Delhi District Court
Regent Engineers Pvt Ltd vs M/S Network Bull Technologies Pvt Ltd on 1 November, 2025
:1:
IN THE COURT OF MS NEELAM SINGH,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-05, SOUTH-EAST,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) No. 111/2024
In the matter of:
M/s Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
Shop No. 1, 1997, First Floor,
Sona Bazar, Bhagirath Palace, Delhi-110006 ........Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
SCO No. 10, 2nd & 3rd Floor,
Old Delhi Road, Sector-14
Gurugram, Haryana-122001 ......Defendant
Date of institution of suit : 19.02.2024
Judgment reserved on : 20.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 01.11.2025
Final Decision : Dismissed
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the M/s Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff), for recovery of Rs. 12,21,377/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Twenty One Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Seven only) along with pendent lite and future interest against M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as defendant).
CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 1 of 31 :2:Case of the Plaintiff
2. In brief, the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of trading in electrical goods and having its registered office at Shop No. 1, 1997, First Floor, Sona Bazar, Bhagirath Palace, Delhi-110006. The present suit has been filed through its Authorized Representative-cum-Director, Mr. Mithilesh Bhagat, who has been duly authorized by a resolution of the Board of Directors dated 20.01.2013. The plaintiff is an authorized dealer of several reputed manufacturers of electrical goods, including M/s OBO Bettermann India Pvt. Ltd.
3. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the defendant is a Private Limited Company having its registered office at SCO No. 10, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Old Delhi Road, Sector-14, Gurugram, Haryana-122001, and is engaged in execution of electrical work contracts for various reputed construction companies, including M/s NCC Limited. It is submitted that on 22.01.2020, in the ordinary course of business, the defendant placed a Purchase Order upon the plaintiff for supply of certain electrical goods of 'OBO Bettermann' brand for its project site of M/s NCC Limited situated at Biswa Bangla University, Beside Webel IT Park, Shibpur, Bolpur, District Birbhum, West Bengal-731204. The total value of the Purchase Order was Rs. 8,67,093.50/-.
CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 of 31 :3:4. It is further submitted that although the Request for Quote (RFQ) issued by the defendant reproduced the words "Supply, Installation, Testing and Commissioning" from the work order of its own client, the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was confined exclusively to the supply of material. The Purchase Order was addressed to the plaintiff's Delhi office, situated at Bhagirath Palace, received by way of an email, and was thereafter duly processed from the said office.
5. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that the plaintiff effected supply of a substantial portion of the ordered goods directly from the factory of M/s OBO Bettermann India Pvt. Ltd. to the defendant's site in West Bengal, where the same were duly received by the defendant's site personnel. The plaintiff thereafter raised Invoice No. TI-0244 dated 25.01.2020 for Rs. 7,11,872/- towards the said supply. As per the terms of the invoice, the amount was payable by 24.02.2020, failing which interest @ 18% per annum became payable on the unpaid amount.
6. It is the submission of the plaintiff that despite repeated requests and reminders, the defendant failed and neglected to make payment of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 7,11,872/-. In view of the defendant's default, the plaintiff was constrained to withhold further supplies in order to protect its financial interest. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant is unjustifiably CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 31 :4: withholding the said payment without any lawful cause and is therefore liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the outstanding principal amount from 25.02.2020 till the date of actual realization, in accordance with the terms stipulated in the invoice.
7. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the plaintiff, through its advocate, issued a legal notice dated 24.01.2023 calling upon the defendant to release the outstanding payment together with accrued interest and legal notice charges. Despite due service of the said notice, the defendant neither responded thereto nor complied with its terms. Consequently, on 09.06.2023, the plaintiff initiated Pre-Institution Mediation proceedings before the Central District Legal Services Authority, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, claiming Rs. 7,11,872/- as principal, interest accrued thereon w.e.f 25.02.2020 and Rs. 11,000/- towards legal notice expenses. However, as the defendant failed to appear despite service of notices by the Mediation Centre, the proceedings were closed as 'non-starter' and a Non-Starter Report was issued on 30.11.2023.
