. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to
documents may be given. -
Secondary evidence may be given of the existence,
condition, or contents of a document in the following
cases, namely: -
(a) when the original is shown or appears to be in the
possession or power -
(i) of the person against whom the document is
sought to be proved; or
(ii) of any person out of reach of, or not subject to,
the process of the Court; or
(iii) of any person legally bound to produce it, and
when, after the notice mentioned in section 64 such
person does not produce it;
(b) when the existence, condition or contents of the
original have been proved to be admitted in writing
by the person against whom it is proved or by his
representative in interest;
(c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or
when the party offering evidence of its contents
cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own
default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time;
(d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be
easily movable;
(e) when the original is a public document within the
Digitally signed
meaning of section 74; SANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.04.02
14:21:12 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 22 of 46
(f) when the original is a document of which a
certified copy is permitted by this Adhiniyam, or by
any other law in force in India to be given in
evidence;
(g) when the originals consist of numerous accounts
or other documents which cannot conveniently be
examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the
general result of the whole collection.
Explanation. - For the purposes of, -
(i) clauses (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of
the contents of the document is admissible;
(ii) clause (b), the written admission is admissible;
(iii) clause (e) or (f), a certified copy of the
document, but no other kind of secondary evidence,
is admissible;
(iv) clause (g), evidence may be given as to the
general result of the documents by any person who
has examined them, and who is skilled in the
examination of such document."
(emphasis supplied)
52. Section 64 of BSA, 2023 pertaining to rules as to notice to
produce a document is, as under:
"64. Rules as to notice to produce. - Secondary
evidence of the contents of the documents referred to
in clause (a) of section 60, shall not be given unless
the party proposing to give such secondary evidence
has previously given to the party in whose possession
or power the document is, or to his advocate or
representative, such notice to produce it as is
prescribed by law; and if no notice is prescribed by
law, then such notice as the Court considers
reasonable under the circumstances of the case:
Provided that such notice shall not be required in
order to render secondary evidence admissible in any
of the following cases, or in any other case in which
the Court thinks fit to dispense with it: -
(a) when the document to be proved is itself a
notice;
(b) when, from the nature of the case, the adverse
party must know that he will be required to
produce it;
(c) when it appears or is proved that the adverse
party has obtained possession of the original by
fraud or force; Digitally signed
by SANJAY
SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.02
14:21:19 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 23 of 46
(d) when the adverse party or his agent has the
original in Court;
(e) when the adverse party or his agent has
admitted the loss of the document;
(f) when the person in possession of the document
is out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of
the Court."
53. Order 12 Rule 8 CPC pertaining to notice to produce
documents is, as under:
"8. Notice to produce documents. -
Notice to produce documents shall be in Form No. 12
in Appendix C, with such variations as circumstances
may require. An affidavit of the pleader, or his clerk,
of the service of any notice to produce, and of the
time when it was served, with a copy of the notice to
produce, shall in all cases be sufficient evidence of
the service of the notice, and of the time it was
served."
54. In Tharammel Peethambaran and Anr. vs. T. Ushakrishnan
and Anr., SLP (C) No. 11868/2024 decided on 06.02.2026,
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"20. The broad parameters summarising the
procedure to be followed for introducing secondary
evidence are reiterated and read thus:
20.1 The fundamental principle of the Indian
Evidence Act is that facts have to be established by
primary evidence [Jagmail Singh v. Karamjit Singh,
(2020) 5 SCC 178 (Para 14)]. Section 64 mandates
that documents must be proved by primary evidence,
which is considered the "best evidence". Primary
evidence is the rule, while secondary evidence is an
exception admissible only in the absence of primary
evidence. A party is generally required to produce the
best evidence available; so long as the superior
evidence (the original) is within a party's possession
or reach, they cannot introduce inferior proof
(secondary evidence) [Smt. J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha
Rani (2007) 5 SCC 730].
20.2 Before secondary evidence can be admitted, the
party relying on it must lay a factual foundation. This
involves two steps: First, the party must prove that
the original document actually existed and was
SANJAY
executed. Secondly, the party must establish valid SHARMA
reasons as to why the original cannot be furnished
[Kaliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 10 SCC Digitally signed by
SANJAY SHARMA
758I]. Date: 2026.04.02
14:21:33 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 24 of 46
20.3 Secondary evidence is inadmissible until the
non-production of the original is accounted for in a
manner that brings the case within the specific
exceptions provided in Section 65 [H. Siddiqui (D)
By Lrs. v. A. Ramalingam AIR (2011) SC 1492]. If
the original itself is found to be inadmissible through
failure of the party who files it to prove it to be valid,
the same party is not entitled to introduce secondary
evidence of its contents [Smt. J. Yashoda v. K.
Shobha Rani (2007) 5 SCC 730].
