Delhi District Court
Shri Ajay Bajaj,Proprietor Of S.K. ... vs Amisee Educational Aids Llp And Ors on 10 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-06
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSE01-002972-2023
CS (COMM) No.245/2023
Shri Ajay Bajaj
Proprietor of
S.K. Print Process
O/o F-5, Sector-2,
Bawana Industrial Area,
New Delhi-110039
... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Amisee Educational Aids LLP,
Office at 7/15,
Ground Floor,
Block-7,
Kalkaji Extension,
Near Police Station,
New Delhi-110019
2. Amitoj Manaktala,
Partner,
Office at 7/15,
Ground Floor,
Block-7,
Kalkaji Extension,
Near Police Station,
New Delhi-110019
3. Seema Verma,
Partner,
Office at 7/15,
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 1 of 78 Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2026.04.10
14:25:12 +0530
Ground Floor,
Block-7,
Kalkaji Extension,
Near Police Station,
New Delhi-110019
....Defendants
Date of institution of the suit : 14.03.2023
Date on which judgment was reserved : 06.04.2026
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 10.04.2026
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
1. By way of this judgment, I shall decide the suit of the Plaintiff filed for recovery of Rs.18,48,472.50/- alongwith interest.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS SET UP IN THE PLAINT
2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the Plaintiff in the plaint are that:
a) The Plaintiff is a sole proprietor of the proprietorship firm named S.K. Print Process and is engaged in the business of Offset Printing Housе with proven expertise in the expertise in the Book Printing and Binding Services, has an in-house design cell comprising of specialists in various fields and is providing high quality prints and printing services for over a decade under name NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 2 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:25:23 +0530 and style of proprietorship firm namely S.K. Print Process.
Defendant No.1 is a limited liability partnership firm and Defendants No.2 and 3 are the managing partners of Defendant No.1. The Defendant No.2 and 3 act on behalf of Defendant No.1 and are in charge and responsible for the conduct of Defendant No.1 and are wholly and solely managing, responsible and liable for day-to-day affairs and the business related to publishing. business activities of Defendant No.1. The Defendants are in the business related to publishing.
b) Defendant No.2 and 3, for and on behalf of Defendant No.1, had approached Plaintiff sometime in the month of April 2019 for printing/binding of books in total amounting to Rs.21,10,518/-. Defendants No.2 and 3 for and on behalf of Defendant No.1 had assured the Plaintiff about the timely payment of the order placed by all the Defendant.
c) Based on the assurances and promises made by Defendant No. 2 and 3, for and on behalf of Defendant No.1, regarding timely payment of invoices, the Plaintiff had agreed to print/bind the books for the Defendants without knowing the mala fide intention of the Defendants.
d) As a routine practice, the Plaintiff showed the samples/specimens for the purposes of final proofreading before the printing of books to the Defendant physically at the office of NEERA CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 3 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:25:29 +0530 the Plaintiff and only after the same were duly approved by the Defendant/their representatives then and there. Accordingly, the Plaintiff had printed the books. The whole work (printing and binding of books) was done in the presence and direct supervisions of the Defendants No.2 and 3/ their representatives, at the office of the Plaintiff and were delivered to the Defendant based on the sole and exclusive instructions/demands/requirement of Defendants No.2 and 3, for and on behalf of Defendant No.1, from time to time. In that regard, no complaint of any sort was ever raised by the Defendant No.2 and 3 at any given point of time till the e-mail dated 25.02.2020.
e) Every time after delivering the goods / books on the basis of orders placed by Defendant No.2 and 3, for and on behalf of Defendant No.1, the Plaintiff issued various/separate invoices to the Defendant in total amounting to Rs.21,10,518/- from time to time and lastly issued on 25.10.2019. The Defendant kept on assuring the Plaintiff that all the amounts, including the previous outstanding amount, would be cleared by them very soon.
f) Out of the said outstanding, the Defendant had initially paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Plaintiff by way of cheque, out of the total outstanding amount. For remaining outstanding amount, after continuously following up and persistence by the Plaintiff, the Defendant No. 2, for an on behalf of Defendant No.1 and 3 had issued and/or handed over four cheques of Rs.5,00,000/- each in NEERA CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 4 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:25:35 +0530 the name of the proprietorship firm, S.K. Print Process, towards the outstanding amount in order to release in the last week of September, 2019 at the office of the Plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 and 3 further told the Plaintiff that they would inform the Plaintiff regarding depositing of the said issued cheques.
g) Plaintiff solely and purely on the instructions of Defendant No. 2 and 3 deposited one cheque amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- with his bank which got duly honored on 15.10.2019. Further, Defendant No. 2 and 3 had told the Plaintiff that Defendant No. 2 and 3 would inform the Plaintiff that when the Plaintiff can deposit the remaining cheques, issued by Defendant No. 2, for and on behalf of Defendant No.1 and 3, against their admitted legal liability, as the Defendant were expecting some payment.
h) Long time had elapsed and despite repeated and regular follow-ups by the Plaintiff, Defendant No.2 and 3 were neither telling the Plaintiff to deposit remaining three cheques nor clearing the dues. Hence, on 25.02.2020, the Plaintiff had specifically asked Defendants No.2 and 3 to inform the Plaintiff that when he can deposit the remaining cheques, otherwise the Plaintiff shall take legal recourse to recover his legal and admitted liable dues from Defendants. During the said conversation, Defendant No. 2 and 3 had assured the Plaintiff that Defendant No. 2 and 3 would clear the outstanding dues in quick span of time and further requested the Plaintiff not to initiate legal action against the Defendants.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 5 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:25:41 +0530 Thereafter, Defendant No.2 and 3 sent an e-mail dated 25.02.2020 to the Plaintiff. The said e-mail dated 25.02.2020 was duly replied by the Plaintiff wherein Plaintiff requested Defendant No. 2 and 3 not to indulge into such acts and pay the dues to the Plaintiff.
i) Thereafter, a meeting took place with the parties in the month of March 2020, wherein, the Defendants had assured and promised the Plaintiff that they would clear the dues at the earliest. Thereafter, as requested by the Defendants, the Plaintiff sent Ledger Account Statement for the period from 01.04. 2019 to 08.05.2020 to the Defendant through e-mail on 20.05.2020.
j) Thereafter, based on the assurances made by Defendant No.2 and 3 for and on behalf of Defendant No.1, the Plaintiff deposited second cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- bearing No. 469547 on 15.06.2020. However, the cheque was returned with remarks "Payment Stopped by Drawer".
k) The Plaintiff contacted and informed Defendant No.2 and 3 about the dishonour of the cheque to which the Defendant No. 2 and 3 had assured the Plaintiff that Defendant No. 2 and 3 would clear the said cheque amount at the earliest and requested the Plaintiff not to initiate any legal action against the Defendants, in vain, as the Defendant No.2 and 3 had only paid Rs.2,45,000/- that too after repeated follow-up of the Plaintiff, after the dishonour of the said cheque on different occasions (i.e. the Defendants through NEERA CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 6 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:25:47 +0530 online transfer had paid Rs.15,00,000/- on 19.06.2020, Rs.35,000/- on 09.07.2020, Rs.35,000/- on 03.09.2020 and Rs.25,000/- on 09.10.2020). For remaining amount, Defendants No.2 and 3, for and on behalf of the Defendant No.1, kept on assuring the Plaintiff that the Defendant would clear the outstanding due at the earliest.
l) The Plaintiff kept on following up Defendants for the payment of admitted dues and even issued various e-mails dated 27.11.2020, 02.04.2021 and 13.05.2021 alongwith Account Statement/Ledger Accounts to the Defendant on regular intervals thereby requesting the Defendants to make the payment. On the other hand, initially for some time, Defendant No.2 and 3 for and on behalf of Defendant No.1, kept on assuring the Plaintiff regarding the payment of the outstanding dues. However, thereafter, Defendants No. 2 and 3 stopped responding to requests, reminders of the Plaintiff regarding the payment of the outstanding dues. Eventually, the Plaintiff was left with no other option but to deposit the following cheques:-
Cheque no. Drawn on Dated Amount in Rs.
469550 Corporation Bank 25.10.2021 5,00,000/-
469549 Corporation Bank 25.10.2021 5,00,000/-
m) The Plaintiff deposited the aforesaid cheque bearing
No.469550 drawn on Corporation Bank amounting to
Rs.5,00,000/- dated 25.10.2021 and bearing No.469549 drawn on NEERA CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 7 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:25:52 +0530 Corporation Bank, amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- dated 25.10.2021 in its Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Branch Pitampura, Delhi for encashment on 25.10.2021, but cheque bearing No.469550 was returned back to the Plaintiff with remarks "PAYMENT STOPPED BY DRAWER" with the returning menu 26.10.2021 and received by the Plaintiff only on 27.10.2021.
n) Defendant No.2 and 3, being the partners of Defendant No.1, are managing the day-to-day affairs of Defendant No.1 and are also responsible for the conduct of the business activity, affairs of Defendant No.1 and for themselves. Thus, Defendant No. 2 and 3 are liable to be prosecuted under the provision of law.
o) The Plaintiff had issued a legal notice dated 25.11.2021 under section 138 read with section 141 of Negotiable instrument Act, 1881 through speed post on 25.11.2021 and through e-mail on 26.11.2021 and the same was delivered to the Defendants. However, instead of paying the cheques amount, Defendants sent reply.
p) The Plaintiff thereafter filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Tis Hazari Courts against the Defendants which is pending adjudication.
Digitally
signed by
NEERA
NEERA BHARIHOKE
BHARIHOKE Date:
2026.04.10
14:25:59
+0530
CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 8 of 78
q) The Plaintiff preferred Pre-litigation/Pre-Institution
Mediation before the Competent Authority, i.e. SEDLSA, on 13.06.2022. However, Defendant did not appear before the Competent Authority. Furthermore, the Non-Starter Report for the Pre-Institution Mediation was issued by the Competent Authority, SEDLSA, dated 27.02.2023.
3. Hence, the present suit was filed.
4. Summons were duly served upon the Defendants on 27.10.2023 and Defendants appeared on 02.11.2023. Vide order dated 02.02.2024, the application for condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement was allowed and Written Statement was taken on record.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS AS SET UP IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
5. Brief facts of the case as stated by the Defendants in the Written Statement are:
Preliminary Submissions:
a) The Defendants wanted to enter into the business of printing specially designed 'Smart Talk Books'. Smart Talk Books are an innovative product wherein the books have coding in them and with the use of a special device, which when put on the pages of these books, would narrate the contents.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 9 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:26:07 +0530
b) The Defendants met a designer, Dr. Pankaj Jagya to design the said audible books who introduced the Defendants to the Plaintiff claiming that he is printing such 'Smart Talk books'. Pursuant to the introduction, the Defendants and their representatives, Shri Lakshya Manaktala and Shri Rakesh Kumar Verma met the Plaintiff in October 2018 at his office at Bawana.
c) During their meeting, the Plaintiff asked the Plaintiff to purchase specific type of paper for the printing and repeatedly assured the Defendants that the books would be published on time. Based on the representations of quality and timely delivery of the books, Defendants agreed that the Plaintiff would print 5000 copies each of 32 Smart Talk books. For the convenience of all the parties, it was agreed that Mr. Lakshya Manaktala and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Verma would speak to and coordinate with the Plaintiff regarding the printing of the books and other issues. The Plaintiff sent an e-mail with quotation for printing the books to an e-mail ID of a company of Mr. Lakshya Manaktala.
d) It was orally agreed between the parties that in the beginning 5000 copies of only 4 titles were to be printed so that the Defendants can satisfy themselves of the quality of the product.
