Delhi District Court
Rajat And Company Commodities Private ... vs Vedant Enterprises on 1 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF RAMESH KUMAR-II, DISTRICT
JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-08, CENTRAL, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, EXTENSION BLOCK:
DELHI.
CS (COMM.) 702/2025
CNR NO.: DLCT01-009297-2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
Rajat & Company Commodities Private Limited
Through its Director,
Mr. Rajat Goyal,
Office At: 4094-97, 1st Floor,
Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006.
Email: [email protected]
Mobile: +91-9310716928. ..........Plaintiff.
Versus
Vedant Enterprises
Through its Proprietor,
Mr. Deepak Kumar,
M-5/C-7, Jhule Lal Apartment,
Road No.44, Pitampura,
North-West Delhi-110034.
Also At: One Room, 1st Floor
4095/96, Naya Bazar,
Delhi-110006. ..........Defendant.
Date of Institution : 27.06.2025
Date of final arguments : 14.03.2026
Date of decision : 01.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit as filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking recovery of Rs.9,23,542/- alongwith interest.
CS (COMM.) 702/2025 Page no. 1 of 18
2. Brief facts of the case as made out from the plaint are that the plaintiff is a registered private limited company which is primarily in the business of trading and food grains and manufacturing and processing of pulses. The plaintiff vide board resolution dated 18.03.2025 has duly authorized Mr. Rajat Goyal, Director of the plaintiff, to institute the present suit. It is further stated that the defendant is a sole proprietorship registered under the Goods & Services Act, 2017 and its sole proprietor is Mr. Deepak Kumar to whom the plaintiff used to sell goods and made supplies. It is further stated that the defendant has made only part payments towards the said supplies and the entire consideration has not been paid. It is further stated that as per the defendant's ledger account maintained in the books of the plaintiff, an amount of Rs.9,23,542/- remains outstanding and payable by the defendant. It is further stated that the goods supplied to the defendant have been duly delivered and accepted, which makes him liable for payment for the respective amount due from him. It is further stated that this court has the competent jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present suit as the registered office of the defendant is situated at 1st Floor, 4095/96, Naya Bazar, Lahori Gate, Central Delhi-110006 which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of this court. It is further stated that the last invoice was raised by the plaintiff upon the defendant on 20.07.2023, thus the present suit is within the limitation. It is further stated that the present suit is more than the specified value as defined under section 2 (i) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, thus this court has the competent jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present suit. It is further stated that upon non-payment of dues of Rs.9,23,543/-, the plaintiff served a legal notice on 27.02.2025 upon the CS (COMM.) 702/2025 Page no. 2 of 18 defendant through registered post thereby calling him to make the payment of Rs.9,23,543/- but the defendant chose neither to comply with it nor to reply to it. It is further stated that prior to filing the present commercial suit, the plaintiff initiated Pre- Institution Mediation before the Central District Legal Services Authority, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 19.03.2025, in compliance with the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act but the said mediation proceedings could not be initiated as the defendant did not participate in settlement process despite service and consequently a Non-Starter Report dated 26.06.2025 was issued by the Central District Legal Services Authority. It is further stated that having been left with no other efficacious remedy, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking recovery of Rs.9,23,542/- along with pendente lite and future interest and costs.
