Delhi District Court
M/S Mauve Footgear Pvt Ltd vs Ajay Srivastava on 14 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01,
NORTH WEST, ROHINI, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) No. 421/22
CNR NO.DLNW010048032022
M/S MAUVE FOOTGEAR PVT. LTD.
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED DIRECTOR
MR. VAIBHAV NAHATA,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 311,
VICTORIA CROSS BUILDING, 4/54-55,
SARASWATI MARG, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI-110005
VERSUS
MR. AJAY SRIVASTAVA
C/O- SH. SANJEEV SRIVASTAVA
B-96, 3RD FLOOR CORNER BUILDING(SBI)
PUSHPANJALI ENCLAVE, GATE NO.2, DELHI-110034
......Defendant.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.5,46,169.23/-(RUPEES FIVE LACS
FORTY SIX THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY NINE
RUPEES AND TWENTY SIX PAISA ONLY) ALONGWITH
INTEREST.
Date of institution of Suit : 20.05.2022
Date of hearing of final argument : 12.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 14.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.5,46,169.23/- alongwith interest.
2.1 Brief facts: The facts of the case in brief are that the CS (Comm.) No.421/22 M/s Mauve Footgear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Srivastava 1/14 plaintiff, M/s Mauve Footgear Pvt. Ltd., is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of fabrication, sale and purchase of men's and women's readymade garments and allied items. The present suit has been instituted through its Director, Mr. Vaibhav Nahata, who is duly authorized vide Board Resolution dated 11.08.2021.
2.2 It is stated that the defendant, Mr. Ajay Srivastava, Proprietor of M/s D.S. Fabrication, is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of readymade garments and allied items. That during the course of regular business dealings, the defendant placed several orders in the first and second week of January 2021 for supply of jackets, shirts and trousers. Pursuant to the said orders, the plaintiff supplied the goods at the defendant's place of business at Haiderpur Village, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. The goods were duly received and accepted by the defendant to his entire satisfaction without any protest or demur. The plaintiff raised invoices dated 04.01.2021, 05.01.2021 and 09.01.2021 for a total amount of ₹5,65,409.26.
2.3 It is stated that out of the supplied goods, the defendant returned 30 pieces of jackets against Credit Note No. 21 dated 04.01.2021 for an amount of ₹19,240, which was duly adjusted in his account. That after adjustment, the outstanding balance payable by the defendant to the plaintiff stood at ₹5,46,169.26.
2.4 It is stated that in discharge of the aforesaid liability, the defendant issued three cheques bearing Nos. 144034 dated 05.03.2021 for ₹3,10,538, 144035 dated 06.03.2021 for ₹14,868 and 144036 dated 10.03.2021 for ₹2,20,815/-, all drawn on Canara Bank, CS (Comm.) No.421/22 M/s Mauve Footgear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Srivastava 2/14 Wazirpur SME Branch, Delhi. That the cheques were issued with a specific assurance that the same would be honoured on presentation. However, when the plaintiff presented the said cheques for encashment through its banker, on 01.06.2021, all three cheques were dishonoured with the remarks "Exceeds Arrangement". On the request and assurances of the defendant, the said cheques were re- presented on 05.06.2021, but they were again dishonoured on 07.06.2021 with the same remarks.
2.5 It is stated that after dishonour of the cheques, the defendant approached the plaintiff, apologized for the default and attributed the same to financial difficulties arising out of the pandemic and he assured the plaintiff that the outstanding amount would be cleared shortly. That trusting the assurances of the defendant, the plaintiff refrained from initiating immediate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and granted reasonable time to the defendant to make payment. However, despite repeated reminders in the months of July and August 2021, the defendant deliberately avoided making payment and kept on giving false and flimsy assurances. It is stated that left with no other remedy, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 23.08.2021 through its advocate calling upon the defendant to pay the outstanding amount of ₹5,46,169.26 along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The defendant deliberately avoided receiving the said notice and the same was returned with the remarks "iss pate par koi firm nahi hai".