e) On 29.11.2018, they delivered through their supplier Sona Enterprises 230 reams of 128 GSM Art Paper and 95 packets of NEERA CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 10 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:26:13 +0530 300 GSM Art Paper Board at the factory of the Plaintiff situated at Bawana i.e. F-5, Sector-2, Bawana Industrial Area, Delhi 110039. The cost of the paper supplied on 29.11.2018 was Rs.8,45,025/-. The paper was purchased in the name of Elbee Marketing, company of the father-in-law of Defendant No.2 as on the said date, Defendant No.1 Firm did not have a GST registration.
f) After paying for the services of the Plaintiff and the designer, the Defendants started approaching marketing personnel and distributors to secure orders for Smart Talk books.
g) On January 2019, the Plaintiff sent 50 copies of 4 titles for quality check and approval, and Defendants noticed that said 50 copies were not as per the required standard, were not printed correctly due to which the Audio Device was not working properly with the said books and they were not the product as required by Defendants and completely unusable.
h) Defendant No.2 and Lakshya Manaktala informed Mr. Rakesh Verma that the books received were defective. Mr. Rakesh Verma then spoke to the Plaintiff about the same over the phone in January 2019 and during their phone call, the Plaintiff assured him that the same would be rectified at the earliest. Thereafter, Mr. Lakshya Manaktala started speaking to the Plaintiff regarding these defects.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 11 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:26:20 +0530
i) Thereafter, on 19.01.2019, the Plaintiff again sent 100 copies of two titles i.e. 'Sargam A' and 'Sargam B'. However, the same were also defective and the same issue occurred wherein the Audio Device was not working due to incorrect printing by the Plaintiff.
j) In January 2019, when they told the Plaintiff that books were defective even in the second lot of books sent to them, they were shocked when they were informed by the Plaintiff that despite not having the necessary approval, he had, in fact, printed 5000 copies of all the titles. Plaintiff further informed the Defendants that due to some misunderstanding, the printing has been done on paper other than the one supplied by the Defendants, as mentioned above and for which the Defendants had in fact paid a huge sum of Rs.8,45,025/-.
k) Defendants duly informed the Plaintiff that they would not be accepting such sub-standard books which were not according to the desired specifications and in fact, were of no use to them and could not be used for the school session that was starting in the month of March-April 2019. The Plaintiff admitted his mistake and even assured them that the same would not occur in the future.
l) On 29.03.2019, the Defendants were surprised when the Plaintiff sent all the books that were wrongly printed to the Defendants citing space constraints in his office/factory situated at F-5, Sector-2, Bawana Industrial Area, Delhi-110039. Thereafter, NEERA CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 12 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:26:26 +0530 in the last week of April 2019, the Plaintiff approached the Defendants and assured them that he would ensure that the books are printed as per the required specifications and standards. The Plaintiff further assured the Defendants that the completed books without defects would be supplied by June 2019, so that the Defendants can cater to some of the schools in other states where the school session was scheduled to commence in the month of July 2019.
m) The Defendants had already spent large amounts on the printing process, and the Plaintiff also had possession of the paper purchased by the Defendants. The Defendants again purchased and supplied the required paper of Rs.18,24,735/- through their supplier i.e. Sona Enterprises. After receiving the paper, the Plaintiff started making repeated requests for funds to complete the printing. The Defendants then, were thus forced to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 27.05.2019 to the Plaintiff.
n) Thereafter, the Defendants were shocked when they found out that immediately after receiving the said payment of Rs.1,00,000/-, the Plaintiff, without delivering the books as promised, had travelled to Australia for a vacation without any intimation and returned on 20.06.2019.
o) Despite repeated requests by the Defendants and several assurances given by the Plaintiff, the books were not delivered in NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 13 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:26:33 +0530 the month of June 2019, due to which the Defendants again suffered huge losses for the school session commencing in July, 2019.
p) Defendants, through their supplier, i.e. Sona Enterprises, supplied paper on 01.07.2019 worth Rs.50,580/- and on 12.07.2019 worth Rs.48,202/- to the Plaintiff.
q) Despite Plaintiff having been supplied with the required paper well in advance, delivery of the books was not completed by the Plaintiff. After receiving all the paper worth lakhs of rupees, the Plaintiff started demanding upfront payments from the Defendants. The Plaintiff started pressurizing the Defendants and insisted that he would complete delivery of all the books only when he is given security cheque worth Rs.20,00,000/-.
r) The Defendants had already lost two academic years were under huge financial strain, due to the mistakes of the Plaintiff. The paper purchased by the Defendants was also in possession of the Plaintiff. In the said circumstances and due to the threats of the Plaintiff that he was not willing to complete the delivery, in the month of September 2019, the Defendants issued 4 undated security cheques for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each. The said 4 cheques were signed by Defendant No.2 and it was mutually agreed that the said cheques would not be presented until and NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 14 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:26:38 +0530 unless all the books have been printed correctly as required by the Defendants and delivered to them.
s) In the month of September 2019, the Plaintiff completed the delivery of 5000 books of 32 titles. The Plaintiff assured the Defendants that the printing of the said batches had been done correctly and there would be no issue with the same. Due to the voluminous number of books, the Defendants were unable to check entire books.
t) During November 2019 to January 2020, the Defendants started canvassing for the said books and sent the same to various marketing personnel and schools, considering the new session was scheduled to start in March 2020.
u) In the month of February 2020, the Defendants received multiple complaints from the marketing personnel and the schools that many of the titles were not functioning properly.
v) After the said complaints, raised by the schools and other persons, the Defendants checked each and every book sent by the Plaintiff and they were shocked when they found out that a total of 7 titles of the Smart Talk Books were not functioning properly. Even the name of the titles was not printed properly as mentioned herein below:
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 15 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:26:45 +0530 From the set of books for Nursery Standard 2 titles were not printed properly i.e. Counting 1-50 and All in one Reading.
From the set of books for LKG Standard 3 titles were not printed properly i.e. Counting 1-100, English Pre-
Primer and Maths Pre-Primer.
From the set of books for UKG Standard 2 titles were not printed properly i.e. English Primer and Maths Table Book.
w) Due to the Plaintiff's sub-standard work, a total of 35000 (5000 copies of 7 titles each) books were completely unusable and could not be sold as not even a single set was complete and printed properly.
x) On 29.01.2019, the designer, Dr. Pankaj Jagya had started a Whats group called, Amisee Code Books, for coordination with the Plaintiff, his employees and the Defendants regarding the printing of the books. The said group had various employees of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff himself. Plaintiff has intentionally not filed the records of the said Whatsapp messages with the suit.
y) On 21.02.2020, the Defendants sent messages on the Whatsapp Group, Amisee Code Books, informing the Plaintiff of the defects that were seen by them in some of the books examined by them.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 16 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:26:51 +0530 z) Defendants, through Mr.Lakshya Manaktala, also sent an e- mail dated 25.02.2020 to the Plaintiff raising a complaint that the books had various defects and specifically told the Plaintiff that due to the said defects, the cheques issued by them should not be presented. The Plaintiff sent a reply to the said e-mail on 28.02.2020. In his reply, the Plaintiff raised false and frivolous allegations against the Defendants. However, after receiving the said e-mail, when Mr. Lakshya Manaktala confronted the Plaintiff over the phone, Plaintiff agreed to meet at office of Dr. Pankaj Jagya, the designer, and examine the books in person. Mr. Lakshya Manaktala, therefore, replied to the e-mail of the Plaintiff dated 28.02.2020, mentioning that as agreed between all parties, representatives of the Defendants would meet the Plaintiff and the designer at the office of the Designer. In his e-mail dated 28.02.2020, Mr. Lakshya Manaktala reiterated that the cheques handed over to the Plaintiff should not be presented till issues raised by the Defendants were resolved.
aa) On 29.02.2020, the Defendant's representatives Sh. Lakshya Manaktala and Sh. Rakesh Kumar Verma met the Plaintiff at the office of the designer, Dr. Pankaj Jagya and demonstrated to the Plaintiff that the said titles were not working as they have not been printed properly. During the said meeting, the Plaintiff admitted his mistake and agreed to repair the said titles in small batches and requested that the same be sent to him in small batches starting NEERA CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 17 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:26:57 +0530 April, 2020, since he does not have enough space for keeping all the 35000 books simultaneously.
bb) During the said meeting, it was agreed that the earlier payment arrangement is revised and the security cheques given to the Plaintiff stood cancelled and the payment for the repair work would be on an ad hoc basis depending on the completion of the repair work to be undertaken by the Plaintiff.
cc) Accordingly, the Defendants sent 2 boxes of 2 titles comprising of approximately 660 books to the Plaintiff.
dd) On 04.03.2020, Mr. Lakshya Manaktala also visited the office of the designer. Dr. Pankaj Jagya and thereafter, sent the list of defects in the books on the WhatsApp group mentioned hereinabove.
ee) Since a lockdown was announced in the month of March 2020, the books could not be physically sent to the Plaintiff in the month of April, 2020 and were sent once the lockdown restrictions were relaxed in the month of June, 2020. The Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the said books on 27.06.2020, which were delivered at his residence at 56, Raja Garden, 4th Floor, near Handa Nursing Home, Delhi.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 18 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:27:03 +0530 ff) After receiving the said 4 boxes of books, the Plaintiff again started pressurizing the Defendants and their representatives for further payments and even threatened that none of the books would be repaired unless some payment is made. Considering the fact that the Defendants had already suffered huge losses because of the Plaintiff and were not in a position to suffer any further loss due to late delivery, they made several payments to the Plaintiff, the details of which are given herein below:
a) Rs.1,50,000/- on 19.06.2020.
b) Rs.35,000/- on 09.07.2020.
c) Rs.35,000/- on 03.09.2020.
d) Rs.25,000/- on 09.10.2020.
gg) Despite receiving the said payments, the Plaintiff never repaired the books. The Plaintiff, vide his message dated
29.09.2020, acknowledged that the books needed repairs and demanded further sum of Rs.93,000/- on account of the said repairs. The Defendants requested an explanation of the said alleged charges since the errors were caused by the Plaintiff and were in no way attributable to the Defendants. However, the Plaintiff never replied to the said message. In fact, the Plaintiff never returned the 4 boxes of the books after repair that were sent on 27.06.2020 and failed to give the details / break-up for the additional cost of Rs.93,000/- as demanded by him.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 19 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:27:09 +0530 hh) Due to the unprofessional and erroneous work on behalf of the Plaintiff, the sets for Standard Nursery, LKG and UKG were incomplete and thus could not be delivered to the schools or any of the other consumers and remained unsold.
ii) Due to such sub-standard work on behalf of the Plaintiff, the Defendants suffered a huge loss. The Defendants had paid approximately Rs.15,00,000/- to the designer, Dr. Pankaj Jagya. A further sum of Rs.17,50,000/- was spent by the Defendants to purchase the device for operating the Smart Talk Books. A sum of approximately Rs.10,00,000/- was spent by the Defendants for purchase of the paper for print of the books. The market value of books and the devices were more than Rs.3 Crores. The Defendants, however, had been negotiating with wholesale distributors for sale of the books at a reduced rate to increase sale. The Defendants had in fact negotiated one contract for sale of the books in question and the same is filed with Written Statement. Keeping in view the defective product provided by the Plaintiff, they suffered losses and the Plaintiff is liable to refund all amounts received by him and compensate the Defendants for the damage incurred by the Defendants. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the Plaintiff is liable to make a payment of Rs.2,37,00,000/- alongwith interest as damages on account of loss of business. The Defendants are in the process of instituting a separate Suit for recovery of the said amount as the said amount is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 20 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:27:14 +0530 jj) Plaintiff withheld accurate details of the correct factual matrix of the present case and instituted the present case and the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments on false pleas despite receipt of the reply dated 22.12.2021 issued by the Defendants.
