Delhi District Court
M/S Biocon Electric Pvt Ltd Through Its ... vs M/S Indian Electricals And Eletronics ... on 9 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-02
SHAHDARA DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 650/2023
INDEX
S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE
NOS.
1. Memo of Parties 2
2. Plaint 3-5
3. Written Statement 5-7
4. Replication 7-8
5. Proceedings in the suit 8
6. Admission/ denial 9
7. Issues Framed 9
8. Plaintiff's Evidence 10
9. Defendant's Evidence 10 - 11
10. Issue Wise Findings and Analysis 11 - 25
11. Relief 25
Digitally signed
KIRAN by KIRAN
BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.03.09
16:33:18 +0530
CS (Comm)650/2023 1
M/S. BIOCON ELECTRIC PVT LTD.(THROUGH A.R. MR. DINESH CHAND SHARMA) vs. M/S.
INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
IN THE MATTER OF
M/S. BIOCON ELECTRIC PVT LTD.
(THROUGH A.R. MR. DINESH CHAND
SHARMA) OFFICE AT: PLOT NO 15 Β,
ΚΗ ΝΟ 4/24/1B JR COMPLEX, GATE
NO 4, MAIN ROAD SEWA DHAM,
MANDOLI INDUSTRIAL AREA
DELHI-110093
....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/S. INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND
ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS
ASSOCIATION (THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT)
OFFICE AT: 501 KAKAD CHAMBERS,
132 DR ANNE BASMENT ROAD,
WORLI, MUMBAI-400018
M/S. INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND
ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
(THROUGH ITS VICE PRESIDENT VIKRAM GANDOTRA)
OFFICE AT: 501 KAKAD CHAMBERS,
132 DR ANNE BASMENT ROAD,
WORLI, MUMBAI-400018 ...DEFENDANT
Date of Institution: 23.12.2023
Date of Final Argumnets: 02.02.2026
Date of conclusion: 09.03.2026 KIRAN Digitally signed by
KIRAN BANSAL
BANSAL 16:33:25 +0530
Date: 2026.03.09
CS (Comm)650/2023 2
M/S. BIOCON ELECTRIC PVT LTD.(THROUGH A.R. MR. DINESH CHAND SHARMA) vs. M/S.
INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgement, this court shall decide the present suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 8,35,824/- along with interest at rate of 18% p.a. from 01.04.2019 to 30.08.2023.
PLAINT
2. It is averred that plaintiff is a company and is engaged in business of manufacturing of all type of shuttering materials throughout India and has acquired considerable market goodwill and reputation. On the other hand, it is stated that the defendant was established in 1948 and is a paramount association representing manufacturers of electrical, industrial electronics and related equipment in India.
3. It is submitted that the plaintiff asked defendant to book a stall in an exhibition and for said service plaintiff paid Rs. 4,65,082. However, the defendant failed to provide the stall to the plaintiff as promised. It is further averred that when the defendant failed to do it, plaintiff requested to refund the money.
4. It is stated that the plaintiff maintains a regular books of accounts in ordinary and usual course of business and is maintaining a proper ledger account of the defendant's company and as per which a principal sum of Rs. 4,65,083/- is outstanding (without interest).
5. It is submitted that the plaintiff has written several mails to the defendant as well as requested telephonically and in personal meetings in respect of payment of pending amount but the defendant did not pay the same. It is stated that the defendant knowingly and fraudulently got the above said payments delayed and have no intention to pay to the plaintiff.
CS (Comm)650/2023 3M/S. BIOCON ELECTRIC PVT LTD.(THROUGH A.R. MR. DINESH CHAND SHARMA) vs. M/S. INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.03.09 16:33:31 +0530
6. It is stated that the plaintiff has also filed a pre institution mediation application but the defendant did not appear in the mediation proceedings and thus, a Non Starter report was issued on 02.09.2023. Moreover, it is submitted by the plaintiff that as per ledger account a sum of Rs. 4,65,082/- is outstanding and additionally, interest @ 18% is calculated from 01.04.2019 to 30.08.2023, amounting to Rs. 3,69,741/-. Thus, it is stated that a total of Rs. 8,35,824/- is outstanding amount due on the defendant.
7. As far as the cause of action is concerned, it is stated that cause of action arose in the year 2019 in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant when the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.4,65,000/-. It further arose when the plaintiff called the defendant to pay the amount and they failed to do so. It is stated to have further arisen when the defendant failed to appear in the mediation and showed his inability to make the payment and a non starter report was issued on 01.09.2023. It is stated that the cause of action is continuous one and is still continuing one as the defendant has not made the payment of outstansing amount due to plaintiff till date.