20.4 Section 65 of the Evidence Act is exhaustive
and states the specific circumstances under which
secondary evidence is permissible. To introduce
secondary evidence, a party must satisfy the
conditions of one of the clauses (a) to (g) of Section
65.14
Condition for Statutory Type of Secondary
Secondary Evidence Clause Evidence Allowed
Adversary Possession Section 65(a) Any secondary
evidence (after notice)
Written Admission Section 65(b) The written admission
itself
Loss or Destruction Section 65(c) Any secondary
evidence
Immovable Original Section 65(d) Any secondary
evidence
Public Document Section 65(e) Only a certified copy
Law-Specified Section 65(f) Only a certified copy
Document
Voluminous Records Section 65(g) Testimony of a skilled
examiner
20.5 Further, admitting a document as secondary
evidence does not automatically prove its contents.
The secondary evidence must be authenticated by
foundational evidence showing that the alleged copy
is, in fact, a true copy of the original. For instance, if
a party wishes to introduce a photostat copy, they
must explain the circumstances under which the copy
was prepared and who possessed the original at the
time the photograph was taken [Ashok Dulichand v.
Madahavlal Dube and Another (1975) 4 SCC 664;
Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu, (2010) 9 SCC 712].
20.6 Mere admission of a document or making it an
exhibit does not dispense with the requirement of
proving it in accordance with the law. The court has SANJAY
an obligation to examine the probative value of the
document and decide the question of admissibility SHARMA
before making an endorsement on the secondary Digitally signed by
evidence. If the foundational facts, such as the loss of SANJAY SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.02
14:21:42 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 25 of 46
the original or the explanation for its non-production,
are not established, the court cannot legally allow the
party to adduce secondary evidence [Rakesh
Mohindra v. Anita Beri, (2016) 16 SCC 483]
20.7 There is no requirement that an application must
be filed to lead secondary evidence. While a party
may choose to file such an application, secondary
evidence cannot be ousted solely because no
application was filed. It is sufficient if the party lays
the necessary factual foundation for leading
secondary evidence either in the pleadings or during
the course of evidence [Dhanpat v. Sheo Ram 2020
(16) SCC 209]
21. Therefore, the introduction of secondary evidence
is a two-step process, wherein, first, the party must
establish the legal right to lead secondary evidence,
and second, they must prove the contents of the
documents through that evidence. The twin
requirements are conjunctive."
(emphasis supplied)
55. The plaintiff has not led any factual foundation in order to
lead secondary evidence qua settlement agreement Ex.PW1/4.
The plaintiff has not led any evidence that original settlement
agreement actually existed and was executed. The plaintiff
neither pleaded nor deposed the circumstances under which a
copy of settlement agreement Ex.PW1/4 was prepared and who
possessed the original at the time of preparation of copy thereof.
The plaintiff did not issue any notice to the defendants to
produce the original settlement agreement. The plaintiff has not
led any evidence to prove the contents of the said settlement
agreement.
56. Besides filing of a copy of settlement agreement
Ex.PW1/4, the plaintiff has not led any evidence pertaining to the
circumstances in which the said settlement agreement came into
its possession. In his cross-examination, PW-1 Mr. Aakash
Vidhawan stated that the defendant No. 4 informed him
regarding the said settlement and the defendant No. 3 provided
Digitally signed
him the said settlement agreement. SANJAY by SANJAY
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.04.02
14:21:49 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 26 of 46
57. However, the plaintiff neither issued any notice to the
defendants to produce the original settlement agreement nor
questioned the defendant No. 3 and 4 regarding the said
agreement.
58. This Court is of the considered opinion that settlement
agreement Ex.PW1/4 is not admissible in evidence.
59. The issue before this Court is dehors, whether there is
evidence on record to prove that the defendant No. 1 is a
partnership firm of the defendant No. 2 to 4.
60. Before venturing into this legal conundrum, it would be
appropriate to have glimpse of relevant statutory provisions, as
under:
"4. Definition of "partnership", "partner", "firm" and
"firm name". - "Partnership" is the relation between
persons who have agreed to share the profits of a
business carried on by all or any of them acting for
all.
Persons who have entered into partnership with one
another are called individually "partners" and
collectively a "firm", and the name under which their
business is carried on is called the "firm name".
(emphasis supplied)
61. In Danasingh Prabhu vs. Chandrasekar & Another , SLP
(Crl.) No. 5706/2025 decided on 14.07.2025 [2025 INSC 831],
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"7.4 According to Pollock and Mulla, 8th Edition, the
definition of partnership in Section 4 of the
Partnership Act contains three elements; (i) there
must be an agreement entered into by all the persons
concerned; (ii) the agreement must be to share the
profits of a business; and (iii) the business must be
carried on by all or any of the persons concerned,
acting for all. All these elements must be present
before a group of associates can be held to be
partners. These three elements may appear to overlap,
but they are nevertheless distinct. The third element
shows that the persons of the group who conduct the SANJAY
business do so as agents for all the persons in the SHARMA
group and are therefore liable to account for all. This
Court while elaborating the third essential element Digitally signed by
SANJAY SHARMA
has held that the position of a partner in the firm is Date: 2026.04.02
14:22:02 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 27 of 46
thus not of a master and a servant or employer and
employee which concept involves an element of
subordination, but that of equality. It may be that a
partner is being paid some remuneration for any
special attention which he devotes but that would not
involve any change of status or bring him within the
definition of employee, vide Regional Director,
Employees' State Insurance Corporation vs.