2.6 It is stated that the plaintiff also approached the North West Delhi Legal Services Authority for pre-litigation mediation.
CS (Comm.) No.421/22 M/s Mauve Footgear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Srivastava 3/14 Notices were issued to the defendant for appearance on 18.04.2022 and 10.05.2022. However, the defendant failed to appear and no response was received, as a result of which a non-starter report was issued.
2.7 It is stated that the cause of action for filing the present suit first arose in the first and second week of January, 2021 when the defendant placed orders upon the plaintiff for purchase of various readymade garments. That it further arose when the plaintiff supplied and delivered the said goods to the defendant at his place of business to his complete satisfaction and raised invoices for a total sum of ₹5,65,409.26. The cause of action further arose when the defendant returned 30 pieces of Jackets-New (HSN/SAC 6103) vide Credit Note No. 21 dated 04.01.2021 and an amount of ₹19,240/- was credited in his account, leaving a balance outstanding of ₹5,46,169.26. The cause of action further arose on 05.03.2021, 06.03.2021 and 10.03.2021 when the defendant, in discharge of his admitted and liquidated liability, issued three cheques in favour of the plaintiff. That the cause of action further arose on various subsequent dates when the plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendant to clear the outstanding amount, but the defendant failed and neglected to make payment. That the cause of action further arose on 23.08.2021 when the plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice calling upon the defendant to pay the outstanding amount along with accrued interest within 15 days from the receipt of the notice. That the cause of action further arose on 19.05.2022 when the non-starter report was issued by the North West Delhi Legal Services Authority.
2.8. It is stated that the orders were placed at New Delhi and CS (Comm.) No.421/22 M/s Mauve Footgear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Srivastava 4/14 the goods were supplied and delivered within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.
2.9 The plaintiff has prayed for decree for recovery of Rs. 5,46,169.26/- along with 24% interest per annum from the defendant until full payment, and also requests that the costs of the suit be awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
3. Vide order dated 20.05.2022 the summons of the suit were issued to the defendants. The defendant was served through his account on 03.02.2023. however, despite service, none appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded exparte vide order dated 31.03.2023 and the matter was fixed for the exparte evidence of the plaintiff.
4. In the exparte evidence, the plaintiff Sh.Vaibhaw Nahata examined himself as PW-1. He adduced his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the PW1/AR of the plaintiff has reiterated the submissions made in the plaint. He has relied upon the following documents:-
1. The Certified copy of the resolution dated 11.08.2011 Ex.PW1/1.
2. Computer generated copy of the master record of the plaintiff obtained from the website of Registrar of Company, Ex.PW1/2.
3. Computer Generated Tax invoice no.2020-21/747 dated 04.01.2021 Ex.PW1/3.
4. Computer Generated Tax invoice no.2020-21/751 dated 05.01.2021 Ex.PW1/4.
CS (Comm.) No.421/22 M/s Mauve Footgear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Srivastava 5/14