Parawise reply on merits:
kk) The Plaintiff is not entitled to any amount and liable to pay the Defendants for losses caused to them due to the actions of the Plaintiff.
ll) The Plaintiff admitted those errors and the defective printing carried out by him to Defendants. Instead of compensating the Defendants for the losses suffered by them the Defendant presented the cheque handed over by the Defendants to falsely implicate them in a cheque bouncing case and to evade his liability. The Plaintiff is not providing high quality printing services.
mm) Mr. Lakshya Manaktala and Mr. Rakesh Varma are the spouses of Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.3 respectively. Mr. Lakshya Manaktala and Mr. Rakesh Singh were acting as the representatives of Defendant No.1 to 3 and were speaking with, having meetings with and exchanging messages and corresponding NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 21 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:27:20 +0530 with the Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant No.1 to 3 as per the instructions of Defendant No.2 and 3.
nn) The Plaintiff had represented to the Defendants that he would deliver prints of the books required by the Defendants within the stipulated period. There were gross defects solely due to the acts of the Plaintiff. Due to the said defects, the Defendants repeatedly told the Plaintiff not to encash cheques given by them.
Despite the said defects and loss caused by the Plaintiff to the Defendants, he presented the cheques.
oo) It was denied that the Plaintiff provided the final samples/ specimens of the books in question to the Defendants for proof reading. It was denied that all the samples were approved by the Defendants or their representatives. It was denied that all the printing was done in the direct supervision of Defendant No.2 and No.3. In January, 2019, the Plaintiff sent 50 copies of 4 titles for quality check and approval. The Defendants were shocked as the said 50 copies were not as per the required standard and were not printed correctly due to which the Audio Device was not working properly with the said books and were not the product as required by the Defendants and completely unusable. Defendant No.2 and Lakshya Manaktala informed Mr. Rakesh Verma that the books received were defective. Mr. Rakesh Verma then spoke to the Plaintiff about the same over the phone in January 2019 and during their phone call the Plaintiff had assured that the same would be NEERA CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 22 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:27:27 +0530 rectified at the earliest. Thereafter, Mr. Lakshya Manaktala started speaking to the Plaintiff regarding these defects.
pp) Thereafter, on 10.01.2019, the Plaintiff again sent 100 copies of two titles i.e. Sargam A and Sargam B. However, the same were also defective wherein the Audio Device was not working due to incorrect printing by the Plaintiff. In January, 2019, when they told the Plaintiff that books were defective even in the second lot of books sent to them, they were shocked when they were informed by the Plaintiff that despite not having the necessary approval, he had in fact, printed 5000 copies of all the titles. The Plaintiff further informed the Defendants that due to some misunderstanding, the printing has been done on a paper other than the one supplied by the Defendants for which the Defendants paid a sum of Rs.8,45,025/-. The Defendants duly informed the Plaintiff that they shall not be accepting such sub-standard books which were not according to the desired specifications, were of no use to them and could not be used for the school session that was starting in the month of March-April 2019. The Plaintiff admitted his mistake and even assured that the same shall not occur in the future.
qq) It was denied that the invoices were raised by the Plaintiff as per the orders placed by the Defendants. It was denied that the invoices raised by the Plaintiff are correct or that the same were payable by the Defendants. It was denied that any amount is NEERA CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 23 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:27:33 +0530 payable to the Plaintiff on any of the alleged invoices raised by them.
rr) The alleged invoices filed by the Plaintiff do not tally with the alleged amount of Rs.21,10.518/- claimed in the para under reply. The alleged invoices in question have multiple duplication and the same may be due to repeated defects in the printing of the books caused by the errors on the part of the Plaintiff.
ss) It was denied that the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid towards any of the outstanding invoices of the Plaintiff. It was denied that the Plaintiff was following up with the Defendants repeatedly or that 4 cheques of Rs.5,00,000/- each were handed over to the Plaintiff towards the outstanding amount. It was denied that there was any admitted liability of the Defendants or that the Defendants handed over the cheques to the Plaintiff towards discharge of the said alleged admitted liability. After receiving the defective books and fresh batches of paper purchased by the Defendants, he started harassing them and demanding security cheques before printing. Undated security cheques were handed over to the Plaintiff on the condition that the same would be presented only with the consent of the Defendants. Vide their e-mail dated 25.02.2020, the Defendants duly informed the Plaintiff that due to the defects in the printing, he should not present these cheques. The Plaintiff admitted the defects in the books and quoted an unreasonable figure to repair the same. The Defendants asked the Plaintiff for the NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 24 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:27:39 +0530 breakup of the said amount as it was his mistake which caused the errors but Plaintiff presented the cheques given as security to falsely implicate the Defendants.
tt) The Defendants permitted the Plaintiff to present the first cheque as he had assured them that the defects found in the first lot shall not be repeated in the second lot of books and the first lot shall be duly repaired by the Plaintiff at his cost. The Defendants had raised the issue of defects with the Plaintiff directly in January, 2019 over the phone when the first lot of books were delivered and thereafter, again duly raised the issue of repeated defects vide their e-mail dated 25.02.2020. The Defendants in their e-mail dated 25.02.2020 and in their e-mail dated 28.02.2020 repeatedly told the Plaintiff not to present the cheques. The Plaintiff admitted the defects in the books but to harass the Defendants presented the security cheques when there was no debt payable to the Plaintiff as the books were defective.
uu) The Defendants raised the issue of defects in the books in question in January, 2019 and then again on 25.02.2020 vide a written e-mail. In response to the said e-mail to build a defence and to evade his liability for repairing the books, the Plaintiff sent e- mail dated 28.02.2020 making false allegations against the Defendants. The representative of the Defendants, Mr. Lakshya Manaktala, spoke to the Plaintiff on 28.02.2020 and the parties agreed to meet at the office of the designer of books on the NEERA CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 25 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:27:47 +0530 following day i.e. 29.02.2020. The parties met at the office of the designer and the Defendants' representatives raised all their issues regarding the defects in the books. The Plaintiff agreed to repair the defects and demanded an amount of Rs.93,000/- to do so.
vv) It was denied that the Defendants agreed to pay any amounts allegedly due to the Plaintiff. The Defendants had raised the issue of the defects in the books. In June, 2019 the Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the defective books at his residence and in September, 2019 the Plaintiff messaged the Defendants informing them of charges for rectifying the defects in the books. Any dues raised by the Plaintiff in his Ledge Account are therefore not due or payable and are denied.
6. Relying on the said averments, the Defendant has submitted that there is no merit in the present suit, and it deserves to be dismissed.
REPLICATION OF THE PLAINTIFF
7. Replication has been filed by the Plaintiff, wherein the Plaintiff has denied the contents of the Written Statement and reiterated the contents of the plaint.
8. Vide order dated 26.07.2024 passed by learned Predecessor, the application of the Plaintiff filed under Order XIII-A CPC was dismissed.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 26 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:27:55 +0530 ADMISSION / DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
9. The Defendants admitted seventeen documents of the Plaintiff which were therefore exhibited as Ex. P-1 (Colly.) to Ex. P-17. Details of those admitted documents are recorded in examination in chief of PW-1. The Plaintiff admitted one document running into 24 pages which is screenshot of WhatsApp chat of the Defendants which was therefore exhibited as Ex. D-1 (Colly.) and vide order dated 02.12.2024, the admission / denial of documents was concluded.
FRAMING OF ISSUES
10. Vide order dated 02.12.2024, on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount? OPP.
(2) Whether the printing work carried out by the plaintiff was not of sub-standard quality? OPP.
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the suit amount? If yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
(4) Cost.
(5) Relief
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
11. On 02.04.2025, Plaintiff Shri Ajay Bajaj examined himself as PW-
1. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW-1/A. He NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 27 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:28:01 +0530 reiterated the contents of the plaint and relied upon the following documents: -
(1) Certified copy of office copy of Invoices as Ex. P-1 (Colly.).
(2) Certified copy of carbon / third copy of challans as Ex. P-2 (Colly.).
(3) Certified copy of e-mail dated 25.02.2020 as Ex. P-3.
(4) Certified copy of e-mail dated 28.02.2020 issued by the deponent as Ex. P-4.
(5) Certified copy of e-mail dated 28.02.2020 issued by the defendant as Ex. P-5.
(6) Original cheque bearing No.469547 drawn on Corporation Bank amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- dated 12.06.2020 as Ex. P-6.
(7) Original Return Memo dated 15.06.2020 as Ex. PW-1/1.
(8) Certified copy of e-mail dated 27.11.2020 alongwith the attachment therein as Ex. P-8.
(9) Certified copy of e-mail dated 02.04.2021 alongwith the attachment therein as Ex. P-9.
(10) Certified copy of e-mail dated 13.05.2021 alongwith the attachment therein as Ex. P-10.
(11) Certified copy of cheque bearing No.469549 drawn on Corporation Bank amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- dated 25.10.2021 as Ex. P-11.
(12) Certified copy of Return Memos of cheque No.469549 as Ex. PW-
1/2.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 28 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:28:07 +0530 (13) Certified copy of cheque bearing No.469550 drawn on Corporation Bank amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- dated 25.10.2021 as Ex. P-12.
(14) Certified copy of Return Memo of cheque No.469550 as Ex. PW-
1/3.
(15) Copy of legal notice dated 25.11.2021 alongwith speed post receipt and delivery status as Ex. P-13.
(16) Certified copy of e-mail dated 26.11.2021 alongwith the attachment therein as Ex. P-14.
(17) Certified copy of reply dated 22.12.2021 as Ex. P-15.
(18) Certified copy of affidavit u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act dated 06.01.2021 as Ex. PW-1/4.
(19) Certified copy of the complaint u/s 138 NI Act read with section 141 NI Act as Ex. P-16.
(20) Printout of e-mail dated 10.06.2022 as Ex. PW-1/5.
(21) Affidavit dated 11.03.2023 u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.
PW-1/6.
(22) Failure Report issued to PW-1 on 10.03.2023 as Ex. P-17.
(23) Fresh Failure Report dated 17.03.2023 issued to PW-1 which is Ex.
PW-1/7.
12. Learned Counsel for Defendants had taken an objection that Ex. PW-1/6 was not as per format prescribed in the Evidence Act and PW-1 is not the author of Ex. PW-1/6. It was observed by this Court that objection was not sustainable in view of the submissions made in para 2 of Ex. PW-1/6. Ex. PW-1/6 would continue to be exhibited.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 29 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:28:13 +0530
13. PW-1 was cross examined by learned Counsel for Defendant on 02.04.2025, 30.04.2025, 28.05.2025 and discharged on 28.05.2025.
14. The Plaintiff also examined Shri Ashish Rana as PW-2. He deposed that he brought the summoned record / judicial file bearing CC NI Act 193/2022 including two return memos both dated 26.10.2021 and an affidavit under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act dated 06.01.2022. It was observed that in view of deposition of PW-2 recorded, Ex. PW- 1/14 would continue to be exhibited. PW-2 was discharged on the same day.
15. On 06.06.2025, the Plaintiff also examined PW-3 Shri Naresh Kumar Giri. He deposed that he could not bring the summoned record i.e. Return Memo of cheque bearing No.469547, 469549 & 469550. PW-3 further deposed that the return memo was sent to the beneficiary of the cheque. He further deposed that he had seen the original return memo dated 15.06.2020 in respect of cheque bearing No.469547 and certified copy of return memo of two cheques bearing No. 469549 & 469550 both bearing date of 26.10.2021. He further deposed that all the three return memos had been issued by Kotak Mahindra Bank. He further deposed that the entry in regard to dishonour of these cheques is reflected in the statement of current account of S.K. Print Process bearing No. 6511567759. He further deposed that the cheques were dishonoured because of instructions of drawer of cheques of stop payment.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 30 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:28:19 +0530
16. PW-3 further deposed that he brought the same for the relevant period, and the highlighted entries revealed that all these three cheques i.e. No.469547, 469549 & 469550 were dishonoured on 15.06.2020, 26.10.2021 and 26.10.2021 respectively. He tendered the statement of current account of S.K. Print Process of the relevant period as Ex. PW- 3/A (Colly.)