Ramanuja Match Industries, (1985) 1 SCC 218,
Paras 4 and 9.
7.5 In Section 4 of the Partnership Act, it is clearly
stated that persons who have entered into partnership
with one another are individually called partners and
collectively a firm and the name under which their
business is carried out is called a firm name. Thus,
while partnership is the relation between persons who
have agreed to share profits of the business carried on
by all or any of them acting for all, the persons are
collectively called a firm and the name of the firm is
the firm name which is a compendious or collective
term of partnership of the partners. The said Section
also clearly implies that a firm or partnership is not a
legal entity, separate and distinct from its partners.
7.6 As already stated above, the firm is a
compendious term not distinct of the individuals who
compose the firm. In other words, partnership is
merely a convenient name to carry out business by
partners. Thus, a firm is not an entity of persons in
law but is merely an association of individuals and
firm name is only a collective name of those
individuals who constitute the firm. In other words,
the firm name is merely an expression, only a
compendious mode of designating the persons who
have agreed to carry on business in partnership. Thus,
a firm may not be a legal entity in the sense of a
corporation or a company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 or 2013, but it is still an
existing concern where business is done by a number
of persons in partnership.
7.9 A partnership firm, unlike a company registered
under the Companies Act, does not possess a separate
legal personality and the firm's name is only a
compendious reference for describing its partners. ...
7.14 Most pertinent is that despite noting these
relaxations in the rigid rules of procedure, this Court
observed in Dulichand that 'a firm name is merely an SANJAY
expression, only a compendious mode of designating SHARMA
the persons who have agreed to carry on business in
partnership'. Any relaxations, either aforementioned Digitally signed
or not, borne out of commercial 33 convenience or by SANJAY
SHARMA
otherwise, do not deviate from the settled position Date: 2026.04.02
14:22:10 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 28 of 46
that the name of a partnership firm is a convenient
manner of referring to its partners.
7.16 Finally, on this question, Krishna Iyer, J.
speaking for this Court noted that under Indian law, a partnership is only a collective of separate persons and is not a legal person in itself."
62. The Court must ascertain real relation between the parties on strength of holistic examination of all attendant relevant facts in order to determine existence of a partnership.
63. Mode of determination of existence of partnership is defined in Section 6 of 'The Partnership Act, 1932', as under:
"6. Mode of determining existence of partnership. - In determining whether a group of persons is or is not a firm, or whether a person is or is not a partner in a firm, regard shall be had to the real relation between the parties, as shown by all relevant facts taken together.
Explanation 1. - The sharing of profits or of gross returns arising from property by persons holding a joint or common interest in that property does not of itself make such persons partners. Explanation 2. - The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business, or of a payment contingent upon the earning of profits or varying with the profits earned by a business, does not of itself make him a partner with the persons carrying on the business; and in particular, the receipt of such share or payment-
(a) by a lender of money to persons engaged or about to engage in any business,
(b) by a servant or agent as remuneration,
(c) by the widow or child of a deceased partner, as annuity, or
(d) by a previous owner or part owner of the business, as consideration for the sale of the goodwill or share thereof, does not of itself make the receiver a partner with the persons carrying on the business."
64. In any case, if a person by words spoken or written or by conduct either represent himself or knowingly permit himself to be represented as a partner of a firm is liable as a partner in that firm to anyone who has on the faith of such representation given Digitally signed credit to the firm. SANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.02 14:22:17 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 29 of 46
65. Section 28 of 'The Partnership Act, 1932' envisages doctrine of holding out, as under:
"28. Holding out. - (1) Any one who by words spoken or written or by conduct represents himself or knowingly permits himself to be represented, to be a partner in a firm, is liable as a partner in that firm to any one who has on the faith of any such representation given credit to the firm, whether the person representing himself or represented to be a partner does or does not know that the representation has reached the person so giving credit. (2) Where after a partner's death the business is continued in the old firm name, the continued use of that name or of the deceased partner's name as a part thereof shall not of itself make his legal representative or his estate liable for any act of the firm done after his death."
66. As regards contention of Ld. Counsel for the defendants that PW-1 Mr. Aakash Vidhawan, in his evidence-affidavit Ex.PW1/A, has not deposed that the defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm and the defendant No. 2 to 4 are its partners, it can be stated that the case of the plaintiff cannot be adjudicated on this isolated contention. The Court has to take holistic view of the pleadings and the evidence on record.
67. In Para No. 5 of his evidence-affidavit Ex.PW1/A, PW-1 Mr. Aakash Vidhawan stated, as under:
"5. I state that the Defendants entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 23.03.2021. That the Settlement Agreement have been exhibited as Exhibit-P1/4."