5. Computer Generated Tax invoice no.2020-21/773 dated 09.01.2021 Ex.PW1/5.
6. Computer Generated Tax invoice credit note no.21 dated 04.01.2021 Ex.PW1/6.
7. Computer Generated ledger statement of account Ex.PW1/7.
8. Original cheque bearing no.144034 dated 05.03.2021 for an amount of Rs.3,10,538/- Ex.PW1/8.
9. Original cheque returning memo dated 01.06.2021 and dated 07.06.2021 respectively, Ex.PW1/9 (colly).
10. Original cheque bearing no.144035 dated 06.03.2021 for an amount of Rs. 14,868/- Ex.PW1/10.
11. Original cheque returning memo dated 01.06.2021 and dated 07.06.2021 respectively, Ex.PW1/11 (colly).
12. Original cheque bearing no.144036 dated 10.03.2021 for an amount of Rs.2,20,815/- Ex.PW1/12.
13. Original cheque returning memo dated 01.06.2021 and dated 07.06.2021 respectively, Ex.PW1/13 (colly).
14. The office copy of the legal notice dated 23.08.2021 along with postal receipt Ex.PW1/14.
15. Original returned postal envelope containing legal notice dated 23.08.2021 Ex.PW1/15.
17. The non-starter report Ex.PW1/17.
18. The certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is now Ex.PW1/18.
5. The defendant remained exparte during the trial and CS (Comm.) No.421/22 M/s Mauve Footgear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Srivastava 6/14 testimony of the PW1/plaintiff has gone unchallanged/unrebutted. No other witness has been examined on behalf of plaintiff and PE was closed on 15.02.2025.
6. Final arguments advanced by Sh.Amrendra Kumar, Ld.counsel for plaintiff were heard. It is argued by Ld.counsel for plaintiff that the defendant has failed to make the payment despite receipt of goods and the cheques issued by the defendant were dishonoured. That the deposition of the PW1/AR of the plaintiff has gone unchallanged/unrebutted. That in view of deposition of PW1 and documents placed on record, the decree as prayed may kindly be passed.
7. I have considered the submissions made by Ld.counsel for plaintiff and perused the entire material on record.
8. It is well settled law that even in the exparte suit or where the defence of defendant is struck off, the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs. The weakness of the defendant does not give ipso facto right to the plaintiff to get the relief from the court of law. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Harish Mansukhani vs. Ashok Jain reported as 2009(109) DRJ (DB) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that the plaintiff has to prove his own case in accordance with the law and has to stand on his own legs. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in another judgment titled as Sunil Dang vs. RL Gupta reported as CS(OS) 1617/2007 decided on 13.01.2009 has held that on the contrary if the defendant is ex parte, the onus is high on the plaintiff CS (Comm.) No.421/22 M/s Mauve Footgear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Srivastava 7/14 to prove its case and when the defendant is contesting the matter, the fact, which are not disputed are deemed to be proved and need not to be proved. Further when the defendant fails to appear, there can be no admission and the plaintiff has to prove the entire case in accordance with law.
9. It may be relevant now to consider the law pertaining to discharge of burden of proof of the issues as relevant and applicable to the Civil Jurisdiction. In the binding authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in M/s. Gian Chand & Brothers and Another v. Rattan Lal@ Rattan Singh: [2013] 3 S.C.R. 601; it has been laid down:-
1.3. It is well settled principle of law that a person who asserts a particular fact is required to affirmatively establish it. The burden of proving the facts rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative issues and not the party who denies it but the said principle may not be universal in its application and there may be an exception thereto.
10. The various aspects of proving the facts of a case and exceptions, if any, have been duly considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Anil Rishi vs Gurbaksh Singh in Appeal (civil) 2413 of 2006 on 2 May, 2006, wherein the binding legal position has been reinforced as under :-
"Pleading is not evidence, far less proof. Issues are raised on the basis of the pleadings. Indisputably, the relationship between the parties itself would be an issue. The suit will fail if both the parties do not adduce any evidence, in view of Section 102 of the Evidence Act. Thus, ordinarily, the burden of proof would be on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue and it rests, after evidence is gone into, upon the party against whom, at the time the question arises, judgment would be given, if no further evidence were to be adduced by either side."
CS (Comm.) No.421/22 M/s Mauve Footgear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Srivastava 8/14 It has been further laid down (supra) :-
"A distinction exists between a burden of proof and onus of proof. The right to begin follows onus probandi. It assumes importance in the early stage of a case. The question of onus of proof has greater force, where the question is which party is to begin. Burden of proof is used in three ways : (i) to indicate the duty of bringing forward evidence in support of a proposition at the beginning or later; (ii) to make that of establishing a proposition as against all counter evidence; and (iii) an indiscriminate use in which it may mean either or both of the others. The elementary rule is Section 101 is inflexible. In terms of Section 102 the initial onus is always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same.".