8. As far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the plaintiff submits that its corporate office is located at Plot no. 15 b. Kh no. 4/24/th, JR Complex, gate no. 4 main road, Sewa Dham, Mandoli Industrial Area, Delhi and all the significant business dealings, transactions and major decisions regarding dealings with defendant were conducted from plaintiff's corporate office , thus, the present court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit.
9. It is stated that the subject matter of the suit is a commercial dispute as per Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Act. It is submitted that the present suit is filed within the limitation. Moreover, it is stated that plaintiff has CS (Comm)650/2023 4 M/S. BIOCON ELECTRIC PVT LTD.(THROUGH A.R. MR. DINESH CHAND SHARMA) vs. M/S. INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 16:33:36 Date: 2026.03.09 +0530 valued the suit at Rs. 8,35,824/- and on which the court fees of Rs. 10,542/- has been paid.
10. Prayer has been made to pass a decree of Rs. 8,35,824/- (inclusive of interest from 01.04.2019 to 30.08.2023) in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. It is further prayed that an order for payment of future interest @ 18% from 30.08.2023 till its actual realization in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and to pass an order for awarding the cost of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
The plaint has been signed and verified by the Sh. Dinesh Chand Sharma, AR of the plaintiff and is accompanied with supporting affidavit and statement of truth of the AR of the plaintiff.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
11. It is submitted by the defendant that the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable on account of lack of jurisdiction as the defendant operates its business from Mumbai, Maharashtra and the exhibition namely 'ELECRAMA 2020' was to be held in Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh and thus, no part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi.
12. It is furthermore submitted that the plaintiff has categorized the suit as one under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) which provides for disputes pertaining to the intellectual property rights and similarly, Section 2(1)(c)(xviii) provides for agreements for sale of goods or provision for services. However, neither of any such activity has been formulated between the parties, thus, it is stated that present suit is not maintainable against the defendant under Commercial Courts Act.
CS (Comm)650/2023 5M/S. BIOCON ELECTRIC PVT LTD.(THROUGH A.R. MR. DINESH CHAND SHARMA) vs. M/S. INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.03.09 16:33:42 +0530
13. Moreover, the defendant has submitted that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation as the cause of action arose in April 2019 when the defendant made booking for a stall. However, the plaintiff has filed this suit on 22.12.2023 i.e. around after 5 Years and thus, it is barred by limitation. It is also submitted that the plaintiff has made false averment that the defendant never appeared before DLSA for pre institution mediation as the defendant not just appeared rather he also paid the requisite mediation fee for conducting the mediation as is revealed from Non Starter report. The defendant has also taken the plea that the defendant has paid insufficient court fee while filing the present suit and thus, the suit is liable to be rejected.
14. On merits, the defendant has stated that defendant organized an exhibition namely, 'ELECRAMA -2020' from 18.01.2020 to 22.01.2020 and as per the regulations of said exhibition, the stall booking process was divided into three phases i.e. Registration Phase (started from 01.05.2019), Payment Phase (Started from 15.05.2019) and Allotment phase.
14.1. It is submitted that at the time of stage -1 i.e. Registration Phase, every participant was executed to indicate the area & stall required by them to generate an estimate for payment. However, it is stated that it was clearly mentioned that any indication for preferred stall or hall does not mean confirmation of any booking of the said preferred stall from the side of defendant.
14.2. It is submitted that the when the registration commenced on 01.05.2019, the plaintiff registered for the exhibition, indicated its preferred choices for halls and stalls, pursuant to which the defendant sent an email dated 09.05.2019 to the plaintiff confirming registration of the plaintiff. however, in the said email it was informed that stall allocation shall be subject to availability CS (Comm)650/2023 6 M/S. BIOCON ELECTRIC PVT LTD.(THROUGH A.R. MR. DINESH CHAND SHARMA) vs. M/S. INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.03.09 16:33:50 +0530 of the preferred stall at the time of the allotment. The defendant even sent email dated 20.05.2019 confirming the receipt of the payment for exhibition and vide email dated 12.07.2019, defendant informed the plaintiff about the priority number and time slot for stall booking at the exhibition.