8. It is submitted that the defendant has been illegally and without authority retaining the principal amount of Rs. 7,11,872/- payable to the plaintiff. As per the contractual terms, the defendant is also liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum from the due date of payment. The interest accrued from CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 of 31 :5: 25.02.2020 till 15.01.2024 amounts to Rs. 4,98,505/-, and Rs. 11,000/- stands due towards legal notice expenses. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 12,21,377/- is outstanding against the defendant as on the date of filing of the present suit.
9. Ld. Counsel submitted that the cause of action first arose on 25.02.2020 when the payment of the invoice became due and further arose on 30.11.2023 upon issuance of the Non-Starter Report by the Central District Legal Services Authority. The cause of action continues to subsist as the defendant has failed to discharge its admitted liability. It is further submitted that this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit, as the Purchase Order was received, accepted, and processed by the plaintiff at its office situated at Bhagirath Palace, Delhi.
10. It is lastly submitted that the present suit has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. The period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 stands excluded in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India extending limitation owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the period from 09.06.2023 to 30.11.2023 stands excluded as it was consumed in the Pre-Institution Mediation process. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is most prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.
CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 5 of 31 :6:12,21,377/- along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum till realization of the decretal amount, together with costs of the proceedings.
Case of the Defendant
11. The defendant has contested the suit by filing Written Statement by submitting that the entire plaint is misconceived, false, and misleading, and has been filed with malafide intent to harass and economically harm the defendant. It is submitted that the plaintiff has approached this Court with unclean hands and concocted allegations. The present suit is a gross abuse of the process of law and deserves to be dismissed at the very threshold with exemplary costs.
12. It is submitted by the defendant that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. The defendant carries on business exclusively at its office situated at SCO No. 10, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Old Delhi Road, Sector-14, Gurugram, Haryana. No part of the alleged cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, the suit ought to have been instituted before the competent court at Gurugram, Haryana. Hence, the present suit is non-maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction and is liable to be dismissed with costs.
CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 6 of 31 :7:13. It is submitted that the plaintiff has falsely attributed liability upon the defendant for the alleged non-payment of Rs. 12,21,377/-, whereas no contractual relationship or privity of contract exists between the plaintiff and the defendant. The alleged goods were purportedly supplied to M/s NCC Limited, to whom the plaintiff was directly dealing. The doctrine of privity of contract clearly provides that a person who is not a party to a contract can neither enforce nor be bound by it. The defendant merely acted as a facilitator or intermediary between the plaintiff and M/s NCC Limited, for which it was to receive a nominal commission of 5%. Accordingly, no legal or financial liability arises upon the defendant.
14. It is submitted that no formal purchase order was ever issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged purchase order relied upon by the plaintiff is neither signed nor sealed by the defendant, which demonstrates that the said document is fabricated and not genuine. The email relied upon by the plaintiff dated 22.01.2020 sent at 10:28 by the defendant specifically records that a formal purchase order "is to be issued," which further confirms that no such order was ever placed. The alleged purchase order is a forged document and cannot form the basis of any legal claim.
15. It is submitted that the alleged invoice dated 25.01.2020 has never been raised in the name of the defendant. The absence CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 of 31 :8: of the defendant's seal or signature on the said invoice unequivocally establishes that it was never delivered to or accepted by the defendant. Consequently, no liability for payment arises therefrom. As per the E-Way Bill Rules introduced on 01.04.2018 for inter-State movement of goods exceeding Rs. 50,000/- in value, the plaintiff was mandatorily required to generate a valid e-way bill for transportation of goods. The plaintiff has failed to produce any such document. The absence of a legally required e-way bill renders the alleged transaction irregular and invalid in law, further exposing the falsity of the plaintiff's case.
