Delhi District Court
Veer Singh Saini vs Life Cure Products Pvt Ltd on 12 September, 2025
CS (Comm) No.604/2023: Veer Singh Saini, Prop. M/s Saksham Marketing Co. V/s M/s Lifecure
Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.: DOD: 12.09.2025
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02:
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
CNR No.DLNW01-007664-2023
Civil Suit (Comm.) No.604/2023
In the matter of:
Shri Veer Singh Saini,
Proprietor of M/s Saksham Marketing Co.,
Office at: A-10, Rajeev Nagar,
Begumpur, New Delhi-110086.
.....Plaintiff
(Through Shri Kartik Aggarwal, Advocate)
Versus
1. M/s Life Cure Products Pvt. Ltd.,
Through Its Director,
2. Shri Ashish Jetwani (Director),
3. Ms.Saroj (Director),
4. Shri Anil (Concerned Person)
Office At:
Principal Place of Business,
Green Valley, SCO No.8, Malout, Punjab-152107.
E.Mail ID: [email protected]
Also At:
HO Gali No.101, Building-2, A-Wing,
Mittal Industrial Area, Andheri East, Mumbai-400069.
.....Defendants
(Through Ms.Jasmine Detwani & Ms.Hemlata)
Digitally signed
VINOD by VINOD
YADAV
YADAV 17:06:03 +0530
Date: 2025.09.12
Page 1 of 10
CS (Comm) No.604/2023: Veer Singh Saini, Prop. M/s Saksham Marketing Co. V/s M/s Lifecure
Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.: DOD: 12.09.2025
Date of Institution of Suit : 19.08.2023
Date of hearing final arguments : 12.09.2025
Date of judgment : 12.09.2025
SUIT BY OR ON BEHALF OF VEER SINGH SAINI, THE PLAINTIFF FOR
RECOVER OF Rs.3,87,479/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand
Four Hundred Seventy Nine Only) ALONGWITH FUTURE AND
PENDENTELITE INTEREST @ 24% PER ANNUM.
12.09.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case, in brief, as borne out from the record are that plaintiff claims himself to be the proprietor of M/s Saksham Marketing Co., in North-West Delhi, dealing in kiryana goods; whereas, defendant deals in supply of kiryana goods. As per the case set up by the plaintiff, the parties after having negotiations agreed to the fact that plaintiff shall act as Super Stockist/Distributor of defendant and would purchase goods, which in this case is stated to be "rock salt" and the defendant through its various agents would supply the same to the plaintiff in Delhi. It is stated that goods (rock salt) in the sum of Rs.3,57,659/- was returned by the plaintiff to the defendant being of sub-standard quality. It has been contended that as per the running account maintained by the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.3,87,479/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Nine Only) was due and payable by the defendant as on 23.08.2021. The demand(s) for the aforesaid outstanding amount fell on deaf ears which made the plaintiff to send legal notice on 02.03.2023 to the defendant, but to no avail.
Page 2 of 10CS (Comm) No.604/2023: Veer Singh Saini, Prop. M/s Saksham Marketing Co. V/s M/s Lifecure Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.: DOD: 12.09.2025
2. As such, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit against the defendant(s), inter alia seeking a decree in the sum of Rs.3,87,479/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Nine Only) alongwith interest @ 24% per annum.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to filing the present suit, plaintiff had also exhausted the remedy of pre-institution mediation in terms of Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Despite service of pre-institution mediation notice, the defendant did not give his consent and willingness to participate in the mediation process. Accordingly, Certificate of Non-Starter Report dated 07.06.2023 was issued in the matter.
4. (i) After getting served with the summons, defendant filed written statement, inter alia raising preliminary objection(s) that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit because the invoices clearly contemplated that in case of dispute the Courts at "Malout" (Punjab) shall have the jurisdiction.
(ii) On merits, it was stated that there was no defect in the goods, as no complaint worth the name regarding quality of goods was ever made by the plaintiff.
5. Plaintiff did not file replication in the matter.
6. With these pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 19.03.2025, following issues were settled for trial in the matter:
Page 3 of 10CS (Comm) No.604/2023: Veer Singh Saini, Prop. M/s Saksham Marketing Co. V/s M/s Lifecure Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.: DOD: 12.09.2025 Issues:
(i) Whether this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? OPD.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of the suit amount, as prayed for? OPP.