14.3. However, it is submitted that the defendant received an email dated 25.07.2019 whereby the plaintiff raised the issue of inability of finding a suitable stall and demanded that plaintiff be allotted the preferred stall indicated by it at the time of registration or to refund the complete amount alongwith interest. However, the defendant replied to the plaintiff stating that stall selection by the plaintiff was only an indication of the preference and the same never amounted to confirmation by the defendant. However, despite various attempts by the defendant to resolve this issue, the plaintiff demanded cancellation of his participation and refund of the amount deposited by it for exhibition vide email dated 01.08.2019 and on same day it was informed by the defendant that amount will be deducted as per cancellation policy mentioned in the rules and regulation of the Exhibition. Thereafter, it is stated that the defendant accepted the cancellation of plaintiff vide email dated 10.01.2020 to plaintiff accepting his request for cancellation of space booking of the plaintiff at the exhibition and provided calculation of amount which would be refunded to the plaintiff after deduction as per the policy which was Rs. 74,885/-.
15. Rest of the contents of the plaint are denied and are not repeated here for sake of brevity. Prayer has been made to dismiss the present suit filed by the plaintiff and to impose exemplary costs, if any, upon the plaintiff for filing the present suit against the defendant.
REPLICATION CS (Comm)650/2023 7 M/S. BIOCON ELECTRIC PVT LTD.(THROUGH A.R. MR. DINESH CHAND SHARMA) vs. M/S. INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.03.09 16:33:57 +0530
16. The plaintiff has denied the fact that it was clearly mentioned in the regulations that any indication for preferred stall or hall does not mean confirmation of any booking of the said preferred stall from the side of the defendant as alleged by the defendant. Furthermore, the defendant has admitted the dates of registration phase however, has denied that in the mail it is specifically mentioned that stall allocation will be subject to availability of preferred stall at the time of booking. The plaintiff has also admitted the fact of sending the email by the defendant on 20.05.2019 and 12.07.2019 confirming the registration of stall and allotting priority number respectively. It is submitted that the plaintiff had made advance payment for booking the stall, however, after two to three attempts, the plaintiff did not get the preferred stall and was getting stall in Hall no. 12 which was not cost effective for the plaintiff and was not conducive to display its product.
17. It is further averred that the defendant, instead of refunding the amount asked the plaintiff to take slot at Hall no. 12 which is the only option available and further allured the plaintiff to book slot, however, the plaintiff did not accept it as its purpose could not be solved. It is submitted by the plaintiff that after plaintiff persistently insisted for the refund, the defendant refused to refund the same and offered a meagre amount of Rs. 74,885/- which is against policy and not acceptable to the plaintiff.
18. Rest of the contents of the written statement is denied and contents of the plaint are reiterated and are, therefore, not repeated here for sake of brevity. Prayer has been made to dismiss the written statement filed by the defendant.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUIT CS (Comm)650/2023 8 M/S. BIOCON ELECTRIC PVT LTD.(THROUGH A.R. MR. DINESH CHAND SHARMA) vs. M/S. INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.03.09 16:34:04 +0530
19. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 23.12.2023. Summons of the suit were directed to be issued vide order dated 06.07.2024. Perusal of the record reveals that the defendant has been served through registered letter on 16.07.2024. The defendant, thereafter, filed his WS along with application for condonation of delay in filing WS which was allowed vide order dated 01.02.2025.
19.1. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint which was also allowed vide order dated 01.02.2025 and amended plaint was taken on record. Accordingly, the defendant also filed written statement to the amended plaint. Accordingly, the issues were framed vide order dated 12.03.2025 and matter was posted for evidence.
ADMISSION AND DENIAL
20. The defendant in his affidavit of admission/denial of documents has admitted the contents, execution, custody of the following documents of the plaintiff i.e.,
1. Copy of Incorporation Certificate is Ex. P1.
2. Legal Notice Receipt is admitted is Ex. P2
3. Non Starter Report is Ex. P3.
21. On the other hand, the plaintiff in his affidavit of admission/denial of documents has admitted the contents, execution, custody of the document of defendant i.e.