16. It is submitted that the plaintiff's own letter dated 24.12.2019, relied upon by the plaintiff itself, clearly stipulates under Clause 5 of its terms and conditions: "Payments - 100% against PI before dispatch." Thus, it was an admitted term of the plaintiff's own business practice that goods were never dispatched without advance payment. The plaintiff's plea that the goods were dispatched without receiving payment contradicts its own standard terms and renders its version inherently improbable. This inconsistency itself exposes the falsehood of the plaintiff's claim.
17. It is submitted that the plaintiff failed to provide the requisite vendor registration form or complete other procedural formalities that were necessary for any contractual engagement.
CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 8 of 31 :9:This further demonstrates that no valid or enforceable contract ever came into existence between the parties. The suit suffers from non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff has deliberately omitted to implead M/s NCC Limited and M/s OBO Bettermann India Pvt. Ltd., both of whom are indispensable to the alleged transaction. The non-impleadment of these parties vitiates the proceedings and renders the present suit bad in law and liable to be dismissed.
18. It is submitted that the present suit is a classic example of frivolous litigation, intended only to coerce the defendant into payment on fabricated grounds. The plaintiff has grossly misused the process of this Court and is not entitled to any equitable relief. It is specifically denied that the defendant ever procured or supplied goods to M/s NCC Limited under any contract with the plaintiff. The defendant has denied the case of the plaintiff qua the issuance of purchase order, supply of goods, dispatch, invoice, demand, interest, and legal notice. It is submitted that the plaintiff has failed to produce any contemporaneous document, communication, acknowledgment, e-way bill, or delivery proof bearing the defendant's seal or signature. It is submitted that the alleged supply, even if assumed arguendo, was made directly to M/s NCC Limited and not to the defendant. The claim is thus legally untenable and contractually unenforceable.
CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 9 of 31 : 10 :19. The defendant further denied the existence of any cause of action, the computation of claim, and the plaintiff's assertion regarding limitation or jurisdiction. The plaintiff has also failed to comply with the evidentiary requirements under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in respect of the alleged electronic records, rendering the same inadmissible in evidence.
Replication and issues
20. The plaintiff has filed replication to the Written Statement submitted by the defendant. In the said replication, the plaintiff has categorically denied all the allegations and contentions raised by the defendant. The plaintiff has reiterated, reaffirmed, and relied upon the averments of the plaint and maintains that the present suit has been filed on a valid and subsisting cause of action.
21. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues have been framed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 02.04.2025 as under:
(i) Whether plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.
12,21,377/- on account of unpaid balance against supplies together with pendente lite and future interest @ 18 % per annum? OPP
(ii) (iv) Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPP
(iii) Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 10 of 31 : 11 :
(v) Whether the plaintiff has complied with Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act?
OPP
(vi) Whether no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff for filing the present suit? OPD
(vii)Whether there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant? OPD
(viii)Whether the defendant is not to pay the amount claimed in the suit for the reasons as mentioned in the Written Statement? OPD
(ix) Whether the suit in law on account of non joinder of necessary parties? OPP
(x) Relief Evidence
22. Matter was then listed for plaintiff's evidence. In order to substantiate its case, plaintiff has examined Mr. Mithilesh Bhagat as PW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
(1) Extract of Board Resolution dated 20.01.2023 as Ex. PW- 1/1.
(2) E-mail communication between the parties and official of M/s OBO Betterman as Ex. PW-1/2 (Colly.). (3) Quotation dated 24.12.2019 as Ex. PW-1/3. (4) Purchase Order dated 22.01.2020 as Ex.PW-1/4. (5) Office copy of Invoice no. TI-0244 as Ex.PW-1/5. (6) Proof of delivery of material as Ex.PW-1/6. (Objected by CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 11 of 31 : 12 : counsel for defendant during tendering on the ground that same is neither original, nor even bears the signatures of the witness.) (7) Office copy of legal notice dated 24.01.2023 and its postal receipts as Ex.PW-1/7.