17. It was observed by this Court that the return memos which were exhibited as Ex. PW-1/1, Ex. PW-1/2 and Ex. PW-1/3 would continue to be exhibited in view of deposition of PW-3. He was discharged on the same day. On 06.06.2025, Plaintiff's Evidence was closed on the statement of learned Counsel for the Plaintiff.
DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE
18. Defendant examined DW-1 Ms. Amitoj Manaktala on 30.07.2025. She presented her evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. DW-1/A. She reiterated the contents of the Written Statement and relied upon the following documents: -
i. Original Resolution dated 20.12.2021 as Ex. DW-1/1. ii. Invoices of paper issued by M/s Sona Enterprises already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/DX4.
iii. Delivery Challan of the Plaintiff already exhibited as Ex. PW-
1/DX1 (Colly.) iv. Samples of defective goods filed on record as Ex. DW-1/2 (Colly.) NEERA CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 31 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:28:24 +0530 v. Printout of WhatsApp messages exchanged between the Plaintiff and the representatives of Defendant No.1 already exhibited as Ex. D1.
vi. Reply to legal notice dated 22.12.2021 issued by counsel for Defendants already exhibited as Ex. P-15.
vii. E-mail dated 25.02.2020 sent by representative of Defendants already exhibited as Ex. P-3.
viii. E-mail dated 28.02.2020 sent by Plaintiff already exhibited as Ex.
P-4.
19. It was observed that Original Resolution dated 20.12.2021 was not filed alongwith the Written Statement. Defendant No.1 is an LLP and other Defendants are its partners. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff opposed the taking of the same on record. It was observed by this Court that Resolution was proposed to be filed to show that DW-1 had been duly authorized to depose on behalf of Defendant No.1 LLP Firm. Even in absence of the same, on the principle of agency, DW-1 being a partner is authorized to depose on behalf of Defendant No.1. Ex. DW-1/1 was marked as Mark A.
20. DW-1 was cross-examined by learned Counsel for Plaintiff on 30.07.2025, 02.08.2025, 06.08.2025, 16.10.2025. On the same day, DW-1 was discharged.
21. The Defendants also examined Mr. Lakshya Manaktala as DW-2 on 30.07.2025. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 32 of 78 BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:28:30 +0530 DW-2/A. He reiterated the contents of the Written Statement, documents relied upon by DW-1 and also relied upon the following documents: -
a) Copy of draft agreement being negotiated between Defendants and Mayas Research and Learning (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. as Ex. DW-2/1.
b) Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. DW-2/2.
22. He was cross examined by learned Counsel for Plaintiff on 30.07.2025, 02.08.2025, 06.08.2025, 16.10.2025 and he was discharged on the same day.
23. Both DW-1 and DW-2 were examined and cross-examined on their respective part depositions on the same day by learned counsel for Plaintiff to ensure that both are cross-examined independently, without their being any chance of being prompted or tutored by other side.
24. The Defendants also examined DW-3 Dr. Pankaj Jagya in support of their case on 14.11.2025 and 11.12.2025. He was cross examined by learned Counsel for Plaintiff on 11.12.2025 and he was discharged on the same day.
25. Defendant's Evidence was closed on the statement of Shri Abhey Narula, learned Counsel for Defendants and the matter was adjourned for final arguments.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 33 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:28:35 +0530 FINAL ARGUMENTS
26. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff has argued that the Defendants have not disputed about having placed an order with the Plaintiff for only printing and binding of books amounting to Rs.21,10,518/- with an assurance about timely payment to the Plaintiff and despite the Plaintiff having completed the work as per the order placed by the Defendants, The Defendants have raised false plea that the cheques which were issued by the Defendants towards the work of printing and binding of books were issued as security cheques and by withholding the payment of the Plaintiff in respect of the books which admittedly do not have any defects by raising false pleas of 35,000 books having defects out of total books numbering in 1,65,000 after having paid an amount of Rs.8,45,000/-. It was argued on behalf of Plaintiff that there was no defect on part of the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff was only required to print the books and binding them thereafter on the basis of the un-editable PDF files which were provided by the designer. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff prayed for decreeing the suit.
27. Per contra, it was argued by learned Counsel for Defendants that the order was placed by the Defendants for printing and binding of 1,65,000 books which consisted of 5000 copies each of smart books of 32 titles. He referred to catalog of these books to contend that the same prescribed sets of books for Nursery Standard, LKG Standard and UKG Standard and had to be sold together as a set but could not be sold by the Defendants since printing of 35,000 (5000 copies of 7 titles each) were NEERA CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 34 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:28:42 +0530 completely unusable and could not be sold as not even a single set was complete and printed properly. He also argued that even the names of the titles were not printed properly leading to a loss to the Defendants who were under constant pressure from the Plaintiff leading them to continue to supply further paper for printing of the books since the Defendants had already suffered huge losses because of the Plaintiff and were not in a position to suffer any further loss due to late delivery, they made several payments to the Plaintiff. He also argued that Defendant No.1 is an LLP and Defendants No.2 and 3 are its partners and therefore not personally liable under LLP Act. Learned Counsel for Defendants also submitted that Plaintiff failed in timely delivery of the books to the Defendants and after receiving all the paper worth lakhs of rupees, the Plaintiffs started illegally and malafidely demanding upfront payment from the Defendants and insisted that he would complete the delivery of all the books only when he was given security cheques worth Rs.20,00,000/- and therefore, the Defendants issued 4 undated security cheques for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each and it was agreed between the Plaintiff and the Defendants that the said cheques shall not be presented unless and until all the books were printed correctly as required by the Defendants and delivered to Defendants. It was argued on behalf of Defendants that it was the Defendants who suffered losses and not the Plaintiff and Plaintiff is not entitled to receive any amount from the Defendants.
28. In rebuttal, learned Counsel for Plaintiff denied the submissions made by learned counsel for Defendants and argued that the Defendants have taken plea of the cheques having been issued as security cheques for NEERA CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 35 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:28:49 +0530 the first time in reply to the legal notice sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendants and have not placed anything on record to substantiate the same. It was submitted on behalf of Plaintiff that the cheques were issued in the month of September 2019 and admittedly, the delivery of all the books had been completed by the Plaintiff by that time and that the cheques were issued towards the liability of the Defendants towards the Plaintiff towards printing and binding of the books. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff argued that the submissions made by learned Counsel for Defendants that the books were to be sold as a set is incorrect and that had the said submission been correct, the Defendants would not have purchased only 1000 pens for the speaking books which are admittedly, 1,65,000 in number and admittedly could be used even without the pen. He also argued that all the Defendants are liable for the amount due and claimed under the present suit.
29. Rival submissions of the parties considered and perused the record very carefully.
FINDINGS
30. My issue-wise findings are given as under :-
Issues No. 1 and 2 are corrected and are thus being decided together.
Issue No.1 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount?
Issue No.2 : Whether the printing work carried out by the plaintiff was not of sub-standard quality?
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 36 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:28:54 +0530 The onus to prove both Issues was placed on the Plaintiff.
31. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.18,48,472.50/- i.e. Rs.12,65,518/- towards principal amount and Rs.82,954.50/- towards 18% p.a. pre-suit interest on Rs.12,65,518/- from 16.05.2022 alongwith the 18% p.a. pendente lite and future interest till its realization by submitting that Plaintiff had printed and bound smart talk books for the Defendant No.1 and raised the invoices for a total sum of Rs.21,10,518/- and against the said invoices, the Plaintiff received an amount of Rs.8,45,000/- (i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- on 27.07.2019, Rs.5,00,000/- on 15.10.2019, Rs.1,50,000/- on 19.06.2020, Rs.35,000/- on 09.07.2020 and Rs.25,000/- on 09.10.2020). Smart Talk Books have coding in them which is readable by a talking device.
32. In their respective affidavits of evidence, DW-1 and DW-2 have deposed that the Defendants engaged the services of designer Dr. Pankaj Jagya, DW-3 to design the books who introduced the Defendants to the Plaintiff and it was agreed between the Plaintiff and the representatives of Defendant no.1 that on supply of necessary paper by the Defendants, the Plaintiff would first print 5000 copies of four titles. The Defendants have submitted that in January 2019, the Plaintiff sent 50 copies of four titles for quality check and approval, and the books were defective and were not printed correctly due to which the audio device was not working properly with the said books and books were, therefore completely unusable. They have also submitted that the Plaintiff was informed of these defects who assured the Defendants that these defects would be NEERA CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 37 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:29:02 +0530 rectified and on 19.01.2019, Plaintiff again sent 100 copies of two titles Sargam A and Sargam B. However, the same were also not working due to incorrect printing.
33. DW-1 and DW-2 have further deposed that in January 2019 when the Defendants told the Plaintiff that the books were defective including the second lot, Plaintiff informed that he had printed 5000 copies of all four titles i.e. 20,000 books and that he had done the printing on paper other than that supplied by the Defendants. The Plaintiff denied these facts in the replication and submitted that he had printed 5000 copies of only four titles on the asking of the Defendants and the Defendants had given the said order out of their own free will.
34. The Defendants have filed the WhatsApp chat exchanged between the parties for the period from 29.01.2019 to 07.12.2021 and the same was exhibited as Ex. D-1 during the stage of admission/denial of documents. Ex. D-1 does not contain any conversation in respect of any of these depositions of DW-1 and DW-2 and both admitted in their cross- examination that they had not placed anything on record in support of their aforementioned depositions. Therefore, the Defendants were not able to prove any of the submissions referred to in the preceding paragraphs.
35. During his cross examination, PW-1 was confronted with the delivery challans dated 07.01.2019 and 29.03.2019, part of Ex. PW-1/DX-1. On being confronted with Delivery challan dated NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 38 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:29:09 +0530 07.01.2019, PW-1 stated that these books were not printed by him and were only bound by him. He also stated that these digital prints were sent to him by designer and are the sample copies provided by the designer to plaintiff for the purpose of binding.
36. Delivery challan dated 29.03.2019 supports the submissions made by PW-1 that the Plaintiff had printed and bound by the Plaintiff and were 5000 each in number. It is the case of Defendants as well since the Defendants have stated in their Written Statement that "It was orally agreed between the parties that in the beginning 5000 copies of only 4 titles were to be printed so that the Defendants can satisfy themselves of the quality of the product."
37. Cross-examination of PW-1 in this regard is reproduced below:
"Q27 : I put it to you that you printed and supplied 50 copies of 4 titles Sargam A, Sargam B, Sargam C and Alphabet to the defendants in January, 2019 and the said books were defective and the defendants informed you about the same. What do you have to say?
Ans. : It is incorrect.
Q28 : I put it to you that the said books were not as per required standards and were not printed correctly due to which the audio device was not working properly with the said books and the said books were unusable. What do you have to say?
Ans. : It is incorrect. (Vol. Printing was up to the standard but the fault was coding and designing.) NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 39 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:29:17 +0530 Q29 : I put it to you that representatives of the defendants Mr. Rakesh Verma, Shri Lakshya Manaktala informed you that the said books were defective in January, 2019. What do you have to say?
Ans. : It is incorrect.
Q30 : I put it to you that on 19.01.2019, you printed and sent 100 copies of two titles i.e. Sargam A and Sargam B, however, the same were also defective as the audio device was not working on the said books due to incorrect printing. What do you have to say?
Ans. : It is incorrect. (Vol. We did not have any audio device to check the books.) Q31 : I put it to you that in January, 2019, you had printed 5,000 copies of the said titles without the permission of the defendants and the same were all defective. What do you have to say?
Ans. : It is incorrect."