68. In his cross-examination, PW-1 Mr. Aakash Vidhawan stated, as under:
"I know the defendants since 2016-17. I will have to check if I have any document available to substantiate my claim that defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm and defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are its partners. Vol. I was told that defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm and defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 are its SANJAY partners. It is wrong to suggest that I do not have any SHARMA such document because defendant No. 1 is not a partnership firm but a sole proprietorship firm. Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA Date: 2026.04.02 14:22:26 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 30 of 46 In my understanding, I had stated that defendant No. 4 had fraudulently opened a proprietorship firm under the same name and style as that of defendant No. 1 because there were pending liabilities of the defendant No. 4 in the defendant No. 1 firm. I got to know that defendant No. 4 had opened a fraudulent firm when defendant No. 4 approached me with a new GST and asked me to provide goods under the new GST number. This took place in 2021/22. It is correct that I gave defendant No. 4 goods under the new GST number. I provided goods to defendant No. 4 despite being aware that it was a fraudulent firm as she had said that if you provide goods to me under the new GST number, she shall also pay back the outstanding amount of the defendant No. 1 firm. I had questioned her as to why she was not pursuing business in the name of defendant No. 1 firm. However, defendant No. 4 stated that they are doing a settlement agreement and that one partner is exiting the business. The photocopy of Settlement Agreement being relied upon was given to me by defendant No. 3. He had handed over that document to me as he wanted me to remove his name from the case. I am not a legal expert, therefore, I do not know as to how his name could have been removed from the case. It is wrong to suggest that the settlement agreement is a forged document and that no such settlement agreement was executed between the parties at any time whatsoever. ... It is wrong to suggest that defendant No. 1 is a sole proprietorship firm and defendant No. 3 and 4 have no business in terms of ownership in defendant No. 1. It is wrong to suggest that defendant No. 3 was just an employee of defendant No. 1 firm and acting as per the directions of defendant No. 2 and nothing else. I started dealing with defendant No. 3 since 2017. I started dealing with defendant No. 2 and her husband since 2018. I came in knowledge of defendant No. 4 after covid in 2020. The purchase orders were placed by defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 2 and her husband used to place purchase orders during such intervals when defendant No. 3 was on leave or not available. Defendant No. 4 and her husband post covid came in contact and started placing purchase orders. ... At this stage, witness is confronted with evidence by way of affidavit and witness states that it is indeed that it is not mentioned in his evidence by way of affidavit that defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm.SANJAY ... I had included the name of defendant No. 4's firmSHARMA in the previous suit, filed before the Hon'ble Court, not because that firm owed any liability but becauseDigitally signed defendant No. 4 was the partner in the defendant No.by SANJAY SHARMA 1's firm. Date: 2026.04.02 14:22:33 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 31 of 46 It is correct that I had included the name of defendant No. 4 in the present case under the understanding that the defendant No. 4 is a partner in defendant No. 1 firm."
(emphasis supplied)
69. Evidence given by a witness in cross-examination has no less probative value.
70. In K.S. Dinachandran vs. Shyla Joseph and Others , 2025 INSC 1451, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"29. ... The presence of the testator and the attesting witnesses and the signatures affixed on the will by each of them have been stated by DW-2 in his deposition. What was lacking in the examination-in- chief was brought out in the cross examination by way of a positive suggestion. Leading questions are permitted in cross-examinations and the response elicited cannot be said to have lesser probative value, as held by the High Court..."
(emphasis supplied)
71. Therefore, on holistic examination of the entire evidence of PW-1 Mr. Aakash Vidhawan, it cannot be said that absence of deposition in evidence-affidavit that the defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm and the defendant No. 2 to 4 are its partners has any impact on the case of the plaintiff.
72. PW-1 Mr. Aakash Vidhawan was categorical in his cross- examination, as reproduced above, that the defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm and the defendant No. 2 to 4 are its partners.
73. The defendants, in Para No. 2 and 3 of Preliminary Submissions of written statement, admitted that the defendant No. 1 functioned till March, 2021 and after its closure, the defendant No. 4 started a new proprietorship concern in the name of the defendant No. 1 in April, 2021, as under:
"2. That the Defendant No. 1 proprietorship firm having GST No. 07ZCPR9317E2Z8 did business with the Plaintiff and during the said period the Defendant No. 1 paid in full for all the goods SANJAY purchased from the Plaintiff from time to time until SHARMA the Defendant No. 1 proprietorship firm got closed down in March 2021 as the Defendant No. 2 was Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA accruing losses in the business. Date: 2026.04.02 14:22:43 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 32 of 46 It is pertinent to mention here that thereafter no business transaction was carried out by the Defendant No. 2 in her firm with the Plaintiff in any manner whatsoever.
3. That after the closure of the Defendant No. 1 firm, the Defendant No. 4 opened the proprietorship firm in the name and style of Ram Print Solutions as fresh proprietorship firm vide GST No. 07BHOPT7010D1ZB in April 2021 and subsequent to the same started business relationship with the Plaintiff. It is pertinent to mention here that all the invoices alleged to be unpaid by the Plaintiff have been raised by him against the GST No. 07ZCPR9317E2Z8 which at that point of time was in the name of Defendant No. 2 and despite being fully aware of the same the Plaintiff has made Defendant No. 3 and Defendant No. 4 a party to the present litigation."