3. Summons were issued to the defendant. The defendant was served and he has contested the present suit by filing his written statement thereby taking various preliminary objections inter-alia that the suit filed by the plaintiff is false, frivolous, vexatious, misconceived and is not maintainable in the present form. It is further stated that the name of defendant's proprietor has been wrongly mentioned as Deepak Kumar whereas his name is Deepak Kapoor, which has been mentioned by the plaintiff itself in the alleged legal notice dated 27.02.2025. It is further stated that in the alleged invoices, it has been mentioned that 'Broker- Ashwani Deepak' whereas he was the father of Deepak Kapoor, who died in the year 2002, hence it is not possible that the plaintiff supplied the alleged goods to the defendant through Ashwani Deepak and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that the plaintiff has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the CS (COMM.) 702/2025 Page no. 3 of 18 material facts from this court. It is further stated that the plaintiff has claimed Rs.13,27,372.95/- as opening balance on 01.04.2023 but the plaintiff has not filed any documents in respect of alleged opening balance. It is further stated that the plaintiff never supplied the material to the defendant as mentioned in the alleged invoices. It is further stated that the plaintiff did not mention mandatory details in the invoices such as purchase order, vehicle number etc. It is further stated that not only this, an e-way bill is compulsorily required while supplying the material of huge value but in the present case, the plaintiff has not filed any e-way bill and the alleged material cannot be supplied without any e-way bill, which itself proves that the plaintiff never supplied the alleged material to the defendant, hence the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief from this court and his suit liable to dismissed/rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It is further stated that there was business dealing between the parties and the plaintiff obtained several cheques from the defendant for security purposes and the plaintiff in order to create liability upon the defendant, manufactured several bills and also presented the security cheques for encashment in surreptitious manner. It is further stated that even the plaintiff did not issue any notice when the said cheques were dishonoured because the plaintiff was fully aware that the defendant is not liable to pay suit amount to the plaintiff, hence the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that as per the ledger account, the plaintiff has alleged opening balance as Rs.13,27,372.95/- as on 01.04.2023 but surprisingly the plaintiff did not file any invoice to confirm the alleged opening balance amount, which itself shows that the plaintiff has manufactured a false ledger account, hence, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be CS (COMM.) 702/2025 Page no. 4 of 18 dismissed. It is further stated that even the brokerage amount for the purchase as per the market rules were also not adjusted by the plaintiff in the said ledger and also in the invoice. It is further stated that no cause of action ever arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for filing the present suit as the defendant is not liable to pay the alleged outstanding amount. It is further stated that the plaintiff has filed false and frivolous invoices and ledger account and the same do not contain the signature of the defendant and the alleged invoices and ledger account has been manufactured by the plaintiff just to fasten liability on the defendant. Hence, the alleged invoices and ledger account are nothing but a piece of paper, which has been manufactured by the plaintiff with a view to harass, pressurize and extort money from the defendant. It is further stated that though no notice dated 27.02.2025 has been served upon the defendant, however the contents of the present suit as well as amount claimed are contradictory with the said notice. As far as merits are concerned, all the averments of the plaint are denied word by word and it is prayed that the present suit be dismissed with heavy costs.
4. Plaintiff filed replication to written statement of defendant, wherein he denied the contents of written statement and reiterated the facts stated in the plaint.
5. After completion of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide its order dated 20.11.2025:-
1. Whether the plaintiff has not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for sum of Rs.9,23,542? OPP CS (COMM.) 702/2025 Page no. 5 of 18
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
4. Relief.
6. After framing of issues, matter was fixed for plaintiff's evidence. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff has examined his Operations Manager Mr. Satender Chauhan as PW1, who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
i. Copy of computerized printout of master data of the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/1.
ii. Copy of board resolution as Ex.PW1/2.
iii. GST details of the defendant as downloaded from the
GST portal alongwith photocopy of aadhaar card of the defendant as Ex.PW1/3 (colly.).
iv. Ledger account of defendant maintained by the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/4.
v. Computer generated copies of invoices as Ex.PW1/5.
vi. Office copy of legal notice as Ex.PW1/6.
vii. Non-Starter Report as Ex.PW1/7.
7. No other witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiff and plaintiff's evidence was closed vide order dated 08.12.2025.
Thereafter, the opportunity was granted to the defendant to lead his defence evidence.
8. The defendant has examined his proprietor Mr. Deepak Kapoor, Proprietor of the defendant as DW1, who has tendered his affidavit as Ex.DW1/A and reiterated the contents of the written statement. He has relied upon the following documents:-
i. Photocopy of medical prescription as Ex.DW1/1.
ii. Copies of invoices as Ex.PW1/D3 (colly.). CS (COMM.) 702/2025 Page no. 6 of 18
9. No other witness was examined on behalf of the defendant, hence defendant's evidence was closed on 15.12.2025.
10. After conclusion of the evidence of the parties, the matter was listed for final arguments.
11. I have heard the arguments on behalf of the defendant. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff did not argue the matter orally despite giving opportunities. However, he has filed written submissions on behalf of the plaintiff.