1. Copy of Rules and Regulations is Ex. D1
2. Copy of email dated 10.01.2020 is Ex. D2.
CS (Comm)650/2023 9M/S. BIOCON ELECTRIC PVT LTD.(THROUGH A.R. MR. DINESH CHAND SHARMA) vs. M/S. INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.03.09 16:34:09 +0530 ISSUES FRAMED
22. Vide order dated 12.03.2025, following issues were framed for consideration:
1. Whether the present court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? OPD
2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree? If so, to what amount? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
4. Relief PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
23. In support of his case plaintiff has examined Sh. Dinesh Chand Sharma as PW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and has relied upon the following documents:
Copy of Board Resolution dated 14.08.2020 as Ex.PW1/1(OSR); Copy of certificate of incorporation as Ex.PW1/2 (OSR); Copy of GST certificate as Ex.PW1/3;
Copy of e-mails for booking the stall in the exhibition as Ex.PW1/4(colly-10 pages);
Copy of ledger maintained by the plaintiff as Mark PW1/5; Copy of legal notice along with postal receipt as Ex.PW1/6(colly); Original Non-Starter Report dated 02.09.2023 as Ex.PW1/7; Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/8; Copy of bank account statement of plaintiff as Mark-PW1/9;CS (Comm)650/2023 10
M/S. BIOCON ELECTRIC PVT LTD.(THROUGH A.R. MR. DINESH CHAND SHARMA) vs. M/S. INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 16:34:14 +0530 Date: 2026.03.09 Affidavit under Order XI Rule 6 CPC as Ex.PW1/10.
Thereafter, PW-1 was cross examined and discharged and PE was closed.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
24. In support of his case Defendant has examined Sh. Ajay Mahajan as DW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A and has relied upon the following documents:
Authority Letter as Ex.DW1/1 Rules and Regulations of Elecrama 2020 as Ex.DW1/2 (also Ex.D1); E-mail dated 10.01.2020 as Ex.DW1/3 (also Ex.D2); Certificate pursuant to E-mail dated 10.01.2020 as Ex.DW1/4;
Thereafter, DW- 1 was cross examined and discharged and DE was closed.
25. The court has heard ld. counsel for the plaintiff as well as counsel for defendant and have also gone through the record of the case. The court has also gone through the written submissions filed by the defendant. The issue wise findings are as follows:
ISSUE WISE FINDINDS AND ANALYSIS Issue no. 1: Whether the present court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? OPD.
26. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. d1 The issue, it seems have not been properly verdict, in as much as, the defendant cannot be asked to prove that the present court has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit. The issue should have been framed as under:CS (Comm)650/2023 11
M/S. BIOCON ELECTRIC PVT LTD.(THROUGH A.R. MR. DINESH CHAND SHARMA) vs. M/S. INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 16:34:20 +0530 Date: 2026.03.09
(i) Whether the present court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? OPD.
As both the parties have led their evidence and the arguments have already been been addressed, it is immaterial to decide the onus of proving the issue of territorial jurisdiction was on the plaintiff or on the defendant.
It has been contended by the defendant that the since the defendant has its office in Mumbai and even the exhibition was to be held in Greater Noida, thus, the present court does not have territorial jurisdiction as neither the defendant resides, nor work for gain nor carries on business and also that no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Thus, the present court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit.
27. On the other hand, the plaintiff has submitted that the present court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit as plaintiff's corporate office is located at Plot no. 15b, kh no. 4/24/th, JR Complex, Gate no. 4, main road, Sewa Dham Mandoli Industrial area, Delhi- 110093. Moreover, it is submitted that all business transactions and major decisions regarding dealings with the defendant were conducted from the plaintiff's corporate office, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the present court and thus, the present court has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.
28. The law on the jurisdiction is contained from Section 15 to 20 of CPC. As per Section 20 CPC, the suit can be instituted where a) the defendant resides or work for gain or carries on business; or b) where there are more than one defendants, one of the defendants resides or work for gain or carries on business and other defendant(s) have acquiesced to this jurisdiction; or c) where the cause of action arises.
CS (Comm)650/2023 12M/S. BIOCON ELECTRIC PVT LTD.(THROUGH A.R. MR. DINESH CHAND SHARMA) vs. M/S. INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.03.09 16:34:27 +0530
29. In the present case, as per memo of parties filed by the plaintiff, the address of the defendant is 501, Kakad Chambers, 132 Dr Anne Basement Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018. In this regard, the relevant cross of the DW-1 is as follows:
"Ques. Where is the corporate office of defendant?
Ans. The Corporate office of defendant is at Delhi.
Ques. Where is the registered office of the defendant?
Ans. The registered office of defendant is at Mumbai."
30. As per Ex. DW-1/1 (Authority Letter) and Ex. DW-1/4 (Certificate), the address of the Delhi office is Rishyamook Building, 1 st Floor, 85A Panchkuian Road, New Delhi- 110001. Thus, it is clear that the jurisdiction of the present court can not be made on the basis of address of the defendant, as even Panchkuian Road does not fall within the jurisdiction of Shahdara District.