(emphasis supplied)
74. The defendants, in Para No. 4 of Preliminary Submissions of written statement, admitted that the defendant No. 3 issued security cheques in favour of the plaintiff, as under:
"4. That during the onset of business with the Defendant No. 1, the Plaintiff asked for some cheques from the Defendant No. 2 to be given as security and reposing the faith and trust in the Plaintiff, the Defendant No. 2 directed the Defendant No. 3 (a signing authority) to provide some blank cheques as security to the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 3 provided the same, a fact that has been admitted by the Plaintiff himself. It is submitted that the Defendant No. 2 kept placing orders to the Plaintiff and simultaneously kept making payments against such orders in cash and by way of bank transactions and has fully paid back the Plaintiff for all the goods so delivered to her. However, the Plaintiff out of his evil intentions misused the security cheques by arbitrarily and whimsically filling in amount in the said security cheques thereby creating a fictitious liability against the Defendants No. 1 & 2."
(emphasis supplied)
75. The defendants, in Para No. 8 of Preliminary Submissions of written statement, admitted that the defendant No. 4 transferred an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the account of the Digitally signed by SANJAY plaintiff. SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.02 14:22:51 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 33 of 46
76. However, the case of the defendants is that the defendant No. 4 transferred the said amount from account of her proprietorship concern in relation to business dealings between the defendant No. 2 and 4. It may be relevant to note that the defendant No. 4 has not led any evidence pertaining to any business dealing with the plaintiff. The defendant No. 4 has not filed invoices or ledger pertaining to which the said payment was made.
77. Para No. 8 of Preliminary Submissions of written statement is, as under:
"8. That the Plaintiff is misleading the Hon'ble Court by twisting and misrepresenting facts. The Plaintiff has placed 16 invoices which according to him have been unpaid and it is his submission that he has not been paid after March 2020. However, the Plaintiff has intertwined the business relationship between Defendant No. 2 and Defendant No. 4 who although were running a proprietorship firm under the name and style of Ram Print Solutions albeit at different intervals of time, however had a separate and distinct business relationship with the Plaintiff. It is submitted that the intertwining of business relationship can be established by the Ledger account of the Plaintiff on which he has placed his reliance wherein it can be seen that the Defendant No. 4 had transferred a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from her Proprietorship firm into the bank account of Plaintiff. It is unfathomable as to how two proprietorship firms having distinct GST numbers can be clubbed by the Plaintiff under the same Ledger account and thereby raise a liability against all the Defendants, whereas legally he can only be allowed to pursue litigation against the Defendants who if have defaulted in making payment and in this particular case whose identity can only be differentiated by way of GST No. and in no other form."
(emphasis supplied)
78. In Para No. 4 of Preliminary Submissions of replication, the plaintiff stated that on 10.09.2024, Mr. Pushpendra, husband of the defendant No. 4 handed over cheques Ex.PW1/15 issued by the defendant No. 4 in favour of the plaintiff. However, the defendants made no averment in that regard in written statement.
Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 SHARMA Date: 2026.04.02
The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page14:23:00 +0530 No. 34 of 46
79. Para No. 4 of Preliminary Submissions of replication is, as under:
"4. That further, the Defendants again with an intent to mislead the Plaintiff and deliberately fraud the Plaintiff under the guise of settlement Mr. Pushpendra husband of the Defendant No.4 approached the Plaintiff with 3 cheques for Rs. 4,54,780/-(Rupees Four lakh fifty-four thousand seven hundred and eighty only), Rs. 1,06,635/- (Rupees one lakh six thousand six hundred and thirty five only), Rs. 5,63,646/- (Rupees five lakh sixty three thousand six hundred and forty six only) on 10.09.2024 which had the same amount as the previous cheques (given by Defendant No. 3) and was signed by the Defendant No. 4 persuaded him to withdraw the present suit assuring that the entire outstanding amount would be repaid by the Defendants. However, no payment was made by the Defendants herein."
(emphasis supplied)
80. It may be relevant to note that written statement filed by the defendants was taken on record on 01.10.2025.
81. It may be further relevant to note that the defendants have not questioned PW-1 Mr. Aakash Vidhawan regarding the said payment of Rs. 25,000/-.
82. The case of the defendants is that the defendant No. 1 is a proprietorship concern of the defendant No. 2 and the defendant No. 3 was an employee of the defendant No. 2. However, the defendant No. 2, in her cross-examination, could not state anything regarding proof of employment and salary of the defendant No. 3 and authority letter authorizing him as a signing authority. She stated that she allowed the defendant No. 4 to open a proprietorship concern in the name of the defendant No. 1 on account of her friendly relation with the defendant No. 4 in 2021. She admitted that she handed over machines used by the defendant No. 1 to the defendant No. 4 in 2021.
Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.02
14:23:07 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 35 of 46
83. Relevant part of her cross-examination is, as under:
"Q. Do you have employment proof / salary proof / joining letter of defendant No. 3 that has been annexed by you in your written statement and evidence affidavit?
Ans. He had family relationship with me, hence there was no need for proof. Vol. Sometimes, he was paid in cash and sometimes through cheques. Q. Have you annexed any authority letter / guarantee letter that you may have given to defendant No. 3 asking him to give the cheques? Ans. I had given the authority. I do not know if I had annexed such letter on record.
Q. When was Ram Print Solution opened by defendant No. 4?
Ans. In 2021.