11. As per law of the land, the onus to prove is upon the plaintiff and if the plaintiff discharges that onus and makes out a case to entitle him to the relief asserted, in these circumstance, the onus shifts upon the defendant to prove such circumstances which may disentitle the plaintiff to the relief claimed.
12. For being entitled to the recovery amount, the plaintiff is first required to prove the jurisdiction of this court and the fact that the suit of the plaintiff is within the period of limitation.
13. With regard to the jurisdiction of this court, it is stated by the plaintiff that the orders were placed in Delhi and the goods were also supplied and delivered within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. That the cheques for payment were issued in Delhi and represented with the bank within the jurisdiction of this court. The contention of the plaintiff in this regard has gone unchallanged/unrebutted. In view of unrebutted testimony of PW1, I CS (Comm.) No.421/22 M/s Mauve Footgear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Srivastava 9/14 find force in the contention raised on behalf of plaintiff that this court is having territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
14. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of money for the goods supplied to the defendant. It is stated that the defendant in the first and second week of Janary 2021 had placed orders for the purchase of certain items/goods. That the plaintiff in response to the said orders, supplied the goods vide invoices dated 04.01.2021, 05.01.2021 and 09.01.2021. the testimony of the plaintiff with regard to the delivery of goods and ouststanding payment has gone unchallanged/unrebutted and duly supported with the documentary proof. The present suit for recovery has been filed on 20.05.2022. The law of limitation provides the limitation period of three years for filing the suit for recovery of money for the goods supplied. Therefore, it is clear that the suit of the plaintiff is within the period of limiation from the date of alleged transaction between the parties.
15. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the money for the goods supplied to the defendant. It is stated that during the course of regular business dealings, the defendant placed several orders in the first and second week of January 2021 for supply of jackets, shirts and trousers to the plaintiff. Pursuant to the said orders, the plaintiff supplied the goods at the defendant's place of business at Haiderpur Village, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. The goods were duly received and accepted by the defendant to his entire satisfaction without any protest or demur. That the plaintiff raised invoices dated 04.01.2021, 05.01.2021 and CS (Comm.) No.421/22 M/s Mauve Footgear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Srivastava 10/14 09.01.2021 for a total amount of ₹5,65,409.26. It is stated that out of the supplied goods, the defendant returned 30 pieces of jackets against Credit Note No. 21 dated 04.01.2021 for an amount of ₹19,240/-, which was duly adjusted in his account. That after adjustment, the outstanding balance payable by the defendant to the plaintiff stood at ₹5,46,169.26/-.
16. It is stated that in discharge of the aforesaid liability, the defendant issued three cheques bearing Nos. 144034 dated 05.03.2021 for ₹3,10,538, 144035 dated 06.03.2021 for ₹14,868 and 144036 dated 10.03.2021 for ₹2,20,815/-, all drawn on Canara Bank, Wazirpur SME Branch, Delhi. However, when the plaintiff presented the said cheques for encashment through its banker, on 01.06.2021, all three cheques were dishonoured with the remarks "Exceeds Arrangement". On the request and assurances of the defendant, the said cheques were re-presented on 05.06.2021, but they were again dishonoured on 07.06.2021 with the same remarks. That despite repeated requests the defendant has failed to make the payment of the outstanding amount.
17. The AR of the plaintiff to prove his case has examined himself as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A he has reiterated the contents of plaint and relied upon the documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/18. The certified copy of the resolution dated 11.08.2011, Ex.PW1/1, stands duly proved and establishes the authority of the authorised representative to institute and prosecute the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff company. The computer generated master record of the plaintiff company obtained from the website of the Registrar of CS (Comm.) No.421/22 M/s Mauve Footgear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Srivastava 11/14 Companies, Ex.PW1/2, corroborates the legal status, incorporation and existence of the plaintiff company. The computer generated tax invoices bearing Nos. 2020-21/747 dated 04.01.2021, 2020-21/751 dated 05.01.2021 and 2020-21/773 dated 09.01.2021, exhibited as Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/5, establish that the plaintiff supplied goods to the defendants pursuant to their orders. The credit note No. 21 dated 04.01.2021, Ex.PW1/6, reflects adjustment of accounts between the parties and supports the existence of a running account. The computer generated ledger statement of account, Ex.PW1/7, duly supported by the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, clearly shows the outstanding balance payable by the defendants to the plaintiff.
