Delhi District Court
M/S Cooldeck Cooling System Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Crystal Air System on 24 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. LAL SINGH,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01,
SOUTH-EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) 134/2024
In the matter of:
M/s Cooldeck Cooling System Private Ltd.,
(Through Its Directors)
Registered Office At:
Shop No. 105, 1st Floor,
Vardhman Star Shop Mall, Sector-19,
Faridabad, Haryana-121002.
............Plaintiff
Versus
M/s. Crystal Air System
(Through Its Partners)
E-2, 2nd Floor, Main Market,
Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.
And also At Registered Office:
M/s. Crystal Air System
(Through Its Partners)
47/5-6, Ganpati Dham Industrial Area
Bahadurgarh-124507 (HR).
..........Defendant
Date of institution : 29.02.2024
Date of reserving judgment : 14.01.2026
Date of judgment : 24.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.5,45,000/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @18% per annum.
CS (COMM 134/2024 Page 1 of 12M/s Cooldeck Cooling System Private Ltd. Vs. M/s Crystal Air System Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2026.01.24 16:32:44 +0530
2. It is stated that the the plaintiff is a registered private limited company under the name & style of M/s Cooldeck Cooling System Private Ltd., and plaintiff is the leading manufacturer, trader and supplier of Water Cooling Towers and its parts. Defendant has been running a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s Crystal Air System. It is averred that defendant had placed a purchase order to the Plaintiff, vide purchase order number, (P.O.No.#CAS/786/5678), dated 10.04.2023, for the supply of Cooling Tower of 325 TR capacities. As per the plaintiff, the total bill for the aforesaid cooling tower was Rs.17,70,000/-, inclusive of all Taxes and plaintiff duly supplied aforesaid cooling tower to the defendant. It is stated that the defendant paid Rs. 11,85,000/- to the Plaintiff in the month of May 2023, in installments. It is also stated that on June 15, 2023, defendant, issued a PDC cheque bearing Cheque No.000681 dated 30.06.2023 for a sum of Rs. 4,35,000/- drawn on HDFC bank in favour of the plaintiff and defendant further promised to the plaintiff that defendant would clear all pending payments. However, when the plaintiff presented the said cheque with its banker at IDFC FIRST BANK, Sector-16, Faridabad, plaintiff shocked and surprised to see the bank memo receipt dated July 2, 2023, and got to know that said cheque had been bounced with the remarks 'Funds Insufficient'.
3. Thereafter, plaintiff contacted defendant over the phone and defendant told the plaintiff that his payment was pending from his customer, and due to this reason, the cheque had been bounced. Further, the defendant promised the plaintiff that defendant would clear the cheque payment and other pending dues within 15 days. After lapse of 15 days, plaintiff requested to the defendant several times through telephonically for the release of the said outstanding payment, but defendant failed to clear CS (COMM 134/2024 Page 2 of 12 M/s Cooldeck Cooling System Private Ltd. Vs. M/s Crystal Air System Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2026.01.24 16:32:51 +0530 the said outstanding amount on one pretext or the other. It is also stated that in the first week of August 2023, defendant requested the plaintiff to install the said cooling tower in Mohali, and plaintiff was ready on the condition that defendant would clear all pending dues. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent labours to Mohali on 06.08.2023 at the defendant's request, and started working on the installation of the cooling tower. Subsequently, defendant only transferred a sum of Rs. 40,000/- in two installments to the plaintiff, on 07.08.2023 and 08.08.2023. Thereafter, despite many requests over phone and e-mails defendant did not pay the balance amount to the plaintiff. It is also contended that plaintiff sent an e-mail dated 14.08.2023 to the defendant thereby requesting the defendant to clear pending payments on an urgent basis. Plaintiff also sent an email dated 18.08.2023 and dated 19.08.2023 and stated the reason that due to the non-receipt of the payment, plaintiffs' labours have gone on strike and requested the defendant to clear the payment, but defendant did not reply to the e-mails. When no response came from defendant's side, plaintiff finally called back its labours. It is stated that till date, plaintiff has received only Rs. 12,25,000/- out of the total bill amount of Rs. 17,70,000/- and therefore, Rs. 5,45,000/-, inclusive of the aforesaid bounced cheque amount, is still pending. Thereafter, plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 01.09.2023 to the defendant thereby calling upon the defendant to pay the outstanding balance amount of Rs. 5,45,000/-. However, despite service of said legal notice at Kalkaji, Delhi address and Bahadurgarh office address of defendant, the defendant did not pay the aforesaid balance amount to the plaintiff and sent an e-mail after receiving of legal notice that material is not supplied completely and thereafter, plaintiff has also replied to the said e-mail of defendant. Thus, the plaintiff has filed the present suit against the CS (COMM 134/2024 Page 3 of 12 M/s Cooldeck Cooling System Private Ltd. Vs. M/s Crystal Air System Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2026.01.24
16:32:57
+0530
defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,45,000/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @18% per annum.