Q. Did you allow the defendant No. 4 to open a firm with same name of Ram Print Solution? Ans. Yes. I allowed. However, GST number was different.
Q. When did you allow the defendant No. 4 to open a firm with same name of Ram Print Solution? Ans. I do not remember.
Q. How well do you know the defendant No. 4? Ans. She is my friend. I know her very well. Q. Why did you not try to recover your cheques despite the plaintiff allegedly misusing cheques given by defendant No. 3?
Ans. I had spoken to them and they had apprised that on account of some mistake, the cheques have been presented and no further action will be taken. Q. Did you file any complaint regarding the same?
Ans. I do not know.
Q. When did defendant No. 4 tell you that she was working with the plaintiff?
Ans. I do not remember.
Q. Did you mention in your written statement or evidence affidavit that when did you talk with the plaintiff regarding recovery of said cheques? Ans. I do not remember.
Q. Did you hand over the machines used in defendant No. 1's firm to defendant No. 4.
Ans. Yes. SANJAY
SHARMA
Q. When did you hand over the machines used in
defendant No. 1's firm to defendant No. 4. Digitally signed by Ans. In 2021." (emphasis supplied) SANJAY SHARMA Date: 2026.04.02 14:23:16 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 36 of 46
84. The defendant No. 3 deposed that he was an employee of the defendant No. 1. However, he has not placed any proof of employment. He admitted that he used to handle all sales and purchase and collect and make payments for the defendant No. 1. He admitted that the defendant No. 2 used to stay at home and he used to stay in factory. His cross-examination is, as under:
"Q. Is it suggest to correct that you used to handle all the sales and purchase, payment collection from client and used to make payments to the vendors for D-1 Company?
Ans. Yes.
Q. What was your designation in D-1 company?
Ans. I was an employee.
Q. Did you annex any proof of employment with
the above statement?
Ans. No.
Q. Why did you sign the cheques and not
defendant No. 2?
Ans. On her instructions, as she used to stay at home and I used to stay in factory."
(emphasis supplied)
85. In her cross-examination, the defendant No. 4 admitted that she had opened a proprietorship concern in the name of the defendant No. 1 with permission of the defendant No. 2 in April, 2021 and she has taken machines from the defendant No. 1 as well as dealing with the clients of the defendant No. 1, as under:
"Q. Did you take permission from defendant No. 2 to open a new firm?
Ans. Yes.
Q. When did you take permission from defendant No. 2 to open a new firm?
Ans. In March, 2021, she had closed the firm and in April, 2021, I opened the firm.
Q. Is 9868986138 your husband's phone number?
Ans. Yes.
Q. Have you mentioned the specific date when you handed over the cheques to the plaintiff? Ans. I do not remember. Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.02 14:23:23 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 37 of 46 Q. Have you mentioned in written statement about handing over cheques to the plaintiff? Ans. I think I have mentioned but I do not remember.
Q. Did you file a complaint against the plaintiff for misusing your cheques?
Ans. I do not remember.Q. Did you take machines from defendant No. 1
firm for your own firm?
Ans. Yes.
Q. When did you take machines from defendant No. 1 firm for your own firm?
Ans. In April 2021 when I had opened my own setup.
Q. Do you have same clients as the defendant No. 1 firm?
Ans. I do not remember but I think I have all her clients."
(emphasis supplied)
86. From the aforesaid examination of the evidence on the aspect of determination of existence of the defendant No. 1 as a partnership firm comprising the defendant No. 2 to 4 as its partners and the application of doctrine of holding out, it can be stated that the following facts are established:
(a) The defendant No. 2 closed proprietorship concern in the name of the defendant No. 1 in March, 2021 and the defendant No. 4 commenced a proprietorship concern in the name of the defendant No. 1 in April, 2021;
(b) The defendant No. 4 has obtained all the machines of the defendant No. 1;
(c) The defendant No. 4 has all clients of the defendant No. 1;
(d) The defendant No. 3 issued cheques Ex.PW1/2 (colly.) in favour of the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant No. 1;
(e) The defendants, more particularly, the defendant No. 2 and 3, have not filed any proof of employment, payment of salary and authority letter in favour of the defendant No. 3;
(f) The defendant No. 4 made payment of Rs.
25,000/- on 01.02.2023 in account of the plaintiff;
Digitally signed SANJAY by SANJAY
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.04.02
14:23:30 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 38 of 46
(g) The defendant No. 4 issued cheques Ex.PW1/15 (colly.) in favour of the plaintiff;
(h) The defendants have not filed income tax return, books of account, bank statement and ledger of the defendant No. 1 in order to show that the defendant No. 3 was an employee of the defendant No. 2 and he was being paid a particular amount of salary, vide cash or banking mode, and the said amount was accounted in expenses of the defendant No. 1 and entered into income tax returns of the defendant No. 1 for the relevant years;
(i) The defendant No. 3 has not filed his income tax returns and bank statement in order to prove that he was an employee fo the defendant No. 2 and he was receiving a particular amount as salary, vide cash or banking mode; and
(j) The defendant No. 4 has not filed relevant invoices alongwith ledger in order to show that the said cheques Ex.PW1/15 (colly.) were issued as security cheques and payment of Rs. 25,000/- was made on 01.02.2023 in respect of separate and distinct business dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 4.