18. The plaintiff has also pleaded that the cheques issued by the defendant for payment of the outstanding amount also got dishonoured.
19. Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act laid down that once a cheque is issued by a drawer, a presumption under Section 139 must follow. Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act, raises a presumption in favour of holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability. This presumption is also rebuttable presumption.
20. Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which take form of a 'shall presume' clause is illustrative of a presumption of law. It is obligatory for the Court to raise this presumption in every case where the factual basis for raising of the presumption has been established. But this does not preclude the person against whom the CS (Comm.) No.421/22 M/s Mauve Footgear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Srivastava 12/14 presumption is drawn from rebutting it and proving the contrary, as is clear from the use of the phrase 'unless the contrary is proved'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Singh (2019) 4 SCC 197 has held that presumption takes effect even in a situation where the accused contends that a blank cheque leaf was voluntarily signed and handed over by him to the complainant. Therefore, the Court said that mere admission of the drawer's signature without admitting the execution of the entire contents in the cheque, is now sufficient to trigger the presumption.
21. In the present case the plaintiff has clearly deposed that the cheques in question were issued by the defendant in discharge of his legal liability. There is presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act in favour of plaintiff. The original cheques bearing Nos. 144034 dated 05.03.2021 for an amount of ₹3,10,538/-, 144035 dated 06.03.2021 for an amount of ₹14,868/- and 144036 dated 10.03.2021 for an amount of ₹2,20,815/-, exhibited as Ex.PW1/8, Ex.PW1/10 and Ex.PW1/12 respectively, establish that the said cheques were issued by the defendants towards discharge of their liability. The corresponding cheque return memos dated 01.06.2021 and 07.06.2021, exhibited as Ex.PW1/9, Ex.PW1/11 and Ex.PW1/13 (colly), prove that the said cheques were dishonoured upon presentation. There is the presumption in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant u/s. 118 & 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act on the basis of aforesaid cheques.
22. The office copy of the legal notice dated 23.08.2021 along with postal receipt, Ex.PW1/14, shows that the plaintiff had raised a lawful demand upon the defendants for payment of the outstanding dues. The certificate under Section 65B of the Indian CS (Comm.) No.421/22 M/s Mauve Footgear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Srivastava 13/14 Evidence Act, Ex.PW1/18, renders all the computer generated documents legally admissible in evidence. The testimony of PW-1 has remained unrebutted and unchallenged. In the absence of any defence evidence, the documents placed on record inspire confidence and duly prove the commercial transaction between the parties, supply of goods by the plaintiff, the outstanding liability of the defendants, issuance and dishonour of cheques and due service of legal demand notice.
23. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, oral deposition of plaintiff/PW1 Sh.Vaibhaw Nahata, which is duly supported with the documentary proof, and the unrebutted/unchallenged testimony of the PW1, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has been successful in establishing its case by way of the law of the land. The plaintiff has duly discharged its onus to prove its case by way of the standard of proof required in Civil cases i.e. proving its case by way of by 'preponderance of probabilities'.
24. Keeping in view the above findings, suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, for a sum of Rs.5,46,170/-(rounded off) alongwith interest @ 10% per annum, from the date of filing of the suit, till its realization. The plaintiff is also held entitled for the cost of the suit.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room, after due completion.
Digitally signed by DEVENDER Announced in the open Court today DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA KUMAR on this 14th day of January, 2026 JANGALA Date: 2026.01.14 15:45:11 +0530 (DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi. CS (Comm.) No.421/22 M/s Mauve Footgear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Srivastava 14/14