12. I have perused the record including written submissions filed on behalf of the plaintiff. On perusal of record, my issue-wise findings are as follows:-
ISSUE NO.1 TO 3
13. Issue no.1 to 3 are being taken up together for disposal being inter-connected. The onus to prove issue no.1 was upon the defendant and he had to prove that the plaintiff has not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts, whereas the onus to prove issue no.2 and 3 was upon the plaintiff and he had to prove that he is entitled for a decree for sum of Rs.9,23,542/- alongwith interest.
14. PW1 Sh. Satender Chauhan was cross-examined on behalf of the defendant, wherein he deposed that he is working as Operation Manager in the plaintiff company and he used to look after the sale, purchase and accounts of the plaintiff company, being Operation Manager. He further deposed that their company is having salesman and their duty is to take orders from the parties through telephone and to maintain record thereof. He further deposed that their sales persons do not visit at the premises of any party for taking orders and that they have only 2-
CS (COMM.) 702/2025 Page no. 7 of 18 3 sales persons, who used to remain present at their office. He further deposed that their company used to obtain KYC documents from the customers such as copy of aadhaar card, PAN card, GST details & bank details. He further deposed that they do not take security from their customers and that the defendant gave order to all the three salesman as well as he used to directly deal with Mr. Rajat Goel and Mr. Sunil Goel, directors of the plaintiff company. He admitted as correct that these are the persons, who are having knowledge about the orders placed by the defendant. He further deposed that he used to maintain accounts of the plaintiff company while the orders were taken by the above mentioned persons and the goods were supplied from the office of the plaintiff company as well as from godown and sometimes, from cold storage. He further deposed that no delivery receipt is issued or prepared by them. He further deposed that their company deals with all kinds of pulses and besan. He further deposed that E way bills are not issued as the goods are GST exempt items. During his further cross-
examination, Ld. Counsel for defendant shown two e-way bills i.e. Ex. PW1/D1 and PW1/D2 to the witness and after seeing the same, he submitted that in these e way bills, the name of the defendant firm is appearing. He further deposed that no handwritten bills were issued by the salesman to any of the customer. Ld. Counsel for defendant further drew the attention of the witness towards handwritten invoices i.e. Ex. PW1/D3 (colly.) (7 invoices) filed alongwith the written statement and shown to the witness and after seeing the same witness submitted that these are the tax invoices/bills of supply, which have been issued from the godown of the plaintiff. He admitted as correct CS (COMM.) 702/2025 Page no. 8 of 18 that the invoices, which they have placed with their plaint, are also bills of supplies but he voluntarily stated that they used to issue invoices on the basis of handwritten bills through computer after the supply of goods from the shop/godown. He further deposed that they have not filed any proof regarding the delivery of goods through invoices Ex.PW1/5 (colly.) but they have received part payments regarding these invoices from the defendant through cheque. He denied the suggestion that no dealing took place between the parties in the year 2023 or that all the invoices i.e. Ex.PW1/5 (colly.) are false and fabricated. He further deposed that Ikshit Mittal is also their sales person and he is relative of director of the company. He further deposed that they have not filed any purchase order regarding the invoices raised in 2023. He further deposed that he is working in the plaintiff company since 2010 and the defendant might have business relation with plaintiff company for last 10 years. Again said, he did not remember from which year the defendant started working as a broker with them and started business as a proprietor of defendant. He further deposed that he has not filed the complete ledger regarding the entire business transaction with defendant. He denied the suggestion that the ledger filed by them on record is a false and fabricated. He further deposed that the ledger is maintained on computer and that he was not personally dealing with the defendant. He further deposed that he has not filed certificate U/s 63 of BSA. He further deposed that they have filed the present suit against the proprietorship firm i.e. Vedant Enterprises. He further deposed that they have not filed any criminal complaint U/s 138 NI Act against the defendant regarding the cheques, which were dishonoured. He further CS (COMM.) 702/2025 Page no. 9 of 18 deposed that he has not filed the cheques having equal amount of which is being reflected in their ledger account. He admitted as correct that the name of the broker is mentioned in invoices of 2023 as Ashwini Deepak, who has expired but he voluntarily stated that he is the father of the defendant. He further deposed that he has not shown the brokerage given to the broker in their ledger account. He further denied the suggestion that defendant is not liable to make the payment of suit amount.
