Delhi District Court
M/S Professional Impex Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Anjani Technoplast Ltd on 3 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) No.: 586/2024
CNR No. DLND01-0057312024
IN THE MATTER OF:-
M/S PROFESSIONAL IMPEX PVT LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
FIRST FLOOR, HARBANS BHAWAN - I,
DDA BUSINESS COMPLEX, NAGAL RAYA,
NEW DELHI-110046.
...... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/S ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LTD.
THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR/
DIRECTOR/AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
FLAT NO.B-63, SIXTH FLOOR, NAV KUNJ APARTMENTS,
PLOT NO.87, I.P. EXTENSION, PATPARGANJ,
DELHI-110092.
ALSO AT:
6A, ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LTD
SECTOR-40/41, GREATER NOIDA,
GAUTAMBUDDHA NAGAR,
UTTAR PRADESH-201310.
...... DEFENDANT
Date of Institution of suit : 12.07.2024
Date of Reserving Judgment : 03.06.2025
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 03.06.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the present suit for recovery of Rs.7,54,160/- along with interest and costs, CS (Comm.): No. 586/2024 Page 1 of 12 filed by plaintiff against the defendant.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. The case of the plaintiff, as culled out from the plaint and the documents filed therewith, is as under:-
(i.) The plaintiff is a private limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 1st Floor, Harbans Bhawan-I, DDA Business Complex, Nangal Raya, New Delhi-110046 and the present suit has been filed through its Authorized Representative namely Sh. Bibek Kumar Jha, having been duly authorized, vide Resolution dated 20.07.2022.
(ii.) The plaintiff is an approved Custom House Clearing Agent based at New Delhi and is engaged in the business of providing prompt and efficient clearing services to its clients and also arranges transportation and delivery of imported goods to their destination as desired by its clients in Delhi/NCR.The clearing services include providing services at the Port required for clearance of the imported goods.
(iii.) The defendant is a limited company and used to import goods /materials from overseas and for getting the same cleared from Customs, it approached the plaintiff and agreed to pay the fee and other charges etc. to plaintiff, as per its bill(s)/invoice(s) etc. The plaintiff agreed to the CS (Comm.): No. 586/2024 Page 2 of 12 aforesaid request of the defendant and started providing its clearing services and raising its bills/invoices upon the defendant.
(iv.) It is further the case of the plaintiff that the defendant kept on availing its services and getting its imported goods/materials cleared from Customs and under such circumstances, the defendant became liable to pay the bills/invoices raised by plaintiff from time to time for the services provided by it. The defendant made certain payments from time to time to the plaintiff, which were duly credited by plaintiff in defendant's account and the last such payment of Rs.1,090/-, was credited in the account on 31.03.2020 and thereafter, no payment is received in the account.
(v.) It is averred that as per ledger account in respect of defendant's account maintained by plaintiff in its books of account, an amount of Rs.4,32,513/- remained due and outstanding payable by defendant to plaintiff as on 31.03.2020, after adjusting the payments made by the defendant.
(vi.) It is further averred that the plaintiff repeatedly demanded its aforesaid balance due payment from the defendant from time to time, but the defendant failed, avoided and neglected to pay the same on one pretext or the other and did not make any payment to the plaintiff.
(vii.) It is further averred that the defendant accepted to CS (Comm.): No. 586/2024 Page 3 of 12 settle and pay only the principal balance due amount i.e. Rs.4,32,512.65Paise, shown in ledger account of the plaintiff as on 30.03.2020 and requested the plaintiff to waive the interest thereon for almost 2 years and also asked the plaintiff to issue a letter to that effect. Accordingly, the plaintiff issued a letter dated 31.03.2022 to the defendant, thereby confirming about the full & final settlement amount as Rs.4,32,512.65Paise and also confirmed therein that after payment of said settled amount, there will be no outstanding related to this pendency/account.
(viii.) It is further averred that even after entering into aforesaid settlement at its own with the plaintiff and getting the letter dated 31.03.2022, the defendant did not make payment of the settled amount to plaintiff. It is claimed that due to non payment of outstanding dues, the defendant became liable to pay interest @18% p.a. on the aforesaid balance due amount from 07.04.2020 i.e. one week from the said due date of 31.03.2020 and under the aforesaid circumstances, the interest from 07.04.2020 to 24.05.2024 (4 years 48 days) on the said due amount comes to Rs.3,21,647/-. Hence, the total due amount payable by defendant to the plaintiff as on 24.05.2024 came to Rs.7,54,160/- i.e. (Rs.4,32,513/- towards principal amount + Rs.3,21,647/- towards interest amount).