38. The Defendants also made submission that the Defendants had made payment to the Plaintiff in 2018 and similar deposition has been made by DW-1/Defendant No.2 and DW-2/ husband of Defendant No.2 in their affidavits of evidence and in their cross examination both of them admitted that no payment was made to the Plaintiff by the Defendants in 2018.
39. DW-1 and DW-2 also admitted that they came to know regarding Smart Talk Books from the designer, DW-3, and that they did not have knowledge or experience with respect to smart talk books business in 2018. They also admitted that they had not sent any file containing the design and coding of books Sargam A and Sargam B in the month NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 40 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:29:23 +0530 of November 2018 and December 2018 to the plaintiff for printing. It was also admitted by DW-1 and DW-2 that they had not placed any document on record whereby they had sent the file containing the design and coding of books Sargam A and Sargam B in the month of January 2019 to the Plaintiff for printing. Both DW-1 and DW-2 were unable to show anything on record to substantiate their submission that they had allegedly raised issue regarding alleged problem in printing of books delivered by the Plaintiff in the month of November 2018, December 2018 and January 2019. Therefore, Plaintiff has proved by cross- examination of DW-1 and DW-2 that Defendants falsely stated that Sargam A and Sargam B delivered by Plaintiff in the month of November 2018, December 2018 and January 2019, were having defects as the audio device did not play because DW-1 and Dw-2 admitted in their cross- examination that those were not speaking books.
a) It has been vehemently argued on behalf of Plaintiff that out of 1,65,000 books printed and bound by the Plaintiff, the Defendants alleged 35,000 books to be defective and there was no reason for the Defendants not to have made the complete payment of remaining 1,35,000 books. The Defendants have raised a defense that these books were to be sold as a set as the same were meant for three different classes, namely Nursery Standard and LKG Standard and UKG Standard. The Defendants have stated and DW-1 and Dw-2 have deposed in Para 38 and Para 39 of their respective affidavit of evidence that due to the unprofessional and erroneous work on behalf of the Plaintiff, the sets for Standard NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 41 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:29:28 +0530 Nursery, LKG and UKG were incomplete and thus could not be delivered to the schools or any of the other consumers and remained unsold as the same could not have been sold separately and have relied on the catalog filed with the affidavit of evidence of DW-1 which is part of Ex. DW-1/2(Colly).
40. The designer of the books, namely Dr. Pankaj Jagya who deposed as DW-3, was examined in chief on this aspect by learned counsel for Defendant. The relevant portion of his examined in chief is reproduced below:
"Q6 : How many titles of said talking books did you design for the defendant No.1?
Ans. : I designed complete sets of Nursery, LKG and UKG.
Q7 : Please see sample of books collectively exhibited as Ex. DW- 1/2, are these the samples/some of the books designed by you for the defendant No.1?
Ans. : Yes.
Q8 : Please see catalogue of books (at page 150 to 153 of Ex. DW-1/2), did you design all the books mentioned in the said catalogue for the defendant No.1?
Ans. : Yes.
Q9 : Was the complete contents of the said books, the illustrations and the coding also designed by you/your office for the said books?
Ans. : Yes.
Q10 : Is it correct that the said books are designed to be sold as a NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 42 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:29:34 +0530 set of complete books?
Ans. : Yes. It can be sold as individual as well as complete set. That is school choice.
Q11 : Is it correct that as per the catalogue designed by you, the books are made in sets for each class i.e. Nursery and LKG?
Ans. : They are made in sets for Nursery, LKG and UKG.
41. Relevant portion of cross-examination of DW-3 is reproduced as:
"Q5 : Is it correct that books are for three classes? Ans. : Yes.
Q6 : Can you tell the number of books in one set? Ans. : That is mentioned in the catalogue.
Q7 : Is it correct that there were about 15,000 sets printed by the plaintiff?
Ans. : That we have to calculate.
Q8 : Can you calculate?
Ans. : Yes.
Q9 : Is it correct that each purchaser / set require one talking pen?
Ans. : Yes. But books can be sold without pen also as it is optional. This is add on element.
Q10 : Can you tell who procure the talking pens? Ans. : I had procured the talking pens for the defendants. Nobody else can procure the talking pens as I was the one who was having the contents regarding talking pens.
Q11 : Can you tell how many pens were procured for defendants? Ans. : 1,000."
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 43 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:29:40 +0530
42. Therefore, DW-3 also admitted that books could be sold individually as well as in a set and that though the books were speaking books, books could be sold without pen also, as it was optional and talking pen is an add on element.
43. After conclusion of cross-examination of DW-3, after hearing submissions of both sides, Ld. Counsel for defendants was allowed to re- examine DW-3 in respect of answer given by him to question No.9, i.e.:
"Question : In response to question No.9, you have stated "Ans. :
Yes. But books can be sold without pen also as it is optional. This is add on element.". Can the smart talk feature of the book be used / accessed without the smart pen?
Ans.: No."
44. The said answer again does not change the fact that speaking books could be sold individually as well as in set and that buying pen was optional for the purchaser.
45. The catalog filed by DW-1 as a part of Ex. DW-1/1 has been perused. It nowhere specifies or requires or mandates that the books meant for Nursery Standard or LKG Standard or UKG Standard were to be sold or purchased as a complete set. Rather the catalogue displays the various titles of the books meant for Nursery Standard and LKG Standard and UKG Standard and does not pertain to or mention name of any school to which it has been ascribed/prescribed or proposed to be sold and is a NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 44 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:29:47 +0530 general catalog like that of any other private publisher. The catalog does give information about the books to be speaking books at one place in a box drawn on the first page stating 'Convert your reading and writing books into Speaking Books' and speaking pen at a different point on its first page in green rectangular background stating, 'Speaking Pen-The best device for tiny tots.'. Below the box where it is written as 'Convert your reading and writing books into Speaking Books', it is written in green background as "There are 11 dots on each page like this when you will put pen on first dot it will speak question and when you will put pen on second dot it will speak the answer of that question and below this 11 dots have been printed in colour and the colour combination on the catalogue is identical on all the speaking books on all of its pages. Therefore, the submissions of the defendants that these books were to be sold as a set for the different classes/students of Nursery Standard and LKG Standard and UKG Standard are bereft of merits.
46. The Defendants have also raised a defence that Defendant no. 2 had been negotiating with the wholesale distributors for sale of the books at a reduced rate to increase the sales and had negotiated one contract for sale of the books in question with a prospective buyer. Copy of draft agreement alleged to have been exchanged with the said buyer was tendered by DW-2 as Ex. DW-2/1. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff had raised objection to its mode of proof at the time of its tendering by DW-2 and Ex. DW-2/1 was de-exhibited and marked as Mark X. NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 45 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:29:53 +0530
47. On perusal of Mark X, it is noticed that it is described as Memorandum of Understanding between defendant No. 1 and one Mayas Research and Learning Pvt. Ltd. and even the said MOU does not require or prescribe that all the books for a particular class have to be sold together as a complete set or not to be sold as loose/separate books. It does not bear any date but on its second page it bears signatures of someone on behalf of 'Mayas Research and Learning Pvt. Ltd.' having date of 03.10.2019 but no signatures above the name of Defendant No.1. Mark X, being a photocopy, had to be proved by DW-2 or Defendants but Defendants did not produce any witness or record to prove the same.
48. Therefore, Defendants failed miserably to prove that all books were to be sold as a set for any of the classes of Nursery Standard or LKG Standard or UKG Standard.
49. The Defendants raised another objection that Plaintiff raised more than one bill for the set of same books and referred to invoice no.55 and 56, both dated 21.05.2019 and this objection has also been taken by them only in their reply to legal notice sent by Plaintiff to Defendants and never prior to that.
50. PW-1 was cross-examined on this aspect, and the said part of cross-examination reads as:
Q4 : Please see Ex. P-1 (Colly.) at page 32 of the court file, Invoice No.55 and 56 dated 17.05.2019 and is it correct that you printed and delivered 10,000 books of the same title Sargam A, Sargam B, Sargam C to the defendants?
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 46 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:29:59 +0530 Ans. : It is incorrect. (Vol. 5,000 books of the title Sargam A, Sargam B, Sargam C were supplied to the defendants by the plaintiff. Alongwith title Sargam A, Sargam B, Sargam C, there was a book of alphabet and 5,000 books of that were also supplied to the defendants by the plaintiff. Again revised books 5,000 in number titled Sargam A, Sargam B, Sargam C and 5,000 books of alphabet were supplied to the defendants by the plaintiff because it was not so mentioned in regard to the first set of books that those contained coding. Thereafter, the plaintiff was supplied with a device and plaintiff was required to check at random, if the said device was working on code. If the books contained the code in its portions, the device was working and if the portion of the books did not contain the code, the device was not working.)
51. No suggestion was put to PW-1 that he was deposing falsely in his volunteered statement. Therefore, PW-1 proved that the working of the device/pen in Speaking Books was Dependent on the Code and not on printing.
52. During his further cross-examination, PW-1 was put following questions in respect of invoices.
"Q23 : Have you rounded up the number of books in any other Invoices except Invoice No.55 and 56?
Ans. : Yes. [Vol. Manufacturing of books involves two processes majorly, one is printing (invoices raised in round figure in terms of thousands), second process is binding (invoices raised in terms of books delivered).] Q24 : Which of the invoices, have you charged the defendants on the basis of round figure as opposed to actual figures?
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 47 of 78 NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:30:05 +0530 Ans. : 55, 56, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 106, 107, 145 and 249 (all printing invoices) Q25 : Do you have any record of actual books printed against these Invoices and not the round figures?
Ans. : Yes. (Vol. Invoices No.64, 111, 118, 121, 129, 151 and 281.)"
53. Again no suggestions were put to PW-1 that these answers were incorrect.
54. Further, DW-1 and DW-2 have admitted that they never disputed the invoices raised by the Plaintiff. In respect of invoices, DW-1 answered during her cross-examination as:
Q43 : Can you show from record any document / communication whereby defendants raised any issue with respect of the Invoices issued by the plaintiff till the issuance of reply to legal notice?
Ans. : No.
55. In respect of invoices, DW-2 answered during his cross- examination as:
"Q44 : Can you show from record any document / communication whereby defendants raised any issue with respect of the Invoices issued by the plaintiff till the issuance of reply to legal notice?
Ans. : No. (Vol. We never disputed the Invoices.)"
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 48 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:30:12 +0530
56. Therefore, the Defendants failed miserably to prove that Plaintiff has raised more than one bill for the set of same books.
57. The Defendants have raised a plea that Defendants issued 4 undated cheques of Rs.5,00,000/- each to the Plaintiff since delivery of the books was not completed by the Plaintiff and after receiving all the paper worth lakhs of rupees, the Plaintiff started demanding upfront payments from the Defendants and insisted that he would complete delivery of all the books only when he is given security cheque worth Rs.20,00,000/-. Defendants have also submitted that it was mutually agreed that the said cheques would not be presented until and unless all the books have been printed correctly as required by the Defendants and delivered to them. DW-1 and DW-2 have made similar depositions in their respective affidavits of evidence as that of Defendants in their written statement in this regard.
58. PW-1 denied these submissions in the replication as well as in his cross-examination which reads as:
"Q35 : How many cheques were handed over to you by representatives of the defendants and when?
Ans. : 4 cheques of Rs.5,00,000/- each in the month of September, 2019.
Q36 : Were these 4 cheques undated, when they were handed over to you?
Ans. : Two of the cheques were dated. Again said, I do not remember, if the cheques were dated or not."
NEERA CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 49 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:30:19 +0530 Q47 : I put it to you that the defendants had handed over undated cheques as security for printing the books forming subject matter of the present suit. What do you have to say?
Ans. : It is incorrect. (Vol. Cheques were issued after delivery of the complete books."