15. DW1 Mr. Deepak Kapoor was also cross examined on behalf of the plaintiff, wherein he deposed that his firm is dealing in the business of pulses, rice, wheat etc. and he used to sell these items on commission basis. He further deposed that he has dealt with the plaintiff from 2017 to 2022 and that he never remained employed for plaintiff for looking after the account works of the plaintiff. He further deposed that Mr. Iqshit Mittal, who was working as a salesman of the plaintiff, used to visit at his office situated at 4096, Naya Bazar, Delhi for the purpose of selling their goods through him. He further deposed that one Mr. Suresh Bansal is owner of 4096, Naya Bazar from whom he has taken the said office on rent. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff is owner of the entire building i.e. 4096, Naya Bazar, Delhi. He further deposed that he used to pay the rent of Rs.20,000/- for one room situated at First Floor of 4096, Naya Bazar, Delhi to Mr. Suresh Bansal. He further deposed that he is having a godown at Gali No.8, Gurudwara Road, Siraspur, Delhi. He further deposed that he had not given any security to the plaintiff when he was dealing with the plaintiff but he voluntarily stated that the plaintiff had taken 5-6 blank cheques from him for the purpose of KYC. He further deposed that in the year financial CS (COMM.) 702/2025 Page no. 10 of 18 year 2021-22, there was an outstanding balance of Rs. 12 to 13 Lacs towards him, which was payable to the plaintiff. He further deposed that he made the payment of aforesaid outstanding balance amount to the plaintiff through cheque but he has not filed the detail of that payment. He further deposed that he used to maintain ledger account of his firm but he has not filed his ledger account regarding the business transaction with the plaintiff on record. He admitted as correct that he was not doing trading business with the plaintiff but he was dealing with the plaintiff on commission basis. He further deposed that the plaintiff used to issue invoices as he was doing business with plaintiff on commission basis. He further deposed that the amount of commission/brokerage was also being mentioned in the invoices issued by the plaintiff to him. He admitted as correct that in invoices Ex.PW1/D3 (colly.), no amount of commission is mentioned and these invoices are issued in the name of his firm Vedant Enterprises. He further deposed that he has made the payment of invoices Ex.PW1/D3 (colly.) to the plaintiff, which is more than Rs.1 Crore. He further denied the suggestion that invoices Ex.PW1/D3 (colly.) are forged and fabricated or that the vehicle numbers as mentioned on Ex.PW1/D3 (colly.) at point A1 does not exist at all or that he has mentioned imaginary vehicle numbers while creating forged and fabricated invoices or that the vehicle number as mentioned on invoice no.13997 is O1LCAF/3997 is also an imaginary registration number. He further deposed that he and plaintiff, both are running their office on one floor. He further deposed that he never received any computer generated bill from the plaintiff. He further deposed that he also issued invoice for sale of some goods to the plaintiff CS (COMM.) 702/2025 Page no. 11 of 18 through third party and got commission and he used to get commission from seller as well as purchaser.
