Delhi District Court
Atul Malhotra vs M/S My Shubh Yatra on 8 December, 2025
CS No. 1069/2022 M/S Atul Malhotra vs. M/s My Shubh Yatra & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL,
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02 (WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLWT030019212022
CS SCJ No. 1069/2022
CNR.No. DLWT03-001921-2022
Atul Malhotra
S/o Late Sh. R. C. Malhotra
R/o Flat No. 42, Star Apartments,
Sector-9, Rohini Delhi-110085. ...Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/S My Shubh Yatra
Through Its Partners
Having Office At:-
A-35, Street No. 3, Pandav Nagar,
New Delhi-110092.
2. Aakash Gupta
Partner of M/s My Shubh Yatra
R/o 517/D-51, Gali No. 2,
Baljeet Nagar, Delhi-110008.
3. Anita Kumari
Partner of M/s My Shubh Yatra
R/o H. No. A-329, Amar Colony,
Behind Authority NCT Delhi,
East Gokulpur, Shahdara,
Delhi-110094. ......Defendants Digitally
signed by
VIVEK
VIVEK KUMAR
PAGE 1/12 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL
KUMAR
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL Date:
08.12.2025 2025.12.08
16:34:14
+0530
CS No. 1069/2022 M/S Atul Malhotra vs. M/s My Shubh Yatra & Ors.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 52,500/- ALONGWITH
COSTS, PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST.
Date of Institution : 21.05.2022
Date of Final Arguments : 19.11.2025
Date of Judgment : 08.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the present suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 52,500/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 18 % per annum.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per plaint, are as that the plaintiff is stated to be a customer of defendant no. 1 which is a partnership firm running the business of tour and travel. That defendants no. 2 and 3 are partners in the defendant no. 1 firm and plaintiff had contacted the defendants in the month of January 2020 for a tour package to Singapore and Bali for his son-in-law and daughter-in-law. That the plaintiff had requested the defendants for a complete package of air tickets and hotel and thereafter defendant no. 2 on behalf of defendant no. 1 and 3, had sent the copy of brochure of the trip for a period of 08 day from 19.04.2020 to 28.04.2020. The cost of total trip was Rs. 1,10,000/- per person i.e. a total of Rs. 2,20,000/-. The defendant no. 2 had booked the flight of Singapore Airline vide PNR No. VQSZDZ and 04 flight tickets were booked through defendant no. 2 for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- i.e. Delhi to Singapore, PAGE 2/12 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 08.12.2025 CS No. 1069/2022 M/S Atul Malhotra vs. M/s My Shubh Yatra & Ors.
Singapore to Bali, Bali to Singapore and Singapore to Delhi. Thereafter, it is stated that plaintiff issued a cheque bearing no. 000216 dated 20.01.2020 drawn on ICICI Bank for an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- towards full payment of flight amount in favor of defendant no. 1 firm which was en-cashed by the defendants. That lockdown was imposed due to outbreak of Covid-19 on 25.03.2020 due to which air travel was banned. That Hon'ble Supreme Court in case title as Prawasi Legal Cell Vs. UoI & Ors in writ petition no. 10966/2020 and writ petition no. 570/20 on 01.10.2020 passed a judgment for full refund of amount of air tickets booked during the period of 25.03.2020 till 24.05.2020. That one circular of DGCA dated 07.10.2020 had provided for total refund of amount of air tickets booked between the period of 25.03.2020 till 24.05.2020 on the basis of said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was ordered that the said complete refund must be transferred by the travel agent to the passenger/traveller. That since his air tickets were booked for the party 19.04.2020 to 28.04.2020, hence plaintiff became entitled to fully refund all his air tickets.
2.1. It is further stated that various emails were exchanged between the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 wherein the latter had assured that the plaintiff would get his full refund. That he exchanged emails with Singapore Airlines also and vide email dated 14.08.2020, he received an email from Singapore airlines (email ID feedbackatsingaporeair.com.sg) stating that Singapore airline had already initiated full refund of air tickets on VIVEK KUMAR PAGE 3/12 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Digitally signed by 08.12.2025 VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2025.12.08 16:34:20 +0530 CS No. 1069/2022 M/S Atul Malhotra vs. M/s My Shubh Yatra & Ors.