59. The submissions of Defendants about how and why these cheques were issued as security cheques are contradictory to their own statements as in the Written Statement as well as in affidavit of evidence of DW-1 and DW-2, it has been stated that in the month of September 2019, the Plaintiff completed the delivery of 5000 books of 32 titles. When the delivery of books was complete in September 2019, there was no reason for the Defendants to issue security cheques under any threat on part of Plaintiff that he would not deliver the books unless the Defendants issue security cheques to him.
60. The books were admittedly delivered by the Plaintiff in tranches, and the Defendants have not placed anything on record to show that there was delay on part of Plaintiff to provide the delivery of any of the tranches of the books. Even the WhatsApp Chat, Ex. D-1(Colly) placed on record by the Defendant in which representatives of both sides as well as that of designer were parties, no such chat reflects any complaint or grievance of Defendants against the Plaintiff in respect of delayed delivery of books or defective printing of books because of Plaintiff.
61. It is the case of Defendants that in the month of February 2020, the Defendants received multiple complaints from the marketing personnel CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 50 of 78 NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:30:26 +0530 and the schools that many of the titles were not functioning properly, and it was then that the books were checked by the Defendants. The Defendants have not filed any such alleged complaint from the marketing personnel and the schools on record nor was any tendered by any of the witnesses of Defendants.
62. When it was not in knowledge of Defendants till February 2020 that many of the titles were not functioning properly, Defendants could not have told the Plaintiff to not to present the cheques unless told by Defendants or that those cheques had been issued by the Defendants as security cheques.
63. DW-1 and DW-2 in their affidavits of evidence also deposed that these 4 cheques were issued by the Defendants to the Plaintiff as a security cheque due to threats extended by Plaintiff that he would not give the timely delivery of books if cheques of Rs.20,00,000/- are not issued to him as security. They were cross-examined on this aspect, and their cross- examination is referred below.
64. Cross-examination of DW-1 reads as:
"Q24 : Can you show from record any document / communication / message written by the defendants to the plaintiff till the date of issuance of reply dated 22.12.2021 to legal notice which shows that 4 cheques in question were handed over to the plaintiff as security?
Ans. : I need to check.
At this stage, witness is shown the court file.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 51 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:30:33 +0530 Q25 : Can you show it from the record?
Ans. : E-mail dated 25.02.2020 sent by the defendants to the plaintiff mentions that we have issued 4 cheques of Rs.5 Lakh each, out of which one cheque is cleared and remaining 3 cheques will be kept on hold until we decide on the issues.
Q26 : Is it correct that it is nowhere mentioned in the said e-mail that the said cheques were issued as security? Ans. : It is correct. (Vol. Verbally, it was informed to him that it was security cheques and dates were not mentioned.) It is wrong to suggest that the plaintiff was not informed verbally that it was security cheques.
Q27 : Can you tell when was the first cheque bearing No.469546 deposited and honoured?
Ans. : I do not remember the exact date. It was cleared somewhere in the month of September / October, 2019.
Q28 : I put it to you that first cheque bearing No.469546 was cleared on 15.10.2019. What do you have to say?
Ans. : I do not remember the exact date. It was cleared somewhere in the month of September / October, 2019.
Q29 : Can you show from the record any document / communication / e-mail / message whereby you objected to the deposit of the first cheque by the plaintiff and stated that the cheque in question was handed over as security?
Ans. : No. (Vol. Plaintiff was in need of funds and it was telephonically agreed that the said cheque may be presented.) Q30 : I put it to you that have you stated in your Written Statement or in your evidence affidavit that the plaintiff was in need of funds and it was telephonically agreed that he may present the first NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 52 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:30:39 +0530 cheque. What do you have to say?
Ans. : It is correct. (Vol. But he was pressurizing for the payment.) Q31 : I put it to you that the 4 cheques in question were issued by the defendants in order to discharge their admitted legal liability towards the plaintiff after the receipt of entire books and Invoices. What do you have to say?
Ans. : It is incorrect.
It is wrong to suggest that the defendants had issued the 4 cheques of Rs.5 Lakh each only after the delivery of entire books and invoices by the plaintiff and not as security purposes that is why there was no occasion to issue or place any communication / document on record stating that the cheques were issued as security. It is wrong to suggest that the plea of security cheques is false and afterthought and the same was taken by the defendants for the first time in reply to legal notice. It is wrong to suggest that the contents of para 22 to 25 of evidence affidavit are false and wrong."
65. Cross-examination of DW-2 reads as:
"Q19 : Can you show from record any document / communication / message written by the defendants to the plaintiff till the date of issuance of reply dated 22.12.2021 to legal notice which shows that 4 cheques in question were handed over to the plaintiff as security?
Ans. : 26th February, 2020, an e-mail was written to the plaintiff that the undated cheques lying with plaintiff which was given as security should not be used until we approve the same.
At this state, witness is confronted with e-mail dated 26.02.2020.
Q20 : Is your answer to the question No.19 is the same.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 53 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:30:46 +0530 Ans. : Yes.
Q21 : Can you tell when was the first cheque deposited by the plaintiff and honoured?
Ans. : Matter of record. I need to check.
Q22 : I put it to you that first cheque bearing No.469546 was cleared on 15.10.2019. What do you have to say?
Ans. : On the record hai.
Q23 : Can you show from the record any document / communication / e-mail / message whereby the defendants objected to the deposit of the first cheque by the plaintiff and stated that the cheque in question was handed over as security?
Ans. : No. (Vol. The said cheque was presented with our consent as the plaintiff was in dire needs of funds and the date was put by the plaintiff on the said cheque after confirming from us telephonically.) It is correct that I have nowhere stated that the plaintiff was in dire need of funds and deposited the said cheque with our consent.
Q24 : I put it to you that the 4 cheques in question were issued by the defendants in order to discharge their admitted legal liability towards the plaintiff after the receipt of entire books and Invoices. What do you have to say?
Ans. : It is incorrect.
It is wrong to suggest that the defendants had issued the 4 cheques of Rs.5 Lakh each only after the delivery of entire books and invoices by the plaintiff and not as security purposes that is why there was no occasion to issue or place any communication / document on record stating that the cheques were issued as NEERA CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 54 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:30:53 +0530 security. It is wrong to suggest that the plea of security cheques is false and afterthought and the same was taken by the defendants for the first time in reply to legal notice. It is wrong to suggest that the contents of para 22 to 25 of evidence affidavit are false and wrong."
66. Therefore, it is noticed that both witnesses of Defendants failed to prove that the cheques of Rs.5,00,000/-, 4 in number, were given as security cheques by the Defendants.
67. DW-1 and DW-2 have also deposed in their examination in chief by way of their respective affidavits of evidence (para 36 of DW-1 and para 37 of DW-2) that due to the threats of the Plaintiff that he was not willing to complete the delivery, in the month of September 2019, the Defendants issued 4 undated security cheques for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each. Relevant cross-examination of DW-1 and DW-2 in this regard is reproduced below:
Cross-examination of DW-1 in this regard reads as:
"At this stage, witness is shown para 36 of evidence affidavit, Ex. DW-1/A. Q38 : Can you show on record any document / communication, whereby you objected to the plaintiff when he was allegedly extending threats to you and not printing the books?
Ans. : No. I have not filed any document.
It is wrong to suggest that since no threat was ever extended by the plaintiff, therefore, there is no occasion for placing such document on record and contents of para 36 of evidence affidavit are false NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 55 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:30:59 +0530 and wrong and I am deposing falsely."
Cross-examination of DW-2 in this regard reads as:
"At this stage, witness is shown para 37 of evidence affidavit, Ex. DW-2/A. Q38 : Can you show on record any document / communication, whereby you objected to the plaintiff when he was allegedly extending threats to you and not printing the books?
Ans. : After seeing WhatsApp Chat, no document has been placed.
It is wrong to suggest that since no threat was ever extended by the plaintiff, therefore, there is no occasion for placing such document on record and contents of para 37 of evidence affidavit are false and wrong and I am deposing falsely."
68. Therefore, Defendants also failed to prove that the Plaintiff extended the alleged threat to Defendants.
69. Defendants have raised a plea of 35,000 books being defective (5000 books of each title totaling 7 titles.) as the same were not functioning properly. The Defendants have submitted that even the name of the titles was not printed properly. as mentioned below:
From the set of books for Nursery Standard 2 titles were not printed properly i.e. Counting 1-50 and All in one Reading.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 56 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:31:04 +0530 From the set of books for LKG Standard 3 titles were not printed properly i.e. Counting 1-100, English Pre- Primer and Maths Pre-Primer.
From the set of books for UKG Standard 2 titles were not printed properly i.e. English Primer and Maths Table Book.
70. DW-1 and DW-2 have deposed that on 21.02.2020, the Defendants sent messages on the Whatsapp Group, Amisee Code Books, informing the Plaintiff of the defects that were seen by them in some of the books examined by them. On perusal of Ex. D-1(Colly), the said submission is found to be correct. However, the message only states that Defendants had received mistakes from parties but that does not prove that defects were attributable to the Plaintiff. Rather the Defendants have not placed anything on record to support their statement of receiving complaints/mistakes from third parties.
71. DW-1 and DW-2 have also deposed that Defendants, through Mr. Lakshya Manaktala, also sent an e-mail dated 25.02.2020 to the Plaintiff raising a complaint that the books had various defects and specifically told the Plaintiff that due to the said defects, the cheques issued by them should not be presented. The e-mail dated 25.02.2020 was tendered as Ex.P-3 by PW-1 and Defendants had written that they had received complaints from six books printed on Mapletho paper and as per the designer they were all printing errors and requested for a meeting at the office of the designer on the coming Saturday to discuss and resolve the CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 57 of 78 NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:31:10 +0530 same. The defendants had also written that the defendants had issued 4 cheques of 5 lakh each out of which one cheque was cleared and remaining should be kept on hold until defendants and plaintiff decide on the issues and resolve the same on Saturday.
72. The Defendants have not placed on record those alleged complaints, much less proving that they had received complaints from six books printed on Mapletho paper. Further vide, Ex.P-3, the Defendants have been able to prove by the contents of this e-mail establish that the request for not presenting the cheques was made by Defendants for on 25.02.2020 and in absence of anything to this effect in any of the documents filed by both sides as well as in the WhatsApp Chat filed by Defendants, it is proved that request for not presenting the cheques was not made by Defendants on any day prior to 25.02.2020.
73. The Plaintiff sent a reply to the said e-mail on 28.02.2020 at 12.35 p.m. The said reply to e-mail dated 25.02.2020 was tendered as Ex. P-4 by PW-1. In his reply, the Plaintiff denied the contents of the mail written by the Defendants and submitted that the said mail was written by Defendants to wriggle out of their admitted liabilities by concocting a false and illusionary story. The Plaintiff had also written that he had withheld the remaining three cheques at the request of the Defendants to not present them as Defendants were expecting payment and would let the plaintiff know when to deposit the cheques. The Plaintiff had also written that since on 25th February 2020, he had told the Defendants that NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 58 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:31:16 +0530 he would go legal to get his money from Defendants, the Defendants had issued the mail on false and frivolous excuses.
74. The Defendants in response to the aforementioned reply sent by Plaintiff on 28.02.2020 at 12.35 p.m., sent an e-mail on 28.02.2020 at 04.49 p.m. to the Plaintiff, Ex. P-5, informing that Plaintiff and Defendants would meet on the next day at office of designer to discuss on who was at fault and whether Defendants were saying correct or wrong and again requested to keep the cheques on hold till the Defendants would have clarity on the issue. No response was given to reply e-mail of Plaintiff that Plaintiff had withheld the remaining three cheques at the request of the Defendants to not present them as Defendants were expecting payment and would let the Plaintiff know when to deposit the cheques.