31. Perusal of the record reveals that the contract between the parties was executed/ formed between the parties by way of e-mails/ electronic communication. Thus, it has to be seen where the contract was concluded.
32. The position of law regarding the conclusion of contracts in no more res integra. The Hon'ble SC in the case of Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia vs M/s Girdharilal Purshottamdas and Co. And Others (1966 SCR (1)
656) has held that in the cases of instantaneous mode of communication, the contract is deemed to be concluded at the place where the communication of acceptance was received by the party.
32.1. In Bhagwandas (Supra), the plaintiff had filed a suit for damages against the defendant and had submitted that the cause of action arose at CS (Comm)650/2023 13 M/S. BIOCON ELECTRIC PVT LTD.(THROUGH A.R. MR. DINESH CHAND SHARMA) vs. M/S. INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.03.09 16:34:32 +0530 Ahmedabad where the defendant had offered to sell cotton seed cakes at Ahmedabad and the place of delivery of goods was Ahmedabad and the defendant was to receive the payment through bank at Ahmedabad. On the other hand, the defendant had contended that cause of action had arisen at Khamgaon as the plaintiff had offered to purchase cotton through telephonic communication which was accepted by the defendant through same mode. The ld. trial court held that the cause of action had arisen at Ahmedabad. The revision before the Hon'ble HC was also dismissed. Being aggrieved by the decision of Hon'ble HC, the defendants approached the SC, where the judgement of trial court was upheld and appeal was dismissed. The relevant part of the judgement is as follows:
"The Contract Act does not expressly deal with the place where a contract is made. Sections 3 & 4 of the Contract Act deal with the communication, acceptance and revocation of proposals. By s. 3 the communication of a proposal, acceptance of a proposal, and revocation of a proposal and acceptance, respectively, are deemed to be made by any act or omission of the party proposing, accepting or revoking, by which he intends to communicate such proposal, acceptance or revocation, or which has the effect of communicating it .........
By the second clause of s. 4 the communication of an acceptance is complete as against the proposer, when it is put in a course of transmission to him, so as, to be out of the power of the acceptor. This implies that where communication of an acceptance is made and it is put in a course if transmission to the proposer, the CS (Comm)650/2023 14 M/S. BIOCON ELECTRIC PVT LTD.(THROUGH A.R. MR. DINESH CHAND SHARMA) vs. M/S. INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 16:34:38 +0530 Date: 2026.03.09 acceptance is complete as against the proposer: as against the acceptor, it becomes complete when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer. In the matter of communication of revocation it is provided that as against the person who makes the revocation it becomes complete when it is put into a course of transmission to the person to whom it is made, so as to be out of the power of the person who makes it, and as against the person to whom it is made when it comes to his knowledge. But s. 4 does not imply that the contract is made qua the proposer at one place and qua the acceptor at another place. The contract becomes complete as soon as the acceptance is made by the acceptor and unless otherwise agreed expressly or by necessary implication by the adoption of a special method of intimation, when the acceptance of offer is intimated to the offeror.
......
In the case of a telephonic conversation, in a sense the parties are in the presence of each other: each party is able to hear the voice of the other. There is instantaneous communication of speech intimating offer and acceptance, rejection or counter-offer. Intervention of an electrical impulse which results in the instantaneous communication of messages from a distance does not alter the nature of the conversation so as to make it analogous to that of an offer and acceptance through post or by telegraph.
It is true that the Posts & Telegraphs Department has general control over communication by telephone and especially long CS (Comm)650/2023 15 M/S. BIOCON ELECTRIC PVT LTD.(THROUGH A.R. MR. DINESH CHAND SHARMA) vs. M/S. INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 16:34:44 +0530 Date: 2026.03.09 distance telephones, but that is not a ground for assuming that the analogy of a contract made by post will govern this mode of making contracts. In the case of correspondence by post or telegraphic communication, a third agency intervenes and without the effective intervention of that third agency, letters or messages cannot be transmitted. In the case of a conversation by telephone, once a connection is established there is in the normal course no further intervention of another agency. Parties holding conversation on the telephone are unable to see each other: they are also physically separated in space, but they are in the hearing of each other by the aid of a mechanical contrivance which makes the voice of one heard by the other instantaneously, and communication does not depend upon an external agency.