16. In written submissions filed on behalf of the plaintiff, it is stated that in GST registration details of the defendant, his name is mentioned as Deepak Kapoor, whereas in his aadhaar card, his name is mentioned as Deepak Kapoor, hence Deepak Kapoor and Deepak Kumar are the same person. It is further stated that the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant was of 'sale- purchase' and not of commission and they dealt in GST-exempt goods and no GST was levied on the transaction between them. It is further stated that the copy of the electronic ledger of the defendant in the books of the plaintiff, the electronic invoices and copies of handwritten invoices submitted by the defendant, show that the relation of the plaintiff and defendant was of 'sale- purchase' and not of commission and if the relation between the plaintiff and defendant had been of commission, then it would have corroborated by different compliance provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, which is not the case here. It is further stated that the copy of the electronic ledger submitted by the plaintiff with the suit, despite being a self serving document, shows the outstanding amount from the defendant, which the defendant tried to clear via cheques, but they were dishonoured. The same fact is corroborated by the oral evidence tendered by the defendant on 15.12.2025, wherein he admitted that Rs.12-13 lacs were due to the plaintiff. It is further stated that the outstanding balance does not arise from the opening balance of the ledger submitted by the plaintiff but from later transactions of sale-purchase with the defendant. It is further stated that the plaintiff only shares copies CS (COMM.) 702/2025 Page no. 12 of 18 of the electronic invoices with the customers and not handwritten invoices and the same is corroborated in the plaintiff's oral evidence dated 08.12.2025. Additionally, the handwritten invoices submitted by the defendant are fabricated and if these invoices are accepted it would mean that the defendant accepts that the plaintiff has made sales of Rs.3,16,72,293/- to the defendant and that the defendant has made payment of Rs.3,16,72,293/- to the plaintiff and the invoices show fabricated vehicle numbers as delivery vehicles. Hence, it requested by the plaintiff to pass a decree in his favour and against the defendant in terms of prayers made in the plaint.
17. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendant argued and submitted that the plaintiff has claimed Rs.13,27,372.95/- as opening balance as on 01.04.2023 but the plaintiff has not filed any documents in respect of alleged opening balance. He further contended that the plaintiff has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this court and he never supplied the material to the defendant as mentioned in the alleged invoices. He further contended that in the alleged invoices, it has been mentioned that 'Broker-Ashwani Deepak' whereas he was the father of Deepak Kapoor, who died in the year 2002, hence it is not possible that the plaintiff supplied the alleged goods to the defendant through Ashwani Deepak. He further argued that the plaintiff did not mention mandatory details in the invoices such as purchase order & vehicle number etc. He further contended that not only this, an e-way bill is compulsorily required while supplying the material of huge value but in the present case, the plaintiff has not filed any e-way bill and the alleged material cannot be supplied without any e-way bill, which itself proves CS (COMM.) 702/2025 Page no. 13 of 18 that the plaintiff never supplied the alleged material to the defendant, hence the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief from this court. He further contended that there was business dealing between the parties and the plaintiff obtained several cheques from the defendant for security purposes and the plaintiff in order to create liability upon the defendant, manufactured several bills and also presented the security cheques for encashment in surreptitious manner. He further argued that even the plaintiff did not issue any notice when the said cheques were dishonoured because the plaintiff was fully aware that the defendant is not liable to pay suit amount to the plaintiff. He further submitted that as per the ledger account, the plaintiff has alleged opening balance as Rs.13,27,372.95/- as on 01.04.2023 but surprisingly the plaintiff did not file any invoice to confirm the alleged opening balance amount, which itself shows that the plaintiff has manufactured a false ledger account. He further submitted that even the brokerage amount for the purchase as per market rules were also not adjusted by the plaintiff in the said ledger and also in the invoice. He further contended that the plaintiff has filed false and frivolous invoices and ledger account but the same do not contain the signature of the defendant, which proves that the alleged invoices and ledger account has been manufactured by the plaintiff just to fasten liability on the defendant. Therefore, he requested to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with costs.
18. I have perused the record and given my consideration to the rival submissions of both the parties.
19. Before proceeding further, it is worthwhile to mention that this court does have jurisdiction to try the present suit. The present suit has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation as CS (COMM.) 702/2025 Page no. 14 of 18 according to the plaintiff the cause of action arose when the last invoice was raised by the plaintiff upon the defendant on 20.07.2023.
20. Prior to institution of the present suit, the plaintiff initiated pre-institution mediation proceedings, which culminated in a Non- Starter Report dated 26.06.2025 as defendant chose not to come for pre-institution mediation and settlement. As per settled law, the period spent in pre-institution mediation is liable to be excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation.
21. Coming now to the merits of the case. The initial burden of proof would be on the plaintiff in view of section 101 of the Evidence Act, which reads as under:-
"Section 101. Burden of proof. Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person".