10.08.2020 vide RA No. 0005825006 and RA No. 0005825002 to the defendants. Thereafter, upon persistent requests and reminders by plaintiff, defendant no. 2 paid a sum of Rs. 17,500/- by way of cash and Rs. 50,000/- were paid by way of cheque bearing no. 169782 dt. 11.09.2020 and hence the amount of Rs. 52,500/- remains to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present case seeking the directions to the Defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 52,500/- to the plaintiff along with interest @18% p.a. to be calculated from 10.08.2020 till the final disposal of the present suit.
Proceedings of court:-
3. Summons of the suit was issued to the defendants and defendants failed to appear before the court despite service and therefore they were proceeded ex-parte on 08.12.2022.
Thereafter, defendant no. 2 appeared and filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC which was allowed by the court and order dated 08.12.2022 was modified to the extent of defendant no. 2 being proceeded ex-parte and he was allowed to file his WS subject to cost of Rs. 5000/- vide order dated 04.05.2023. Thereafter, WS was filed by the defendant no.2. It is further pertinent to mention that at the stage of PE, defendant no. 2 again failed to pursue the matter and right of his cross-examination was made nil vod. 09.07.2025.
Version of Defendant:-
VIVEK
4. In his WS, defendant no. 2 has denied the case of the KUMAR AGARWAL PAGE 4/12 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed by (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK KUMAR 08.12.2025 AGARWAL Date: 2025.12.08 16:34:26 +0530 CS No. 1069/2022 M/S Atul Malhotra vs. M/s My Shubh Yatra & Ors.
plaintiff and has made preliminary submissions stating that defendants are not liable to pay a single rupee to the plaintiff as per the cancellation policy of the firm of the defendant. That plaintiff has also filed a consumer complaint against the defendant before the District Consumer Forum. In reply on merits, the fact with respect to partnership and booking of the tickets of the plaintiff with the defendant is not denied and rather para no. 1 to 7 of the plaint are clearly admitted. It if further stated that as per the partnership deed between himself and defendant no. 3 Anita Kumari @ Saumya Joshi, there was 50-50 share in profit and loss. That he has further stated that the amount of Rs. 67,500/- which is admitted to be paid by the defendant no. 2 to the plaintiff, has been paid out of his own pocket and he never received any email from the plaintiff pertaining to refund. That he has stated that he is not liable to pay the same asked for by the plaintiff in the present plaint as 100 % of the cost deserves to be deducted as service charge as per the cancellation policy of the defendant no. 1 firm. It is further stated that by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and DGCA notification, terms and conditions between the customer and travel / tour company were not declared void abinito. That the DGCA notification pertain only to air line tickets and out of Rs. 1,20,000/- paid by the plaintiff, only amount of approx Rs. 85,000/- to 90,000/- was towards the air-ticket booking. It is further stated that Rs. 67,500/- were paid to the plaintiff by the defendant no. 2 only out of his own pocket, whereas he was liable to pay only Rs. 60,000/-. that he is not aware whether the ticket amount was VIVEK KUMAR PAGE 5/12 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Digitally signed by 08.12.2025 VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2025.12.08 16:34:35 +0530 CS No. 1069/2022 M/S Atul Malhotra vs. M/s My Shubh Yatra & Ors.
refunded or not by the air lines. Therefore, he has prayed dismissal to the suit with costs.
ISSUES
5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for trial on 18.07.2024:-
i) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery of Rs.
52,500/- from the defendants with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f 10.08.2020 till the disposal of this case ?
(OPP)
ii) Relief.
Evidence of Parties:-
6. Thereafter, matter was listed for PE. In plaintiff evidence, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as well as additional affidavit exhibited as Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B respectively. PW-1 relied on the following documents:-
Sr. Exhibit/Mark Nature of Documents No.