In England the Court of Appeal has decided in Entores Ltd. v. Miles Far East Corporation that:
"Where a contract is made by instantaneous communication, e.g. by telephone, the contract is complete only when the acceptance is received by the offeror, since generally an acceptance must be notified to the offeror to make a binding contract;"
The question then is -whether the ordinary rule which regards a contract as completed, only when acceptance is intimated should apply, or whether the exception engrafted upon the rule in respect of offers and acceptances by post and by telegrams is to be accepted. If regard be had to the essential nature of conversation by telephone, it would be reasonable to hold that CS (Comm)650/2023 16 M/S. BIOCON ELECTRIC PVT LTD.(THROUGH A.R. MR. DINESH CHAND SHARMA) vs. M/S. INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.03.09 16:34:49 +0530 the parties being in a sense in the presence of each other, and negotiations are concluded by instantaneous communication of speech, communication of acceptance is a necessary part of the formation of contract, and the exception to the rule imposed on grounds of commercial expediency is inapplicable .....
The trial Court was therefore right in the view which it has taken that a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction, of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, where acceptance was, communicated by telephone to the plaintiffs. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs."
33.1. Thus, in the present case, the contract between the parties being concluded through email/ instantaneous mode of communication, the place of conclusion of contract has to be the place where the acceptance was received by the plaintiff. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the communication was accepted by the plaintiff in the jurisdiction of the present court as the place of business of the plaintiff company is located within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. The contract as per Bhagwandas (Supra) has concluded within the jurisdiction of this court, thus, the present court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit.
32.2. Moreover, it is also pertinent to mention here that as per bank statement produced by the plaintiff (Mark PW-1/9), the bank account of the plaintiff is located within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Therefore, even as per principle of 'Debtor seeks creditor' the present court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit.
CS (Comm)650/2023 17M/S. BIOCON ELECTRIC PVT LTD.(THROUGH A.R. MR. DINESH CHAND SHARMA) vs. M/S. INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.03.09 16:34:54 +0530 Issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no. II: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree? If so, to what amount? OPP
33. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The present suit is commercial in nature and squarely falls within the purview of Section 2 (1) (C) of Commercial Courts Act. Moreover, the plaintiff has also complied with Pre- Institution Mediation and Settlement as Non Starter Report dated 02.09.2023 i.e. Ex. PW-1/7 has been issued with reason stated as matter is not found fit for mediation.
34. As far as limitation is concerned, the plaintiff registered for the exhibition and made the payment which was also duly acknowledged by the defendant vide email dated 09.05.2019 and 20.05.2019. Thus, the cause of action arose for the first time on the above said dates. The prescribed period of limitation for filing the present suit is three years. Thus, even calculating the period of limitation from 09.05.2019, the prescribed period of limitation would have expired on 09.05.2022. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble SC in the case of In Re: Cognizance of Extension for Limitation SMW
(c) No. 3 of 2020 has held that period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation. Moreover, the period consumed in compliance of Pre- Institution Mediation Settlement is also liable to be excluded in view of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. Perusal of the Non Starter Report (Ex. PW-1/7) also reveals that the plaintiff had applied for the Pre Institution Mediation on 01.07.2023 and non starter report was issued on 02.09.2023. Thus, the plaintiff is also entitled to the benefit of exclusion of this period. Thus, after excluding the period from 15.03.2020 to CS (Comm)650/2023 18 M/S. BIOCON ELECTRIC PVT LTD.(THROUGH A.R. MR. DINESH CHAND SHARMA) vs. M/S. INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.03.09 16:35:01 +0530 28.02.2022 and from 01.07.2023 to 02.09.2023, the suit of the plaintiff being instituted on 23.12.2023 is filed within the period of limitation.
35. As far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the same has already been dealt above and is not repeated here for sake of brevity.
36. Now coming to the merits of the case. The ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff company has no locus standi to institute the case. It has been argued that the registration of stall and payment for the same was made by the company namely Biocon Switchgear Pvt. Ltd. and the present suit has been filed by the Biocon Electric Pvt Ltd. and that both the companies are different entities.
37. In this regard, it has been stated by the plaintiff during his cross examination that the name of the company has been changed to Biocon Electric Pvt Ltd in 2019. The relevant cross of the PW-1 in this regard is as follows:
"Q. Is it correct that the Biocon Switchgear Pvt Ltd and M/s Biocon Electric Pvt Ltd are two different legal entities?
A. In 2019, the name of the company Biocon Switchgear Pvt Ltd was changed to M/s Biocon Electric Pvt Ltd.
Q. Have you filed any document on record relating to the change of name of M/s Biocon Switchgear Pvt Ltd to M/s Biocon Electric Pvt Ltd.