(ix.) It is further the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff CS (Comm.): No. 586/2024 Page 4 of 12 instituted Pre-Litigation Mediation before Delhi Legal Services Authority, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. However, the defendant did not appear in the said proceedings and consequently, Non Starter Report was issued by the concerned Authority. Thereafter, the present suit came to be instituted.
3. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant. The defendant was duly served with the summons of the suit through speed post on 13.09.2024. However, the defendant failed to appear despite service and consequently, the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte, vide order dated 07.10.2024 passed by this Court.
4. In support of its case, the plaintiff has examined one witness i.e., its AR namely Sh. Bibek Kumar Jha, as PW1, who has deposed on the lines of the averments made in the plaint. He also relied upon/proved the following documents:-
Sr. no Document/Particulars Exhibit(s) 1 Certified copy of Board Ex.PW-1/1 Resolution dated 20-7-2022 2 Invoice No.: 18SB7217726 Ex.PW-1/2 dated 29-1-2019 for Rs.1,86,548/-3 Invoice No.: 18SB7217875 Ex.PW-1/3
dated 02-02-2019 for
Rs.39,423/-
4 Invoice No.: 18SB7218805 Ex.PW-1/4
dated 07-03-2019 for
Rs.96360/-
5 Invoice No.: 18SB7219060 Ex.PW-1/5
dated 18-3-2019 for Rs.9759/-
CS (Comm.): No. 586/2024 Page 5 of 12
Sr. no Document/Particulars Exhibit(s)
6 Invoice No.: 19SB7100049 Ex.PW-1/6
dated 05-04-2019 for
Rs.1,16,631/-
7 Invoice No.: 19SB7100224 Ex.PW-1/7
dated 10-04-2019 for Rs.8,686/-
8 Ledger Account for the period Ex.PW-1/8
from 11.1.2019 to 31.3.2019
9 Ledger Account for the period Ex.PW-1/9
from 01.4.2019 to 31.3.2020
10 Office copy of letter dated 31-3- Ex.PW-1/10
2022, written by plaintiff to the
defendant
11 E-mails sent by the plaintiff to Ex.PW-1/11
the defendant from 01-4-2022
to 08.2.2023
12 Non-Starter report dated Ex.PW1/12
17.5.2024
13 Certificate under Order XI Rule Ex.PW1/13
6(3) CPC read with S. 65B of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
5. On 03.06.2025 i.e., today, Ld. Counsel of plaintiff requested to recall PW1 for his further examination for proving some additional documents filed along with the written submissions, which request was allowed and consequently, PW1 Sh. Bibek Kumar has been further examined towards ex-parte PE, whereby he has relied upon three documents i.e., Tax Invoices cum Import Bank Challans as Ex. PW1/4 (Colly). Thereafter, plaintiff's ex-
parte PE has been closed today i.e. 03.06.2025,vide separate statement of AR of plaintiff.
6. I have heard Sh. K. L. Mishra, Advocate for the plaintiff.
I have also gone through the material available on record, including the plaint and the evidence, oral as well as documentary, led from the side of the plaintiff.
CS (Comm.): No. 586/2024 Page 6 of 12LIMITATION:
7. Firstly, I shall deal with the issue as to whether or not the present suit is instituted within the prescribed period of limitation. In this regard, while referring to the relevant documents, Ld. Counsel of the plaintiff submitted that the suit is well within the period of limitation as the last payment of Rs.1,090/- was made by defendant to the plaintiff's account on 31.03.2020. PW1 has proved NOC dated 31.03.2022 (Ex. PW1/10), whereby AR of plaintiff confirmed that a sum of Rs. 4,32,512.65Paise was towards full and final settlement towards the principal amount/billed amount as on 31.03.2022 and after payment thereof, no amount would remain outstanding towards the plaintiff. Further, vide e-mail dated 01.04.2022 (Ex. PW1/11), the defendant is also shown to have acknowledged its liability to pay the outstanding amount to the plaintiff company and had assured the plaintiff to resolve said issue before end of next week. Therefore, it is claimed that since the suit was filed on 12.07.2024, the same is well within the period of limitation.
8. This is a suit for recovery of money and limitation is 3 years from the date when the cause of action arises. As per Invoices [Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/7], which are duly proved by PW1, the plaintiff had provided services to the defendant from time to time and in respect of said invoices, the last payment of Rs.1,090/- was made by defendant to the plaintiff on 31.03.2020, which is reflected in Ledger Account of maintained by plaintiff (Ex. PW1/9). This Court finds substance in the submission made on CS (Comm.): No. 586/2024 Page 7 of 12 behalf of plaintiff that there is an acknowledgment of its liability by defendant, by virtue of e-mail dated 01.04.2022 (Ex. PW1/11), whereby the defendant is also shown to have acknowledged its liability to pay the outstanding amount to the plaintiff company. Since, the present suit was filed on 12.07.2024, therefore, the Court is in agreement with Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the present suit is within the prescribed period of limitation.