87. On the strength of the facts established on record, as discussed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm and the defendant No. 2 to 4 are its partners.
88. As regards contention pertaining to distinct identities of the defendant No. 1 and 4 on strength of different GST numbers, it can be stated that GST registration is pertaining to statutory regime under GST Act and it cannot have any impact on the status of the defendant No. 1 as a partnership firm or a proprietorship concern or sale transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 and 4. A proprietorship concern is not a legal entity. It is a mere trade name. Legally speaking, it is the person who is doing business under the name of a proprietorship concern is legally liable to discharge liability of a proprietorship concern. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in contention of Ld. Counsel for the defendants on this aspect.
Digitally signed by
SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.04.02
14:23:38 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 39 of 46
(d) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of suit amount?
89. The case of the plaintiff is that it has sold goods worth Rs. 14,14,643/- to the defendant No. 1, vide invoices Ex.PW1/5 (colly.) and an amount of Rs. 12,44,669/- was due, as on 28.06.2023.
90. In 'Affidavit of Admission / Denial of Documents', the defendant No. 2 and 3 admitted invoices, GST returns and e-way bills, as under:
S. No. Particulars Correctness Existence Issuance Custody of Relevance of contents of or receipt documents of of document of documents documents document 3 Copy of Bills Admitted Admitted Plaintiff Plaintiff Admitted GSTIN-07AZ for Page CPR9317E2Z8 No. 48-65 12 GST Returns Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted with GSTIN No. 07AZCPR931 7E2Z8 14 Copy of e-way Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted bills
91. In their written statement, the defendants stated that the defendant No. 1 had business dealings with the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 paid entire amount for the goods purchased from the plaintiff from time-to-time till the defendant No. 1 was closed in March, 2021 and the defendant No. 2 paid an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the plaintiff with a clear understanding that there was no outstanding dues against the defendant No. 1 and 2. The relevant paragraphs of written statement are, as under:
"PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:
2. That the Defendant No. 1 proprietorship firm having GST No. 07ZCPR9317E2Z8 did business with the Plaintiff and during the said period the Defendant No. 1 paid in full for all the goods purchased from the Plaintiff from time to time until the Defendant No. 1 proprietorship firm got closed down in March 2021 as the Defendant No. 2 was accruing losses in the business. ... SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.02 14:23:46 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 40 of 46
4. ... It is submitted that the Defendant No. 2 kept placing orders to the Plaintiff and simultaneously kept making payments against such orders in cash and by way of bank transactions and has fully paid back the Plaintiff for all the goods so delivered to her.
...
PARAWISE REPLY:
2. That the contents of this para are partly admitted and partly denied. It is admitted that the Defendant No. 3 had initially approached the Plaintiff and assured to do business on 30 days credit basis. ... It is submitted that the Plaintiff was inclined towards the proposal of the Defendants No. 2 due to which the Defendant No. 3 upon directions of Defendant No. 2 in order to give assurance to the Plaintiff gave certain undated cheques as a security to gain the confidence of the Plaintiff. It is further submitted that the Defendant No. 1 & 2 fully complied with their obligation and kept making payments from time to time and it was on same account that the Plaintiff did not file any claim against the Defendants. ...
7. ... however it is admitted that the Defendant No. 2 had paid around Rs. 1,50,000 in cash and some through bank transfer including Rs. 60,000 which was paid by a client namely Laxmi Prints on 02.04.2022, 11.04.2022, 02.05.2022 and 16.05.2022.
It is denied that no payments after the above mentioned payment was done by the Defendants. It is submitted that despite admitting that Rs. 1,50,000/- had been paid to the Plaintiff in cash, there is no mention of the same in his ledger account. Moreover, it is submitted that the payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- was the last leg of the outstanding amount to be paid to the Plaintiff as the Defendant No. 1 & 2 had already shut down their business operations and hence there was a clear understanding that there were no further outstanding dues against the Defendant No. 1 & 2. ..."
(emphasis supplied)
92. It is, therefore, evident that the defendants admitted business transactions with the plaintiff. It is further evident that the defendants admitted invoices Ex.PW1/5 (colly.) and e-way bills in 'Affidavit of Admission / Denial of Documents '. It is further evident that the defendants admitted that they made payment against invoices, vide cash and banking mode.
Digitally signedSANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.02 14:23:54 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 41 of 46
93. However, the defendants denied ledger Ex.PW1/6. It is relevant to mention that the defendants neither disputed invoices nor payments made to the plaintiff.
94. Besides raising a standard contention that an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid to the plaintiff as full and final settlement, the defendants have not led any evidence on this aspect.