A. I do not know whether any such document has been filed or not on record. Vol. The name of M/s Biocon Switchgear Pvt Ltd was changed in the year 2019.CS (Comm)650/2023 19
M/S. BIOCON ELECTRIC PVT LTD.(THROUGH A.R. MR. DINESH CHAND SHARMA) vs. M/S. INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.03.09 16:35:27 +0530 It is correct that the date given in the ledger mark PW1/5 is 01.04.2019 to 14.03.2023. It is correct that the ledger belongs to Biocon Switchgear Pvt Ltd. Vol. The payment was made when the company was known by the name of Biocon Switchgear Pvt ltd. I am not aware about the fact that change of name was informed to the defendant company."
It has been argued by the counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff company can file the suit as the directors in both the companies are same and decision of both the companies are taken by same persons.
38. This contention of the plaintiff is not sustainable and is liable to be rejected at threshold. It is a settled law that a company is a separate juristic company and has a separate legal personality than its directors. It not same as proprietorship concern, where the proprietorship concern has no separate liability of its own.
39. The Hon'ble SC has in the case of Life Insurance Corporation v. Escorts Ltd. &Ors 1986 SCC (1) 264 has held that the company has separate legal identity than from its members. The relevant portion of the judgement is as follows:
"While it is firmly established ever since Salomon v. A. Saloman & Co. Limited 1897 A.C. 22, was decided that a company has an independent and legal personality distinct from the individuals who are its members, it has since been held that the corporate veil may be lifted, the corporate personality may be ignored and the individual members recognised for who they are in certain exceptional circumstances."CS (Comm)650/2023 20
M/S. BIOCON ELECTRIC PVT LTD.(THROUGH A.R. MR. DINESH CHAND SHARMA) vs. M/S. INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 16:35:33 +0530 Date: 2026.03.09
40. Thus, it can not be said that the just because director(s) of two companies are same then the legal personality of both the companies will also become same. Moreover, in the present case, perusal of the ledger Mark Ex. PW-1/5 reveals that the same is in the name of Biocon Switchgear Pvt Ltd and bears the GST no. 07AAECB2034J1ZY. However, the plaintiff has filed GST registration certificate of Biocon Electric Pvt Ltd bearing GST no. 07AAICB7387E1ZF. GST no. of both the firms is different and the GST no. as mentioned in the ledger is stated to be still active. The relevant cross of the PW- 1 is as follows:
"The GST no. given in document mark PW1/5 still exists.
Q. The number given 07AAICB7387E1ZF in Ex. PW-1/3 is related to M/s Biocon Electric Pvt Ltd.
A. Yes.
Q. Is it correct that the date of validity of registration certificate of GST No. is valid from 05.12.2019?
A. After seeing the document, I found it correct.
It is incorrect to suggest that the name Biocon Switchgear Pvt Ltd is not changed till date because the GST no. is still in existence. Vol The GST no. is not closed and I have no idea about the same."
41. Moreover, the plaintiff has filed certificate of incorporation of the plaintiff company i.e. Ex. PW-1/2. Perusal of the same reveals that the Biocon Electric Private Limited is incorporated on 18.11.2019. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff has registered for the exhibition and made the payment CS (Comm)650/2023 21 M/S. BIOCON ELECTRIC PVT LTD.(THROUGH A.R. MR. DINESH CHAND SHARMA) vs. M/S. INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 16:35:40 +0530 Date: 2026.03.09 much before the Biocon Electric India Pvt Ltd was incorporated. Moreover, the certificate of incorporation does not specify that the earlier name of the Biocon Electric Company Pvt Ltd was Biocon Switchgear Pvt Ltd.
42. Thus, the company namely Biocon Switchgear Private limited has participated in the process of registration for exhibition ELECRAMA 2020. However, the plaint is being filed in the name of Biocon Electric Pvt Ltd through its AR namely Sh. Dinesh Chand Sharma. Moreover, perusal of the emails exchanged between the parties reveals that the communication was being done in respect of Biocon Switchgear Pvt Ltd and even the mail dated 20.05.2019 (part of Ex.PW1/4) reveals that the payment of Rs. 4,65,082/- was made by Biocon Switchgear Pvt Ltd on 15.05.2019.