4. Defendant has been served through ordinary process at first address (Kalkaji, Delhi address) of defendant on 08.04.2024. Further, summon issued to the defendant at first address of defendant through speed post was received back with the report dated 26.03.2024 as 'refused'. On 09.04.2024, none appeared for the defendant. Thereafter, on 01.06.2024 counsel for the defendant appeared. In the instant matter, the defendant has filed written statement after expiry of 120 days and therefore, vide order dated 11.02.2025, application under order VIII Rule 1 r/w section 151 CPC of defendant for condonation of delay in filing written statement was dismissed and accordingly, the written statement of the defendant was taken off from the record.
5. Thereafter, plaintiff has led the evidence and examined Sh. Manoj Kumar Yadav (Manager/ AR of the plaintiff) as PW-1, who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex.PW1/A. PW-1 has also relied upon the following documents:-
Sl. Exhibits /
Documents
No. Marks
1. Copy of GST registration certificate. Ex.PW1/1
2. Board Resolution dated 29.09.2023. Ex.PW1/2
3. Special Power of Attorney dated 29.09.2023. Ex.PW1/3
Copy of relevant document of defendant from GST 4. Ex.PW1/4 website.
5. Copy of purchase order. Ex.PW1/5 Ex.PW1/6
6. Copy of bank statement of plaintiff.
(colly).
CS (COMM 134/2024 Page 4 of 12M/s Cooldeck Cooling System Private Ltd. Vs. M/s Crystal Air System Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2026.01.24
16:33:05
+0530
Ex.PW1/7
7. Copies of invoices.
(colly).
8. Cheque bearing no.000681 dated 30.06.2023. Ex.PW1/8
9. Bank returning memo. Ex.PW1/9
10. Copy of legal notice dated 01.09.2023. Ex.PW1/10
Ex.PW1/11
11. Two original postal receipts and tracking report.
(Colly).
12. Return of envelope of legal notice. Ex.PW1/12 Ex.PW1/13
13. Copies of trailing e-mails.
(Colly).
14. Non-Starter Report dated 09.12.2023. Ex.PW1/14
15. Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.PW1/15 PW-1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant. In his cross examination, PW-1 denied that he was not duly authorized by the plaintiff company to represent the plaintiff in the present matter. PW-1 deposed that he is duly authorized by the plaintiff company to represent the plaintiff and in this regard he has brought letter dated 01.06.2025 vide Ex.PW1/DX. PW-1 deposed that plaintiff received the purchase order from defendant through email and Whats App. PW-1 admitted that email and Whats App regarding purchase order have not been placed on record. However, he stated that the copy of purchase order Ex.PW1/5 is already on record. PW-1 denied that no purchase order was issued by the defendant to the plaintiff company or due to that reason, the plaintiff has not placed any email or Whats App regarding purchase order. He stated that the goods in respect of purchase order was supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant through trucks. PW-1 admitted that no documents regarding the acknowledgment of receiving of goods by the defendant, placed on record CS (COMM 134/2024 Page 5 of 12 M/s Cooldeck Cooling System Private Ltd. Vs. M/s Crystal Air System Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2026.01.24
16:33:12
+0530
by the plaintiff. However, he stated that defendant has acknowledged the receiving of goods through Whats App as well as through phone. PW-1 denied that the plaintiff has prepared forged invoices Ex.PW1/7 (colly), as the plaintiff has failed to produce the original invoices. PW-1 admitted that in email Ex.PW1/13 (colly), no specific amount of Rs.17,70,000/- is mentioned.