JURISDICTION:
9. Ld. Counsel of plaintiff submitted that the registered office of the plaintiff company is situated at Nangal Raya, New Delhi, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. He further submitted that even the invoices issued by plaintiff to defendant also contain the address of plaintiff company as 1st Floor, Harbans Bhawan-1, Near Syndicate Bank, DDA Business Complex, Nangal Raya, New Delhi-110046. He, therefore, submitted that this Court has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit.
10. It is the specific case of the plaintiff company, as mentioned in Para no. 1 of the plaint, that the plaintiff company has its registered office at 1st Floor, Harbans Bhawan-1, Near Syndicate Bank, DDA Business Complex, Nangal Raya, New Delhi-110046. The Memo of Parties available on record, would also show the same address of the registered office of the plaintiff. Further, the PW1 has also deposed on the identical lines during his chief examination by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A). Further, PW1 has proved three Tax Invoice cum Import Bank CS (Comm.): No. 586/2024 Page 8 of 12 Challans as Ex. PW1/14 (Colly), which would show that the plaintiff had provided its services qua the invoices in question at Air Cargo Complex situated at IGI Airport, New Delhi. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that in view of such services being provided at IGI Airport, New Delhi, part cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
11. As already noted above, the entire testimony of said witness has gone unchallenged and un-rebutted from the side of defendant, which preferred not to cross examine the said witness examined on behalf of plaintiff company. Instead, the defendant chose not to appear and preferred to be proceeded against ex-parte, on 07.10.2024. Moreover, the defendant was under an obligation to make the payment to the plaintiff in pursuant to the principle of 'debtor must seek creditor'. Hence, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute involved in the present suit.
12. Since the suit amount is above specified value i.e. Rs.3 lacs, as prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Court has also pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit.
ENTITLEMENT:
13. Ld. Counsel of plaintiff has argued that the entire testimony of PW-1 has remained unchallenged and un- rebutted from the side of defendant and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the decree, as prayed for. He also referred to the relevant documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex.
CS (Comm.): No. 586/2024 Page 9 of 12PW1/13, in order to bring home his point that these documents clearly prove that the suit amount of Rs.4,32,513/- was due towards the defendant at the time of filing of the suit. He, therefore, prayed that the suit may be decreed.
14. As already noted above, there is no challenge to the case of the plaintiff from the side of defendant, which preferred not to appear and contest the present suit despite being duly served. The averment made by PW1 on oath is duly supported by the relevant documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/13, as already referred to herein above. Even otherwise, nothing contrary to the case of plaintiff has been brought on record. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve his testimony made on oath.
15. From the unchallenged and uncontroverted testimony of PW-1, coupled with the documents proved during trial, it is duly established on record that the plaintiff had provided services to the defendant as per its requirements and had raised invoices and despite having availed the services against said invoices, the defendant failed and neglected to pay the balance outstanding amount of Rs.4,32,513/-. Therefore, the Court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the said amount from the defendant.
INTEREST:
16. The plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18% p.a. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has drawn attention of the Court to the relevant clause of the invoices issued by plaintiff upon defendant, which clearly provide that ' All delayed CS (Comm.): No. 586/2024 Page 10 of 12 payments will attract interest @18% p.a.'.
17. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover pre-interest @ 18% per annum as claimed by it, the transactions between the parties being commercial in nature.
18. The plaintiff has also claimed pendent-lite and future interest @ 18% p.a. However, Court is of the view that the same is on higher side. Interest of justice would be met by awarding interest @ 10% per annum, from the date of filing of the suit till the date of its realization. It is so directed accordingly.
RELIEF:
19. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, Court is of the view that the plaintiff has been able to prove its case on the basis of preponderance of probability. Thus, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and the following reliefs are granted:-
(i.) The plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.7,54,160/-
(Rupees Seven Lacs, Fifty Four Thousand, One Hundred and Sixty only);
(ii.) Pendent-lite and future interest is awarded @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of its realization; and (iii.) Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.CS (Comm.): No. 586/2024 Page 11 of 12
20. Decree sheet is directed to be prepared accordingly.
21. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the Open Court VIDYA by VIDYA PRAKASH on this 3rd Day of June,2025 PRAKASH Date: 2025.06.03 17:07:47 +0530 (VIDYA PRAKASH) DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02 PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI CS (Comm.): No. 586/2024 Page 12 of 12