1. Ex. PW1/1 Copy of E-mail dt. 18.01.2020 & 20.01.2020
2. Mark A Copy of bank statement for the period w.e.f January 2020
3. Ex. PW1/3 Circular / Order of DGCA dt. 07.10.2020
4. Ex.PW1/4(Colly.) Copy of E-mails exchanged between plaintiff and defendant no. 2
5. Ex.PW1/5(Colly.) Copy of E-mails exchanged between plaintiff PAGE 6/12 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed by (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK 08.12.2025 VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.12.08 16:34:42 +0530 CS No. 1069/2022 M/S Atul Malhotra vs. M/s My Shubh Yatra & Ors.
and Singapore Airlines
6. Ex. PW1/6 Copy of legal notice dt. 14.12.2020
7. Ex. PW1/7 Copy of reply dt. 05.01.2021 sent by Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 3 8 Ex. PW1/8 Certificate of Indian Evidence Act u/s 65-B 6.1. Since no one appeared on behalf of the defendant no. 2 at the stage of PE, right of defendant no. 2 to cross-examine the plaintiff stood closed. Thereafter, PE stood closed and opportunity given to defendant no. 2 to appear in court and lead DE but he failed to do so and thereafter, opportunity to defendant no. 2 to lead DE stood closed vide order dated 30.07.2025.
7. Final arguments were heard at length on part of the plaintiff. No one appeared on behalf of defendant no. 2 for advancing final arguments and again written submissions were also not filed on behalf of defendant no. 2 despite opportunity being given.
Findings :-
8. Both the issues shall be taken up together as they involve common discussion. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff have not been challenged by the defendant no. 2. The email exchanges between the parties has been filed by the plaintiff alongwith relevant certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. The said emails have been denied by defendant no. 2 in his WS, however, no separate evidence has been led by defendant no. 2 in this regard.
Digitally signed by PAGE 7/12 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL 08.12.2025 AGARWAL Date:
2025.12.08 16:34:47 +0530 CS No. 1069/2022 M/S Atul Malhotra vs. M/s My Shubh Yatra & Ors.
8.1. Judicial notice of the circular issued by Office of Director General of Civil Aviation vide circular no. 4/1/2020-IR dated 07.10.2020 is taken. Copy of the same has been relied upon by the plaintiff as Ex. PW-1/3. Perusal of para 2 of the circular shows that reads as follows:-
2. As per the directions issued by the hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its above referred judgment (Pravasi Legal Cell & Ors Vs. UoI), the passengers whose tickets were cancelled due COVID-19 and are seeking refund can be categorized as under:-
1. Passenger who booked tickets during lockdown for travel during lockdown i.e. from 25th March 2020 to 24th May 2020.
2. Passengers who booked tickets any time prior of lockdown but journey up to 24th may 2020 and canceled due COVID-19.
3. Passengers who booked ticket anytime but for journey after 24th May 2020. 8.2. Perusal of the same clearly shows that the air tickets of the plaintiff which was booked for the period 19.04.2020 to 28.04.2020 is covered under para 2 clause 1 of the above stated circular and as per para 3 of the said circular, the plaintiff is entitled to full refund all the price of the air tickets for the said period.
Digitally signed by PAGE 8/12 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK KUMAR 08.12.2025 KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.12.08 16:34:52 +0530 CS No. 1069/2022 M/S Atul Malhotra vs. M/s My Shubh Yatra & Ors.
8.3. Now, the onus was upon the plaintiff to show the exact amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- was paid for the air tickets only.
For this purpose, the plaintiff has relied upon the email received from defendant no. 1 dated 18.01.2020, i.e. Ex.PW1/1. A perusal of said email clearly provides that amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- was paid towards the air fare. Said email is duly supported with the certificate u/S 65 of IEA i.e. Ex.PW1/8. Again same is further reflected from the document Ex.PW1/7, which is the copy of reply to legal notice given by the plaintiff to the defendants, in which defendant no. 3 duly admitted that plaintiff had made the payment of Rs. 1,20,000/- to the defendant no. 1 firm and that the refund was received from the airline in the bank account of the defendant no. 1 firm. Accordingly, the plaintiff has duly discharged his onus to prove the facts of the present case, whereas on the other hand, defendants failed to rebut the case of the plaintiff. Again, as defendants failed to appear before the court and to step into the witness box, adverse inference can be drawn against them in this regard u/S 114(g) of IEA ( 119 BSA). Accordingly, the version of the defendant no. 2 in the WS that it was the only the amount of Rs. 85-90,000/- which was paid towards the air fare by the plaintiff has remained not proved and on the contrary, the case of plaintiff is duly proved to the standard of preponderence of probabilities that he had paid the amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- towards booking of air tickets, of which he was entitled for complete refund and as the defendant no. 2 on behalf of defendant no. 1 had paid only the amount of Rs. 67,500/-, the plaintiff was further entitled for refund of remaining Digitally PAGE 9/12 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) signed by (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK 08.12.2025 VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.12.08 16:34:58 +0530 CS No. 1069/2022 M/S Atul Malhotra vs. M/s My Shubh Yatra & Ors.