22. In his cross-examination, PW1 deposed that e-way bills are not issued as the goods are GST exempt items. It is true that pulses/besan/rice etc. are exempted from e-way bill generation under Section 23 of the CGST Act, 2017, since they are taxed at 0%. Therefore, the absence of e-way bill in the present case do not hamper the case of the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs to prove his case.
23. In order to prove his case the plaintiff has filed on record the ledger account Ex.PW1/4 which shows opening balance of Rs.13,27,372 as on 01.04.2023 but the plaintiff did not file any document on record to confirm the opening balance. Further, the name of the defendant has been wrongly mentioned on the invoices Ex.PW1/5 (colly.) as Ashwani Deepak, whereas the name CS (COMM.) 702/2025 Page no. 15 of 18 of the defendant is Deepak Kumar. The said Ashwani Deepak was the father of Deepak Kapoor and he died way back in 2002, hence it is not possible that the plaintiff would have been supplying the alleged goods to the defendant through Ashwani Deepak. The plaintiff has also not produced any material evidence showing that he had received part payments from the defendant regarding invoices Ex.PW1/5 (colly.). No doubt, the defendant has not produced his statement of account/books of account but that does not mean that the plaintiff must succeed on said account. A plaintiff has to stand on his own legs to prove his case.
24. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not filed any proof regarding the delivery of goods through invoices Ex.PW1/5 (colly.), nor the plaintiff has filed any purchase order regarding the invoices raised in the year 2023. The plaintiff has also not produced any documentary evidence or communication showing any demand for payment from the defendant during the period between the alleged delivery of goods and issuance of the legal notice. Further, there is no acknowledgment of the defendant on the invoices Ex.PW1/5 (colly.) filed on record, hence the plaintiff has failed to prove actual delivery of goods to the defendant. There is no material evidence on record to prove that delievery of the goods was made to the defendant. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Harish Mansukhani Vs. Ashok Jain, RFA 4/2008 that "acknowledgment or delivery of goods is necessary to prove delivery of goods". It is also quite surprising that in the present suit, the plaintiff has claimed Rs.9,23,542/- from the defendant towards outstanding amount, whereas in the legal notice Ex.PW1/6, the plaintiff has claimed Rs.11,29,129.70/- from the defendant towards outstanding amount, which also creates a doubt CS (COMM.) 702/2025 Page no. 16 of 18 on the version of the plaintiff. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that invoices and ledger produced by the plaintiff appear to be self-serving, prepared unilaterally, and insufficient to establish any liability against the defendant.
25. Furthermore, all the documents placed on record by the plaintiff are computer generated. The plaintiff has not filed certificate under Section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 in respect of computer generated documents. The electronic evidence produced before the court should have been in accordance with the statute and should have complied with the certification requirement, for it to be admissible in the court of law. Therefore, the computer generated documents cannot be read in evidence since the plaintiff has not complied with the provisions of Section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. So, the plaintiff is having no documentary evidence in his possession to prove his case. Mere raising of bills and reflecting the same in the statement of account is not good evidence without establishing delivery of the goods under the bills. This court finds that the plaintiff has failed to discharge his burden of proving supply of goods to the defendant and the alleged balance liability of Rs.9,23,542/-. In the absence of credible and corroborative evidence, the plaintiff's version cannot be accepted as no cause of action has arisen in his favour. Therefore, it is held that the plaintiff has not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts and that he has failed to prove his case and as such he is not entitled for a decree for sum of Rs.9,23,542/- alongwith interest. Issue no.1 to 3 are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
CS (COMM.) 702/2025 Page no. 17 of 18 RELIEF
26. In view of forgoing discussion, this court concludes that the plaintiff has failed to discharge its onus of proof and accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
27. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance. Digitally signed by RAMESH (Announced in open court on 01.04.2026).
RAMESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.04.01
15:38:51 +0530
(RAMESH KUMAR-II)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-08
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts,
Extension Block, Delhi.
CS (COMM.) 702/2025 Page no. 18 of 18