75. Both sides admitted that they met at office of Dr. Pankaj Jagya, the designer, on 29.02.2020. DW-1 and DW-2 have deposed that they demonstrated to the Plaintiff that the said titles were not working as they had not been printed properly and that during the said meeting, the Plaintiff admitted his mistake and agreed to repair the said titles in small batches and requested that the same be sent to him in small batches starting April, 2020, since he does not have enough space for keeping all the 35000 books simultaneously.
76. In his affidavit of evidence, PW-1 has deposed that in the said meeting, Defendants had admitted the fact that there was no fault in the NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 59 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:31:22 +0530 printing and/or one part of the Plaintiff, and the printing was done as per the files provided to the Plaintiff.
"The relevant cross-examination of PW-1 is referred below:
Q10 : I put it to you that during the meeting held between yourself, the designer and the representatives of the defendants on 29.02.2020, they identified errors in the books printed by you including errors in the text and images printed in addition to the non-speaking defects in the books and you accepted the said defects in the presence of all the above mentioned parties. What do you have to say?
Ans. : It is incorrect.
Q11 : I put it to you that the defects in the books were also shared in the WhatsApp Group created between the parties prior to the said meeting on 21.02.2020. What do you have to say?
Ans. : Yes. (Vol. I have already stated that the prints of the file were taken out as it is and the plaintiff has no right or reason to change its contents. If the files will contain code, it will also get printed and if the file will not contain code, it will not get printed.) Q12 : I put it to you that on 26.02.2020, you undertook to repair the defects in the books and on 29.09.2020, you quoted Rs.93,000/- as cost of the repairs. What do you have to say?
Ans. : It is correct.
Q13 : I put it to you that you quoted the said amount only on 29.09.2020. What do you have to say?
Ans. : Yes.
Q14 : I put it to you that on 27.06.2020, the defendants delivered the defective books at your residence at 56, Raja Garden, 4 th Floor near Handa Nursing Home. What do you have to say?
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 60 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:31:28 +0530 Ans. : It is incorrect.
Q15 : I put it to you that on 08.02.2019, the office of the designer informed you that there are problems in your printing of the books and you never disputed the same or never stated that the defects is in the coding of the designs provided to you. What do you have to say?
Ans. : It is incorrect.
Q16 : Did you inspect the defective books yourself during the meeting on 29.02.2020 between you, the designer and the defendants?
Ans. : I did not inspect myself. It was tested in my presence by the designer himself and his team."
77. DW-3, the Designer, was also examined in respect of meeting held in his office on 29.02.2020. He stated in his examination in chief as:
"Q27 : Is it correct that the representatives of the defendant No.1, the plaintiff met you at your office on 29.02.2020?
Ans. : I do not remember the exact date. But there was a meeting at my office.
Q28 : I put it to you that on 21.02.2020, the defendants sent messages on the WhatsApp group informing the plaintiff that there were defects in the books printed by him. What do you have to say?
Ans. : It is correct.
At this stage, witness is shown e-mail dated 25.02.2020 which is at page No.78, Ex. P-3.
Q29 : I put it to you that after sending the said WhatsApp messages NEERA CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 61 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:31:35 +0530 on 21.02.2020, the defendant No.1 also sent an e-mail dated 25.02.2020 to the plaintiff stating that there were defects in the books and cheques handed over should not be presented. What do you have to say?
Ans. :I do not know if the defendants had written the said e-mail to the plaintiff.
Q30 : I put it to you that after sending WhatsApp message on 21.02.2020, the representatives of the defendant and the plaintiff met you at your office on 29.02.2020 as the defendants informed you that there were defects in the books printed by the plaintiff. What do you have to say?
Ans. : It is correct that there was a meeting at my office. I do not remember the date of the said meeting.
Q31 : Is it correct that the said meeting was held to discuss the defects in the books printed by the plaintiff? Ans. : Yes.
Q32 : Is it correct that the books in question were tested using the speaking device during the meeting in the presence of the plaintiff / printer and the representatives of defendant No.1 and yourself and were found to be defective?
Ans. : Yes.
Q33 : Is it correct that after the books were found to be defective in the said meeting, the plaintiff admitted that the said defects were due to defect in printing and agreed to repair the said titles?
Ans. : Yes.
Q34 : Is it correct that the plaintiff requested the representatives of defendant No.1 to send the said defective books back to him in small batches so that he could repair the same starting April, 2020 as he did not have enough space for keeping all the defective books together?
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 62 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:31:43 +0530 Ans. : He agreed to repair the books but I do not recall whether he said or requested the defendant No.1 to send the books in small batches or not.
Q35 : I put it to you that due to the defects in the books, during the said meeting, the representatives of defendant No.1 agreed to send the books to the printer / plaintiff for repairs. What do you have to say?
Ans. : Yes.
Q36 : At any point of time during the said meeting, did the plaintiff / printer ever claim or allege that the books were defective because of errors or defects in the designing of the books?
Ans. : No. Q37 : At any point after the said meeting, did the printer / plaintiff ever alleged to you or state to you that the defects in the said books were due to defects in the design of the books? Ans. :No."
78. The Defendants have relied upon the aforesaid examination in chief of DW-3 in support of their submission that Plaintiff had admitted defects in printing and non-operation of speaking portion of books to be attributable to him.
However, during his cross-examination DW-3 stated that:
"Q13 : Can you show any document / communication / message whereby the plaintiff had allegedly admitted the defects were due to printing?
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 63 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:31:49 +0530 Ans. : We had Whatsapp group chat which is already on record.
At this stage, witness is shown WhatsApp group chat already exhibited as Ex. D-1.
Q14 : Can you show from this WhatsApp chat as stated by you in your above answer whereby the plaintiff had allegedly admitted the defects were due to printing?
Ans. : It is in the message dated 29.09.2020 at point P (page 9 of Ex. D-1).
It is correct that it is not specifically stated that the plaintiff had admitted the fault in the printing at point P. Q15 : Kindly refer to question No.34 of your examination in chief. Can you show any document / communication / message whereby the plaintiff had allegedly admitted the defects were due to printing?
Ans. : No. Q16 : Kindly refer to question No.23 of your examination in chief. Can you show any written document / communication / message thereby you had raised the objection to the plaintiff about the alleged defects?
Ans. : I did not personally write any communication to the plaintiff. (Vol. Objections were being raised inter se the plaintiff and the defendants.) I cannot show any document / written communication, whereby objections were being raised inter se between the plaintiff and the defendants as it was happening verbally. It is wrong to suggest that since no objections were ever raised inter se between the parties that is why no such document / written communication was placed on record. It is wrong to suggest that no objection was raised verbally and I am deposing falsely.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 64 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:31:56 +0530 Q17 : Kindly refer to question No.22 of your examination in chief. Can you bring any document on record to show that the plaintiff had allegedly printed 100 copies of two titles i.e. Sargam A and Sargam B and sent to the defendants on 19.01.2019?
Ans. : No. Q18 : Kindly refer to question No.21 of your examination in chief. Can you bring any document / written communication to show that you allegedly met the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 after the alleged printing of first tranche?
Ans. : No. Q19 : Kindly refer to question No.19 of your examination in chief. Can you bring any written document / communication / message thereby you had raised the objection to the plaintiff about the alleged defects?
Ans. : No. Q20 : Kindly refer to question No.20 of your examination in chief. Can you bring any written document / communication / message to show that the plaintiff was allegedly having device to check the books at the time of alleged printing of first tranche?
Ans. : No. (Vol. It was all verbal.) It is wrong to suggest that volunteer statement is incorrect."
79. PW-1 was also cross-examined on aspect of printing books having defects which reads as:
"Q40 : I put it to you that in November, 2019- January, 2020, the defendants started canvassing for the said books and the sent NEERA CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 65 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:32:03 +0530 the same to various market personnel for the Session starting March, 2020 and discovered the defects in the books when the complaints were raised by the said persons and Schools, where the books were supplied. What do you have to say?
Ans. : I have no idea.
Q41 : I put it to you that in February, 2020, the representatives of the defendants Mr. Rakesh Verma, Shri Lakshya Manaktala informed you about the complaints received by them and told you not to present the cheques handed over to you. What do you have to say?
Ans. : The representatives of defendants informed me about the defects in the books for the first time by their e-mail dated 24 or 25.02.2020. [Vol. They were not sure of the defects in the books are because of printing or coding (designing).] Q42 : I put it to you that the representatives of the defendants Shri Lakshya Manaktala visited the office of the designer on 04.03.2020 and also shared a list of defects on the WhatsApp Group of the defendants, the designer and you. What do you have to say?
Ans. : Correct. (Vol. But it was not determined whether the defects are due to printing or coding.)"
80. Therefore, the testimony of PW-1 remained unshaken that in all the correspondences between the parties and/or with printer, it was not determined if the defects in the books were due to printing or coding and also that he had not received any books from the Defendants for repairing. PW-1 also deposed that despite there being no fault in printing, the plaintiff had agreed to cure the flaws out of good gesture and kindness. However, the Defendants did not send any of the books to the Plaintiff for repairing. Sharing of his location with Defendants by NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 66 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:32:10 +0530 Plaintiff does not establish that books or boxes of books were delivered to Plaintiff. The Defendants failed to prove that the books were delivered to the Plaintiff as alleged by Defendants.
81. During cross-examination of PW-1 conducted on 30.04.2025, PW- 1 was confronted with a book titled "English alphabet", which was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/DX-2 as PW-1 had stated that coding is not visible to naked eye. The relevant portion is reproduced below:
"Q.: Is this one of the books printed by you for defendants? Ans. :Yes.
At this stage, the witness is asked to use the speaking device on the said book and the witness has stated that he was not provided this speaking device but some other speaking device was given to him for checking. He further says that the said speaking device did not have the mic and some numbers used to appear on the display screen and looked like a calculator.
Q.: I put it to you that the speaking device handed over to you today in the court is identical to the device handed over to you prior to printing. What do you have to say?
Ans. It is incorrect. There was no speaker. It was like a pen and when we used to place the pen on any portion of the book, a number used to appear and there was no voice in the said device.
Q.: Is it your case that the said alleged device handed over to you would reflect a code if properly placed on any portion of the book?
Ans. : The code used to appear only on the printed matter. If there would be no code, the code will not appear.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 67 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:32:17 +0530 At this stage, witness has taken photographs of one of the pages of the book since he has submitted that code will not be visible with the naked eye.
The printout of the same has been taken and the coded portion has been marked as Mark A which has white background and the other portion has been marked as Mark B having coloured background and the printout is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/DX-3."
82. There was no cording visible in Mark A or Mark B of Ex. PW-1/DW-3. Therefore, PW-1 proved that coding is not visible to naked eye. It is admitted by both sides that coding was done by Designer, DW- 3, who also admitted that coding is not visible to naked eye and can be only checked by a lens.
83. During his examination in chief, DW-3 also did not support the case of Defendants as cited below:
"Q55 : Is it correct that on 21.02.2020, the representatives of defendant No.1 had shared defects in the books on the WhatsApp group created by you as visible on the pages 10 to 14 of Ex. D-1 (Colly.)?
At this stage, witness has seen and checked his mobile phone.
Ans. : Yes.
Q56 : Were these defects visible in the ferro copies shared with you by the designer?
Ans. : Ferro copies are different and has nothing to do with this.
Q57 : How have the defects arisen in the books in question?
Ans. : I do not know how the defects have arisen.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 68 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:32:23 +0530 Q58 : Is it correct that the defects have arisen due to printing defects?
Ans. : Because I do not have the deep knowledge of printing. I cannot say whether the defects are due to printing or not."
84. DW-3 admitted during his cross-examination that he used to send the files to the printer/plaintiff in pdf format through google drive and also that the same were not editable. DW-3 also stated that if after reading the ferros, any defect was detected in the ferros, the same used to be corrected by him and corrected pdf file was sent to Plaintiff again in non- editable pdf format. Examination in chief of DW-3 in this regard reads as:
"Q41 : Is it correct that the printer / plaintiff would share black and white samples of the books for checking to your office and that the said samples were not machine readable?