6. Argument heard.
7. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff submitted that defendant placed a purchase order dated 10.04.2023 vide Ex. PW1/5 to the plaintiff for supply of a Cooling Tower (325 TR capacity) for a total amount of Rs. 17,70,000/- and accordingly, plaintiff duly supplied the equipment and raised invoices Ex.PW1/7 and the defendant made partial payments amounting to Rs. 12,25,000/- as reflected in bank statement Ex.PW1/6, thereby acknowledging the delivery and liability. He also argued that to settle part of the remaining dues, the defendant issued a cheque bearing no. 000681 dated 30.06.2023 for Rs.4,35,000/-, drawn on HDFC Bank vide Ex.PW1/8, which was dishonoured for "Funds Insufficient" as per the bank returning memo Ex.PW1/9. He submitted that though the defendant has not filed ledger account showing the outstanding balance as Rs.5,45,000/-, however, the defendant has given the aforesaid cheque for a sum of Rs.4,35,000/- as part payment qua the outstanding amount and therefore, defendant is liable to pay the amount claimed in the present suit. He also submitted that atleast the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of cheque amount as issued by defendant in favour of plaintiff, which on presentation was got dishonoured.
8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for defendant submitted that PW-1 Manoj Kumar Yadav has no authority to deposed on behalf of plaintiff and CS (COMM 134/2024 Page 6 of 12 M/s Cooldeck Cooling System Private Ltd. Vs. M/s Crystal Air System Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2026.01.24 16:33:20 +0530 hence, he is an incompetent witness and cannot depose on behalf of plaintiff. It is also argued that plaintiff has failed to prove the issuance of purchase order by the defendant against which the material alleged to have been supplied. He submitted that admittedly, the plaintiff has not filed the email through which the defendant alleged to have issued the alleged purchase order to the plaintiff. It is also argued that plaintiff has failed to prove the alleged delivery of goods to the defendant as the plaintiff has not filed any proof of alleged delivery of goods on record and the plaintiff has also not filed any document regarding acknowledgment of receiving of alleged goods on record. Ld. Counsel for defendant argued that the plaintiff has also miserably failed to file the originals of alleged invoices raised against the defendant, on record. It is also argued that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove the issuance of alleged purchase order by defendant, the alleged delivery of goods, the acknowledgment of receiving of alleged goods and the alleged invoices. It is also submitted that plaintiff has failed to prove the alleged transaction between the plaintiff and defendant and therefore, the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
9. I have considered the above submissions of Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and Ld. counsel for defendant and perused the file and gone through the evidence on record.
10. So far as limitation in filing the present suit is concerned, as per the plaintiff, defendant has placed purchase order on 10.04.2023 for supply of Cooling Tower of 352 TR capacities and for supply of such goods, the plaintiff raised invoices Ex.PW1/7 (colly.). As per the plaintiff, the defendant had defaulted in making payment of the outstanding balance amount and in discharge of part payment of outstanding balance amount, the defendant has given cheque bearing no. 000681 dated 30.06.2023 for a CS (COMM 134/2024 Page 7 of 12 M/s Cooldeck Cooling System Private Ltd. Vs. M/s Crystal Air System Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2026.01.24 16:33:27 +0530 sum of Rs.4,35,000/- in favour of the plaintiff vide Ex.PW1/8. On presentation of said cheque for encashment, the said cheque vide Ex.PW1/8 was bounced vide cheque return memo dated 02.07.2023 Ex.PW1/9. The plaintiff has filed the application for pre-institution mediation on 03.10.2023 and non-starter report was issued on 09.12.2023 and this period is required to excluding for the purpose of limitation. The plaintiff has filed the present suit on 29.02.2024 and as such, the plaintiff has filed the present suit well within limitation period.