95. During arguments, Ld. Counsel for the defendants referred ledger Ex.PW1/6 and furnished calculations in order to show inconsistencies in the claim of the plaintiff. However, besides a general denial of ledger Ex.PW1/6, the defendants have neither disputed invoices w.e.f. 19.04.2019 to 06.11.2019 nor ' on account' payments made to the plaintiff, through banking mode, w.e.f. 18.07.2019 to 24.10.2019. In case the plaintiff had not supplied goods to the defendants w.e.f. 19.04.2019 to 06.11.2019, the defendants have failed to explain payment of an amount of Rs. 14,08,097/- to the plaintiff, through banking mode, w.e.f. 18.07.2019 to 24.10.2019. The defendants have not stated particulars of invoices against which payments were made to the plaintiff during the said period.
96. Further, the defendants have not filed their ledger in order to negate supply of goods w.e.f. 19.04.2019 to 06.11.2019 and justify payment of an amount of Rs. 14,08,097/- to the plaintiff, through banking mode, w.e.f. 18.07.2019 to 24.10.2019.
97. The plaintiff has a right to appropriate the payments made by the defendants w.e.f. 29.11.2019 to 01.02.2023 against the amount outstanding, as on 06.11.2019 and balance amount towards invoices w.e.f. 08.11.2019 to 20.03.2020.
98. The defendants have not led any evidence that payments were made to the plaintiff w.e.f. 29.11.2019 to 01.02.2023 with express intimation that the said payments were to be applied for Digitally signed by SANJAY payment of invoices w.e.f. 08.11.2019 to 20.03.2020. SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.02 14:24:02 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 42 of 46
99. Section 60 of 'The Indian Contract Act, 1872' pertaining to appropriation of payment where debt to be discharged is not indicated, as under:
"60. Application of payment where debt to be discharged is not indicated. - Where the debtor has omitted to intimate, and there are no other circumstances indicating to which debt the payment is to be applied, the creditor may apply it at his discretion to any lawful debt actually due and payable to him from the debtor, whether its recovery is or is not barred by the law in force for the time being as to the limitations of suits."
100. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the contentions of Ld. Counsel for the defendants pertaining to inconsistencies in calculation of the suit amount.
101. According to ledger Ex.PW1/6 duly corroborated by invoices Ex.PW1/5 (colly.), e-way bills Ex.PW1/7 and GST returns Ex.PW1/8, an amount of Rs. 12,44,669/- was due against the defendants, as on 01.02.2023.
102. The defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm of the defendant No. 2 to 4 and therefore, their liability is joint and several. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer Section 25 of ' The Partnership Act, 1932', as under:
"25. Liability of a partner for acts of the firm. - Every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner."
103. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of principal sum of Rs. 12,44,669/- due against the defendants, as on 01.02.2023.
104. The plaintiff is claiming an amount of Rs. 2,24,040.42/- as pre-suit interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 01.02.2023 to 01.02.2024 on the premise that the said rate of interest is mentioned in invoices Ex.PW1/6 (colly.). However, there is no agreement between the parties regarding the rate of interest.
Digitally signed bySANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.02 14:24:11 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 43 of 46
105. Invoices Ex.PW1/5 (colly.) do not mention any credit period. The plaintiff never debited interest in ledger or raised and supplied any GST invoice regarding the said rate of interest. The rate of interest claimed by the plaintiff is on higher side. There is no evidence that there is any custom / usages or trade practice regarding payment of the said rate of interest. However, the transaction is commercial in nature. The defendants withheld legitimate amount due to the plaintiff. The defendants wrongly deprived the plaintiff from the amount legally due to it. The plaintiff must be reasonably compensated for the loss suffered by it on account of non-payment of amount by the defendants. In view of nature of transaction and current bank rate of interest, the plaintiff will be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. on principal sum of Rs. 12,44,669/- w.e.f. 01.02.2023 till realization.
106. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO. 2:
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum?
(OPP)
107. The issue relating to pendente-lite and future interest has already been answered while determination of issue No. 1 pertaining to entitlement of the plaintiff to the suit amount. Accordingly, Issue No. 2 is answered.
RELIEF
108. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs and a decree in the sum of Rs. 12,44,669/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 01.02.2023 till realization is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Decree sheet be drawn.
Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SANJAY Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.02
14:24:19
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 44 of 46
File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed
SANJAY by SANJAY
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.04.02
14:24:32 +0530
Announced in the open Court SANJAY SHARMA-II th on this 30 March, 2026 DJ (Commercial Court)-03 (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 45 of 46 The Lens & Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. CNR No.: DLSH01-001929-2024 CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 30.03.2026 Through Video Conferencing.
Present : Mr. Parth Chadha, Ld. Counsel with Ms. Prachi Maheshwari and Ms. Jyoti Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Mr. Maneesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel with Ms. Pratibha Pandey, Ms. Yasmeen Khan and Mr. Avnish, Ld. Counsel for the defendants.
Vide separate judgment, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs and a decree in the sum of Rs. 12,44,669/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 01.02.2023 till realization is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Decree sheet be drawn. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed SANJAY by SANJAY
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.04.02
14:25:13 +0530
Sanjay Sharma-II
DJ (Commercial Court)-03
Shahdara, KKD, Delhi
30.03.2026
CS (Comm.) No. 180/2024 The Lens and Graphics (Delhi) vs. Ram Print Solutions & Ors. Page No. 46 of 46