Ans. : If samples were shared, they were ferro samples. Ferro samples are not machine readable. They are only for checking the contents and whether the contents or pictures are at the appropriate place or not.
Q42 : Can you please tell the court, what are ferro samples and how are they prepared?
Ans. : Before making plates, printer give ferro for cross checking to the client. Ferro is a light colour print of the books.
Q43 : Does the ferro have the coding?
Ans. : No. Q44 : Could you or the defendant No.1 check whether the coding has been properly printed solely on the basis of ferro copies NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 69 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:32:29 +0530 provided by the printer?
Ans. : No. Q45 : Is it correct that the ferro copies are prepared by the printer?
Ans. : Yes.
Q46 : Can corrections / changes be made by the printer in the ferro copies?
Ans. : No. Q47 : How are corrections in the ferro copies carried out?
Ans. : We send file again.
Q48 : Is it correct that during the printing, you/your office had mentioned errors in the ferros to the printer?
Ans. : That will be mentioned in ferros only.
Q49 : Were these ferros then corrected by the printer? Ans. : No. Q50 : How were the errors then corrected? Ans. : Designer will give new corrected file.
Q52 : Can you explain the process after the ferros are completed? Ans. : After ferro, printer print and bind books."
Relevant portion of cross-examination of DW-3 reads as:
"Q2 : Is it correct that PDF files are uneditable? Ans. : Yes.
Q3 : Is it correct that the coding is not visible in naked eyes? Ans. : Yes. We have to check it by lens.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 70 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:32:34 +0530 Q4 : Did you inform the plaintiff about where exactly the files contain the coding?
Ans. : No."
85. Therefore, the Plaintiff has proved that Plaintiff could not have made out as to which portion of the books contained coding and the Plaintiff printed the contents of the books as were supplied to the Plaintiff through google drive by DW-3, designer, in non-editable pdf format and therefore, pen for reading the speaking books would work wherever the contents of books had coding and not work where the coding was missing. Coding was not visible to naked eye and therefore, plaintiff has proved that the defects in printing in respect of the speaking books not speaking at some portions of the defective books were not due to Plaintiff but due to designer, DW-3.
86. DW-3 had admittedly raised bills for coding to the Defendants, and all his bills had been duly paid by the Defendants. He stated in his examination in chief that Invoices [Ex. DW-1/PX-1 (Colly.)] were issued by his company and the same were paid by the defendants.
87. The Defendants have submitted that the books were not functioning properly. The same is not attributable to Plaintiff as held in the preceding paragraph.
88. The Defendants have submitted that even the name of the titles was not printed properly. as mentioned below:
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 71 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:32:40 +0530 From the set of books for Nursery Standard 2 titles were not printed properly i.e. Counting 1-50 and All in one Reading.
From the set of books for LKG Standard 3 titles were not printed properly i.e. Counting 1-100, English Pre-
Primer and Maths Pre-Primer.
From the set of books for UKG Standard 2 titles were not printed properly i.e. English Primer and Maths Table Book.
89. All these books have been filed as part of Ex. DW-1/2 (Colly) and submissions made by Defendants in the above paragraph are found to be incorrect. Titles of all these books have been printed correctly.
90. Besides that, the Defendants have filed books with four other titles to allege that these books were printed by Plaintiff in earlier tranches which were defective but without specifying as to which of these tranches these books were printed by Plaintiff. The Defendants have not specified in respect of which portion of these books had printing errors. Learned Counsel for Defendants had shown from Ex. DW-1/2(Colly) books which were filed alongwith those 7 books, that some of these books were printed on dirty/soiled paper. However, admittedly, the paper for printing was supplied by the Defendants to Plaintiff and those books were not put to PW-1 during his cross-examination to explain the reason for the same. PW-1 was cross-examined in detail in respect of the books delivered in the delivery challans dated 19.12.2018, 19.02.2019, 29.03.2019 and NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 72 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:32:46 +0530 17.05.2019 and books supplied by these delivery challans were alleged to be defective and the books filed on record besides Counting 1-50, All in one Reading, Counting 1-100, English Pre-Primer and Maths Pre-Primer, English Primer and Maths Table Book were stated to be part of books delivered through those delivery challans. But neither DW-1 nor DW-2 brought anything on record to substantiate that.
91. Rather in their respective affidavits of evidence, DW-1 and DW-2 has deposed that "Due to the plaintiff's substandard work, a total of 35,000 (5000 copies of seven titles each) books were completely unusable and could not be sold as not even a single set was complete and printed properly. Samples of the said defective books have been filed on record and are collectively exhibited as Exhibit DW1/2(Colly)."
92. Therefore, filing of books other than these seven titles is beyond the pleadings and evidence of defendant and therefore the submissions made in respect of the books other than the books of seven titles i.e. Counting 1-50, All in one Reading, Counting 1-100, English Pre-Primer and Maths Pre-Primer, English Primer and Maths Table Book are inadmissible.
93. The screenshots of WhatsApp messages of 21.02.2020 and 04.03.2020 make reference to defects in books titled Table Book, Counting 1-100, Counting 1-50, All in One (Reading), English Pre- Primer, English Primer, Maths Pre-Primer, Shape Insight A, Sargam A, Swar Gyan, Bal Geet-C, Shabd Gyan, Bal Geet-B, Bal Geet-A, Akshar CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 73 of 78 NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:32:52 +0530 Gyan, English Alphabet, giving account of defects in these books. Many of these books are not covered in the titles referred by Defendants in their written statement nor have the Defendants filed many of these books and have not filed any book which is in Hindi language. The deposition/examination in chief of witnesses of Defendants also does not contain any reference to these books. Plaintiff quoted Rs. 93,000/- for correction of these defects vide WhatsApp message dated 29.09.2020. The Defendants failed to prove that amount of Rs. 93,000/- was quoted by Plaintiff for the alleged correction in titles of books of seven titles i.e. Counting 1-50, All in one Reading, Counting 1-100, English Pre-Primer and Maths Pre-Primer, English Primer and Maths Table Book. Though come of these titles are mentioned in the WhatsApp chat of 21.02.2020 and 04.03.2020, however, the Defendants have not been able to prove that how much amount out of Rs.93,000/- was attributed to removal of defects in books titled Table Book, Counting 1-100, Counting 1-50, All in One (Reading), English Pre-Primer, English Primer, Maths Pre-Primer. Further in none of the messages, the Plaintiff admitted that the defects highlighted in WhatsApp chat of 21.02.2020 and 04.03.2020 were due to fault of Plaintiff. If Plaintiff had admitted so, he would not have quoted charges of Rs.93,000/- for correcting the defects and would have carried out corrections at his own expense. In his affidavit of evidence also, PW- 1 has deposed that there was an issue in the designs provided by the defendants/their appointed designer and plaintiff was requested by the defendants to help them in curing their effects and it was agreed that the defendants shall pay separately for curing the defects. The said finding is fortified by the fact that during this period, defendants released payments NEERA CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 74 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:32:59 +0530 to Plaintiff on 19.06.2020 (Rs.1,50,000/-), 09.07.2020 (Rs.35,000/-), 03.09.2020 (Rs.35,000/-) and 09.10.2020 (Rs.25,000/-) which shows that the amount of Rs. 93,000/- was not demanded by Plaintiff towards alleged 35,000 defective books.
94. The Defendants have relied heavily on observation of this court made vide order dated 02.12.2024 wherein this Court observed that the plaintiff has not conducted admission/denial of the books filed by the Defendant with their Written Statement, it is deemed that Plaintiff has admitted the printing work to be of sub-standard quality.
95. However, on the same day, the issues were framed in the present case including the issue "Whether the printing work carried out by the Plaintiff was not of substandard quality?". Onus to prove the said issue was placed on plaintiff. The Defendants did not object to framing of this issue on that day or during trial and therefore, the observations made by this court that it is deemed that Plaintiff has admitted the printing work to be of sub-standard quality were rebuttable and the Plaintiff had been granted an opportunity to disprove them and the Plaintiff has disproved the cited observation of this court.
96. The Plaintiff has proved that the printing work carried out by the Plaintiff was not of substandard quality and it is held accordingly. Therefore Issue No.2 is decided in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendants.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 75 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:33:06 +0530
97. The Plaintiff has also proved that it is entitled to recovery of suit amount for printing and binding of remaining 35,000 books, 5000 copies of seven titles each i.e. Counting 1-50, All in one Reading, Counting 1- 100, English Pre-Primer and Maths Pre-Primer, English Primer and Maths Table Book. Defendant No. 1 is a LLP and Defendant No.2 and 3 are its designated partners.
98. As per Section 27(3) of LLP Act, obligation of the limited liability partnership whether arising in contract or otherwise, shall be solely the obligation of the limited liability partnership. Liability of a partner in an LLP is given under Section 28 of LLP Act which read as follows:
"28. Extent of liability of partner.--
(1) A partner is not personally liable, directly or indirectly for an obligation referred to in sub-section (3) of section 27 solely by reason of being a partner of the limited liability partnership.
(2) The provisions of sub-section (3) of section 27 and sub-section (1) of this section shall not affect the personal liability of a partner for his own wrongful act or omission, but a partner shall not be personally liable for the wrongful act or omission of any other partner of the limited liability partnership."
99. In the Plaint, the Plaintiff has repeatedly stated that whatever business was transacted or whatever portion of transaction was performed by Defendant No.2 and/or 3, it was on behalf of Defendant No.1. Therefore, liability of Defendant No.2 and 3 will be governed by Section NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 76 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:33:13 +0530 28(1) of LLP Act read with Section 27(3) of LLP Act and the liability to pay the suit amount is that of Defendant No. 1, i.e. LLP, alone.
100. The invoices contain the stipulation that 'Bill not paid within due date will be charged @ 18% per annum'. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of sum of Rs.18,48,472.50/- (which comprises of Rs.12,65,518/- as principal amount and Rs.5,82,954.50 towards the pre-suit interest @ 18% per annum on principal amount). Accordingly, Issue No.1 is decided in favour of Plaintiff and against Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.18,48,472.50 to the Plaintiff. The suit against Defendant No.2 and 3 is dismissed.
Issue No.3 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the suit amount? If yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
The onus to prove this issue was placed on the Plaintiff.
101. The Plaintiff has prayed for pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum on the suit amount. However, the Plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.12,65,518/- till realization. Issue No. 3 is therefore decided in favour of Plaintiff and against Defendant No.1.
RELIEF
102. In view of my findings given on Issue No.1 to 3, the present case is decreed in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendant No.1 for a sum of NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 77 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.10 14:33:20 +0530 Rs.18,48,472.50/- (which comprises of Rs.12,65,518/- as principal amount and Rs.5,82,954.50 towards the pre-suit interest @ 18% per annum on principal amount) alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum on principal amount of Rs.12,65,518/- till realization. Defendant No.1 is also directed to pay to Plaintiff the cost of the suit which shall include pleader's fee and the other costs on the scale provided under section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure as substituted by Commercial Courts Act. If the payment is not made within thirty days, the cost shall also carry simple interest @ 6% per annum.
103. The suit against Defendant No.2 and 3 is dismissed.
104. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by NEERAAnnounced in the open NEERA
BHARIHOKE
BHARIHOKE
Date:
Court on 10.04.2026 2026.04.10
14:33:28 +0530
(Dr. Neera Bharihoke)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-06
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
10.04.2026
Certified that this judgment contains 78 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Digitally (Dr. Neera Bharihoke)
signed by
NEERA District Judge (Commercial Court)-06
NEERA BHARIHOKE
BHARIHOKE Date: South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
2026.04.10
14:33:34
+0530
10.04.2026
CS (COMM) No. 245/2023 Ajay Bajaj Vs. Amisee Educational Aids LLP & Ors. Page 78 of 78