11. So far as the jurisdiction to file the present suit is concerned, the one of the addresses of the defendant is at E-2, 2nd floor, Main market, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019, as also reflected in the memo of parties. Further, in the purchase order Ex.PW1/5 also head office of the defendant is mentioned as E-2, 2nd floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Moreover, the above cheque bearing no.000681 dated 30.06.2023 for a sum of Rs.4,35,000/- in favour of Cooldeck Cooling System Pvt. Ltd. vide Ex.PW1/8 was drawn on HDFC Bank, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019. In bank return memo Ex.PW1/9 also drawee bank and branch is mentioned as HDFC Bank Ltd., Kalkaji. Thus, this court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present suit.
12. One of the objections of Ld. Counsel for defendant as raised during the argument is that PW-1 was not duly authorized by the plaintiff company and the present suit is not filed by the duly authorized person. In his cross examination, PW-1 Sh. Manoj Kumar Yadva who is AR of the plaintiff denied that he is not duly authorized by the plaintiff company to represent the plaintiff in present matter. PW-1 also deposed that he is duly authorized by plaintiff company to represent the plaintiff. PW-1 has also filed the letter dated 01.06.2025 vide Ex.PW1/DX showing his CS (COMM 134/2024 Page 8 of 12 M/s Cooldeck Cooling System Private Ltd. Vs. M/s Crystal Air System Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2026.01.24 16:33:34 +0530 employment with the plaintiff company. In his evidence, PW-1 has also relied upon Board Resolution dated 29.09.2023 vide Ex.PW1/2 and Special Power of Attorney dated 29.09.2023 vide Ex.PW1/3, specifically authorizing AR (PW-1) to file the suit on behalf of the plaintiff. Perusal of Board Resolution dated 29.09.2023 Ex.PW1/2 and Special Power of Attorney dated 29.09.2023 Ex.PW1/3 show that PW-1 Manoj Kumar Yadav who is also AR of the plaintiff in the present matter has been duly authorized by the plaintiff to represent the plaintiff against defendant as the name of the defendant i.e. 'M/s Crystal Air System' specifically mentioned in the Board Resolution Ex.PW1/2 and Special Power of Attorney Ex.PW1/3. Thus, there is no force in the contention of the plaintiff that PW-1 Sh. Manoj Kumar Yadav who is also AR of the plaintiff is not the duly authorized person to represent the plaintiff in the present case and accordingly, such contention of the defendant is not tenable.
13. So as to prove its case, plaintiff has examined PW-1 Sh. Manoj Kumar Yadav who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex.PW1/A and also relied upon documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/15. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant has placed the purchase order with the plaintiff vide purchase order dated 10.04.2023 Ex.PW1/5 for supply of Cooling Tower of 325 TR capacities. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff duly supplied the aforesaid Cooling Tower and raised bills/ invoices vide Ex.PW1/7 (Colly.) for the aforesaid Cooling Tower to the tune of Rs.17,70,000/- and defendant had also paid Rs.11,85,000/- to the plaintiff in the month of May, 2023 in installments. Thereafter, defendant issued post dated cheque bearing cheque no.000681 dated 30.06.2023 vide Ex.PW1/8 for a sum of Rs.4,35,000/- drawn on HDFC bank in favour of plaintiff for part payment qua the remaining balance CS (COMM 134/2024 Page 9 of 12 M/s Cooldeck Cooling System Private Ltd. Vs. M/s Crystal Air System Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2026.01.24 16:33:40 +0530 amount. However, on presentation, the said cheque was bounced on 01.07.2023 vide bank return memo dated 02.07.2023 Ex.PW1/9 with the reason 'Funds Insufficient'. Further, the defendant had also made part payment of Rs.40,000/- in two installments to the plaintiff on 07.08.2023 and 08.08.2023. It is the contention of the plaintiff that out of total invoice amount of Rs.17,70,000/-, the plaintiff has only received amount of Rs.12,25,000/-. Thus, as per plaintiff, an amount of Rs.5,45,000/- inclusive of amount of the aforesaid bounced cheque is still pending against the defendant and despite requests and reminders, the defendant has not paid the said amount to the plaintiff. It is argued by counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff has failed to file the original alleged invoices raised against the defendant and also failed to prove alleged purchase order and alleged delivery of goods. However, there is no force in such contention of Ld. Counsel for defendant, because the invoices are computer generated documents and moreover, if there was no transaction between the plaintiff and defendant, then why, the defendant has made part payments to the plaintiff as reflected in the bank statement of plaintiff vide Ex.PW1/6 (colly). Further, in the e-mail communications between the parties vide Ex.PW1/13 (colly), defendant in response to the e-mail of plaintiff categorically stated that "As per your trailing mail we do understand your concern & would like to ensure that whatever payment is pending will be cleared as soon as all towers assembled." Thus, this itself shows that transactions taken place between the parties regarding supply of cooling tower of 325 TR capacities and certain balance payments were pending against the defendant for supply of said cooling tower by the plaintiff to the defendant. Defendant has also failed to explain, if there was no outstanding balance payable by the defendant to the plaintiff, then why the CS (COMM 134/2024 Page 10 of 12 M/s Cooldeck Cooling System Private Ltd. Vs. M/s Crystal Air System Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2026.01.24 16:33:47 +0530 defendant has issued the aforesaid cheque Ex.PW1/8 to the plaintiff. Interestingly, in cross-examination of PW1, defendant has not put any question regarding the issuance of cheque Ex.PW1/8. Moreover, in the written arguments also, as filed by the defendant, there is also no utterance regarding cheque Ex.PW1/8 as issued by defendant to the plaintiff. Thus, this silence about cheque Ex.PW1/8 on behalf of defendant, itself shows that the cheque in question Ex.PW1/8 was issued by the defendant to the plaintiff in discharge of outstanding balance amount payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. Hence, the defendant is liable to pay the said cheque amount to the plaintiff. In the instant matter, the plaintiff has not filed ledger account so as to show that an amount of Rs.5,45,000/- is outstanding against the defendant. Plaintiff was required to file the ledger account so as to show the outstanding balance against the defendant to the tune of Rs.5,45,000/-. As the plaintiff has not filed the ledger account showing the outstanding balance as Rs.5,45,000/- and thus, at the best, the plaintiff can claim for recovery of only cheque amount. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled only for the cheque amount as mentioned in cheque bearing no. 000681 dated 30.06.2023 vide Ex.PW1/8 for a sum of Rs.4,35,000/- drawn on HDFC bank, in favour of plaintiff as issued by the defendant. As such, plaintiff has proved its case against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,35,000/- from the defendant.
14. In the instant matter, the plaintiff has claimed the pendente-lite and future interest @18% per annum. However, having regard to the circumstances that the claimed rate of interest @18% per annum is on much higher side, hence, this court is of the considered view that the interest @ 7% per annum would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case.CS (COMM 134/2024 Page 11 of 12
M/s Cooldeck Cooling System Private Ltd. Vs. M/s Crystal Air System Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2026.01.24
16:33:54
+0530
15. In view of the above discussion, the plaintiff has proved its case against the defendant. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.4,35,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Only) from the defendant alongwith interest @ 7% per annum, from the date of filing of the present suit till the realization of the amount. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to the cost.
16. Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly.
17. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedlal by lal singh Date: 2026.01.24 singh 16:34:00 +0530 Announced in the open (LAL SINGH) court on 24.01.2026 District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 South East/Saket Courts, New Delhi CS (COMM 134/2024 Page 12 of 12
M/s Cooldeck Cooling System Private Ltd. Vs. M/s Crystal Air System