(iii) If answer to aforesaid issue is in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest thereupon. If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
(iv) Relief.
7. Pursuant to framing of issues, vide order dated 09.07.2025 itself, Shri Md.Azhar, Advocate was appointed as "Local Commissioner"
to record evidence in the matter.
8. (a) In order to discharge the onus of proving issues put upon him, plaintiff Shri Veer Singh Saini, proprietor of M/s Saksham Marketing Co., examined himself as PW-1 in the matter, who in his evidence by way of Affidavit Ex.PW1/1 has reiterated the averments made in the plaint and referred to the following documents:
(i) Duly attested copy of ledger account, maintained by plaintiff in respect of the transactions done with the defendant for the period w.e.f 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020; 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021;
01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022; copies of Tax Invoice No.LC-02, dated 18.04.2019, for Rs.2,15,872/-; Tax Invoice No.LC-03, dated 30.04.2019, for Rs.1,83,491.20; Tax Invoice No.LC-06, dated 24.07.2019, for Rs.1,40,317/-; alongwith Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as Ex.PW1/2 (Colly) (from Page 4 of 10 CS (Comm) No.604/2023: Veer Singh Saini, Prop. M/s Saksham Marketing Co. V/s M/s Lifecure Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.: DOD: 12.09.2025 pages No.15-23A of the paperbook);
(ii) Computerized copy of GST Invoice as Mark A (pages 24 and 25 of the paperbook);
(iii) Copy of legal notice, dated 02.03.2023, sent on behalf of plaintiff to the defendant alongwith original postal receipts thereto as Ex.PW1/3 (Colly) (from pages 26 to 29 of the paperbook);
(b) PW-1/Shri Veer Singh Saini was thoroughly cross-examined by learned counsel for the defendant. In his cross-examination, copy of GST Registration Certificate (Form GST REG-06) in respect of firm of plaintiff namely Saksham Marketing Co., was put to him as Mark B (Colly) (running into three pages).
9. (a) On the other hand, defendant company examined its Authorized Representative namely Shri Ashu Jetwani @ Ashish Jetwani as DW-1, who in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/1 has reiterated the averments made in the written statement and referred to the following documents:
(i) Original Board Resolution, dated 17.11.2023, passed by defendant company in favour of DW-1 as Ex.DW1/2;
(ii) Duly attested copy of Account Ledger, maintained by the defendant company in respect of the business transactions done with the defendant for the period from 01.04.2019 to 05.05.2023, wherein defendant admitted that it is liable to pay only Rs.10,319/- to the plaintiff as Ex.DW1/3;Page 5 of 10
CS (Comm) No.604/2023: Veer Singh Saini, Prop. M/s Saksham Marketing Co. V/s M/s Lifecure Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.: DOD: 12.09.2025
(iii) Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, issued under the signatures of DW-1 as Ex.DW1/4;
(b) DW-1/Shri Ashu Jetwani @ Ashih Jetwani was thoroughly cross-examined by learned counsel for the plaintiff. In his cross- examination, copy of Lab Report, dated 21.05.2018, issued by M/s Shivali Food Testing And Research Lab, in respect of 100 gm sample of rock salt (plain) alongwith Certificate under Section 63 of BSA r/w Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was put to him as Ex.DW1/5 (Colly).
10. This is all as far as evidence recorded in the matter is concerned.
11. I have heard arguments advanced at Bar by Shri Kartik Aggarwal, Advocate, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Ms.Jasmine Detwani, Advocate, learned counsel for the defendant and gone through the entire material on record. My issue wise findings in the matter are as under.
12. Issue No.(i):
Whether this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? OPD.