amount of Rs. 52,50/- from the defendants. 8.4. It is further observed that in the WS defendant no. 2 has taken the plea that he had already paid the sum of Rs.
67,500/-, which was more than his liability of Rs. 60,000/- only. However, said plea is of no consequence for two reasons. Firstly the plaintiff had transferred the money to the defendant no. 1 firm, of which the defendant no. 2 and 3 were the partners and therefore, defendant no. 2 and 3 were jointly and severally liable for the transaction of defendant no. 1 firm. The partnership of defendant no. 2 and 3 in defendant no. 1 firm is not a matter of dispute in any manner and has been duly admitted by the defendant no. 2 in his WS as well as by defendant no. 3 in her reply to legal notice i.e. Ex.PW1/7. Secondly, it is also pertinent to observe that the admission made by one of the partners with respect to affairs of the firm amounts to evidence against the firm itself. In this regard relevant Sections of Partnership Act are reproduced as under:-
"23. Effect of admissions by a partner An admission on representation made by a partner concerning the affairs of the firm is evidence against the firm, if it made in the ordinary course of business".
"25. Liability of partner for acts of the firm Every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner".
"26. Liability of the firm for wrongful acts of a partner Where, by the wrongful act or omission of a partner acting in the ordinary course of the business of a firm, or with the authority Digitally PAGE 10/12 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) signed by VIVEK (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK KUMAR 08.12.2025 KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.12.08 16:35:04 +0530 CS No. 1069/2022 M/S Atul Malhotra vs. M/s My Shubh Yatra & Ors.
of his partners, loss or injury is caused to any third party, or any penalty is incurred, the firm is liable therefor to the same extent as the partner".
8.5. Perusal of the above sections of law shows that even though the partnership firm is unregistered, the partners of the firm are still liable for any of the acts undertaken by the firm. 8.6. At this stage, it is also pertinent to mention that as mention in the WS of defendant no. 2, plaintiff had also filed a consumer complaint, however, as per the record, said complaint has been already dismissed in default and there is no further question with respect to the entitlement of the plaintiff in the present suit for recovery of amount.
8.7. Keeping the above statutory stipulations in mind and in view of above discussion, suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with respect to recovery of Rs. 52,500/- from the defendants no. 2 and 3 being the partners of defendant no. 1 firm. Regarding the interest claimed by the plaintiff at the rate of 18% per annum, it is observed that as it was not the agreed rate of interest and again as it was not a business transaction, I am not inclined to grant the interest at such a higher rate and interest of justice will be served, if plaintiff is granted pendente lite simple rate of interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till date of order and future interest at same rate as well till its realization.
VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL Digitally signed by PAGE 11/12 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL 08.12.2025 Date: 2025.12.08 16:35:09 +0530 CS No. 1069/2022 M/S Atul Malhotra vs. M/s My Shubh Yatra & Ors.
Conclusion
9. From the discussion as herein above, the decree of Rs. 52,500/- alongwith costs, is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 2 and 3 being the partners of defendant no. 1 and being jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff, alongwith pendente lite and future simple rate of interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
10. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record after due compliance.
VIVEK Digitally signed by VIVEK
KUMAR AGARWAL
KUMAR Date: 2025.12.08
AGARWAL 16:35:18 +0530
(VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West,THC,
Delhi/08.12.2025
Note- This judgment contains 12 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me.
Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date: 2025.12.08
16:35:27 +0530
(VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West,THC,
Delhi/08.12.2025
PAGE 12/12 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 08.12.2025