43. However, on the other hand, the plaintiff has failed to prove the fact that only the name of the company has changed. Moreover, the contention of the plaintiff that company is same and only the name is changed is not acceptable as if only the name is changed then the GST number of both the company should be same or if at all it were to be changed, then the GSTIN of Biocon Switchgear Pvt Ltd must be shown to be inactive. However, the plaintiff in his cross examination has admitted that the GSTIN of Biocon Switchgear Pvt Ltd is still active.
44. In this regard, it is would be pertinent to mention here that it is a settled law that a person in whose favour a cause of action has arisen can institute the suit and he is said to have locus standi to file the suit and no other person can institute the suit. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the judgement of Hon'ble SC in S. P. Gupta vs UOI Transfer Case (Civil) No. 19 of 1981 decided on 30.12.1981 wherein it was observed as follows:
CS (Comm)650/2023 22M/S. BIOCON ELECTRIC PVT LTD.(THROUGH A.R. MR. DINESH CHAND SHARMA) vs. M/S. INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.03.09 16:35:46 +0530 "14. The traditional rule in regard to locus standi is that judicial redress is available only to a person who has suffered a legal injury by reason of violation of his legal right or legally protected interest by the impugned action of the State or a public authority or any other person or who is likely to suffer a legal injury by reason of threatened violation of his legal right or legally protected interest by any such action. The basis of entitlement to judicial redress is personal injury to property, body, mind or reputation arising from violation, actual or threatened, of the legal right or legally protected interest of the person seeking such redress...."
45. Moreover, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh HC in the case of A. P. Wine Dealers Association and Ors Vs Deputy Director of Income Tax (2005) 198 CTR (AP) 136 decided on 13.04.2005 , also referred to in the case of Machani Nagaraju vs Commissioner of Endowments WP no. 5168 of 2014 decided on 02.06.2014 by Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh HC , wherein it was also observed as follows:
"5. While dealing with the aspect of locus standi one of us (P.S. Narayana J.) in the Law of Writs, 3rd edition, at page 381, commented:
"The term locus standi can be understood as legal capacity to challenge an act, an order or decision. This is one of the most vexed questions of administrative law. Where a party who has no locus standi files a petition it need not be heard on merits. The concept of locus standi is being liberalized and the scope of the concept is being expanded day to day".CS (Comm)650/2023 23
M/S. BIOCON ELECTRIC PVT LTD.(THROUGH A.R. MR. DINESH CHAND SHARMA) vs. M/S. INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 16:35:53 +0530 Date: 2026.03.09 .....In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary it was held at paras. 63 to 68 as hereunder (page 334):
"The traditional syntax of law in regard to locus standi for a specific judicial redress, sought by an individual person or determinate class or identifiable group of persons, is available only to that person or class or group of persons who has or have suffered a legal injury by reasons of violation of his or their legal right or a right legally protected, the invasion of which gives rise to actionability within the categories of law. In a private action, the litigation is bipolar; two opposed parties are locked in a confrontational controversy which pertains to the determination of the legal consequences of past events unlike in public action. The character of such litigation is essentially that of vindicating private rights, proceedings being brought by the persons in whom the right personally inhere or their legally constituted representatives who are thus obviously most competent to commence the litigation."
46. Thus, the present suit, being a private litigation, can only be instituted by a person in whose favour a right has accrued and not by any other person. Therefore, the cause of action, if any, in the present suit had arisen in favour of M/s Biocon Switchgear Pvt Ltd and not M/s Biocon Electric Pvt Ltd. Thus, the present suit being filed by the M/s Biocon Electric Pvt Ltd, which is a separate entity from Ms/ Biocon Switchgear Pvt Ltd, not maintainable as the plaintiff has no locus standi to institute the present suit. Hence, the suit is not maintainable in the present form. Issue no. (ii) is, accordingly, answered against the plaintiff.
CS (Comm)650/2023 24M/S. BIOCON ELECTRIC PVT LTD.(THROUGH A.R. MR. DINESH CHAND SHARMA) vs. M/S. INDIAN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 16:36:00 +0530 Date: 2026.03.09 Issue no. III: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
47. Since the suit of the plaintiff is held to be not maintainable and issue no. (ii) being answered against the plaintiff, thus, the plaintiff is also not entitled to any interest. Therefore, issue no. (iii) is decided against the plaintiff.
Issue no. IV: Relief.
48. In view of above discussed findings, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed for want of maintainability on account of no locus standi in favour of the plaintiff. No order as to costs.
Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.03.09 16:36:06 +0530 Announced in Open Court Kiran Bansal on 09.03.2026 District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 Shahdara, Karkardooma Delhi/ 09.03.2026 CS (Comm)650/2023 25