The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has very vehemently argued that even though the invoices (Ex.PW1/2 Colly) contemplate the jurisdiction of Court at Malout (Punjab), but it is admitted position on record that the Page 6 of 10 CS (Comm) No.604/2023: Veer Singh Saini, Prop. M/s Saksham Marketing Co. V/s M/s Lifecure Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.: DOD: 12.09.2025 Agents of defendant approached the plaintiff in Delhi for appointing him as Distributor. The learned counsel has referred to the cross-examination of PW-1, the net effect whereof is that defendant admits the jurisdiction of this Court and as such is deemed to have waived off the aspect of jurisdiction. The relevant part of cross-examination of PW-1 in this regard is re-produced hereunder:
xxxxx The defendant company through its officials had approached me for dealing in their products also as they are of the same nature of products that I deal in. In the year 2018, the defendant officials started approaching us for the sale of their material.
xxxxx xxxxx It is incorrect to suggest that no request was ever made to the officials of the defendant company for providing any agreement as there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. At this stage, the attention of witness is drawn to three tax invoices Ex.PW1/2 (Colly). It is correct that I have received the said material as per the requirement and order placed by me.
xxxxx
13. I agree with the argument of leaned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant is deemed to have abandoned the plea of territorial jurisdiction in the matter. Even otherwise, the defendant has nowhere disputed that part of cause of action also arose in Delhi. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Page 7 of 10CS (Comm) No.604/2023: Veer Singh Saini, Prop. M/s Saksham Marketing Co. V/s M/s Lifecure Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.: DOD: 12.09.2025
14. Issue No.(ii):
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of the suit amount, as prayed for? OPP.
The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed detailed ledger account and invoices Ex.PW1/2 (Colly). Even the legal notice Ex.PW1/3 is a digital document, but there is no accompanying Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Even then, I have considered the issue on merits. The entire strength of the case set up by the plaintiff is that he had returned 5301 Kgs of goods to the defendant worth Rs.3,57,659/- on 01.09.2020. There is no Debit Note or Return Invoice being shown in the ledger account in this regard. The relevant cross-examination of PW-1 in this regard is re- produced hereunder:
xxxxx I had returned total of 5301 Kgs of material to the defendant out of the material which I had received as per three tax invoices already Ex.PW1/2 (Colly).
xxxxx
15. The reference has been made to photocopy of transporter's receipt (at page 23 of the paperbook), being part of Ex.PW1/2 (Colly). The said document in my considered opinion does not in any manner prove that the plaintiff had returned the goods to the defendant worth Rs.3,57,659/-, as the said document has not been proved in accordance with law. The said fact is also not getting reflected in the ledger account maintained by the plaintiff.
Page 8 of 10CS (Comm) No.604/2023: Veer Singh Saini, Prop. M/s Saksham Marketing Co. V/s M/s Lifecure Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.: DOD: 12.09.2025
16. In the cross-examination of DW-1, he categorically admitted that a sum of Rs.10,320/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Only) was due and payable to the plaintiff, which is clearly an admission of the liability. Therefore, the only limited relief which can be granted to the plaintiff in the matter would be decree in the sum of Rs.10,320/-. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
17. Issue No.(ii):
If answer to aforesaid issue is in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest thereupon. If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
As regards the quantum of interest, the learned counsel for the plaintiff based upon the interest stipulation contained in invoices Ex.PW1/2 (Colly) has prayed for grant of interest @18% per annum on the delayed payments. While rendering findings on issue No.(ii), plaintiff has only been held entitled to decree in the sum of Rs.10,320/-, that too, based on the admission of defendant/DW-1. As such, I am of the considered opinion that grant of interest @18% per annum is on higher side and instead grant of interest @9% per annum on the aforesaid amount would meet the ends of justice. I order accordingly.Page 9 of 10
CS (Comm) No.604/2023: Veer Singh Saini, Prop. M/s Saksham Marketing Co. V/s M/s Lifecure Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.: DOD: 12.09.2025 Relief
18. In view of the above, suit of the plaintiff is decreed as under:
(i) A decree in the sum of Rs.10,320/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Only) alongwith interest @9% per annum w.e.f 23.08.2021 till realization thereof is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally;
(ii) Plaintiff is also held entitled to counsel's fee which is quantified as Rs.22,000/- as also costs.
19. Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly.
20. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD YADAV YADAV Date: 2025.09.12 17:06:11 +0530 Dictated & Announced in the (Vinod Yadav) open Court on 12.09.2025 District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 North-West/Rohini Court Page 10 of 10