(8) Non-Starter Report dated 30.11.2023 as Ex.PW1/8. (9) Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act dated 15.01.2024 as Ex.PW1/9.
(10) Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evi-
dence Act dated 04.10.2024 as Ex.PW1/10.
23. PW-1 was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for the defendant. During his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that the he has seen the extracts of Board Resolution and the same are not signed by any other director, nor does it bear the name of any other Director. The same also does not bear the seal impression of the company. He admitted that the same are merely extracts and not the original board resolution and he has not produced the original minutes of meeting in the Court.
24. PW-1 admitted that the original of Ex.PW-1/6 is not with him and a coloured copy has been filed. He has volunteered that the original is with OBO Betterment India Pvt. Ltd. and not with anyone else. He has admitted that Ex.PW-1/6 does not bear his name, signature, nor seal of the company. He has volunteered that it is a bill to ship and for that reason, my name is not mentioned. He has admitted that he does not have any office at Chennai. PW-1 has admitted that there was no written CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 of 31 : 13 : agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. PW-1 further admitted that Ex.PW1/3 does not bear the name, signature and stamp of his company. He has admitted that the terms and conditions mentioned on Ex.PW-1/3 is an offer which has to be complied between his company and the other side.
25. PW-1 has admitted that the person to whom Ex.PW-1/3 is addressed to (Ms. Balvant Kaur) does not find mention anywhere in the subsequent e-mails being Ex.PW-1/2. He has admitted that the full name and address of the defendant is not mentioned in Ex.PW-1/3. He has admitted that the proof of sending of Ex.PW-1/3 is not on the record. He submitted that they have no concern with NCC Limited in the present case and hence, plaintiff has not even made them a party in the present case. He has admitted that the goods were delivered to NCC Limited in West Bengal as per PO. The document Ex.PW-1/4 does not bear any signature as the document mentions 'this is computer generated purchase order, hence no signature required'. He has admitted that this document does not have any company seal or sign. He has admitted that there was no PDC given by the defendant. He has admitted that the written payment terms of Ex.PW-1/3 and Ex.PW-1/4 were not complied with and they were subsequently changed by discussion.
26. PW has denied the suggestion that defendant is not liable to pay the amount to the plaintiff and that NCC Limited is a necessary and proper party to the present suit. He has denied the suggestion that NCC Limited is liable to pay the amount to the CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 13 of 31 : 14 : plaintiff. Thereafer, counsel for defendant has put following question to PW-1:
Q. I put it to you that it is not possible for you to know whether the goods were delivered to NCC Limited without making them a party in the present case. What do you say? A. We have no relationship with NCC Limited.
27. PW-1 has admitted that the tracking report pertaining to legal notice dated 24.01.2023 is not filed on the record and denied that the legal notice was not served on the defendant. He has admitted that there is no e-way bill filed on record pertaining to the delivery of goods in the present case. He deposed that for any goods valued more than Rs.50,000/- to be delivered, it is mandatory that a e-way bill has to be generated. He has denied the suggestion that no e-way was generated in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that no goods were delivered as no e-way bill was generated. There is no written communication/agreement which superseded the condition no.5 of Ex.PW-1/3. He has volunteered that it was only an oral understanding. He denied that 100% of the amount was received before dispatch from NCC Ltd. as per the condition no.5 stipulated in Ex.PW-1/3.
28. Thereafter, plaintiff has examined PW-2 summoned witness Mr. Aditya (Taxation Inspector) from Department of Excise and Taxation, State of Haryana, Office DETC, Sansadhan Bhawan, Ward-11, Gurugram, North at Sector 32, Gurugram, Haryana. PW-2 has brought the record pertaining to CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 14 of 31 : 15 : GSTR2A alongwith the summary sheet and invoice details, pertaining to the defendant, for the period F.Y. 2019-20. The correct copies are Ex.PW2/1 (Colly.).
29. No evidence was lead by the defendants in its defence and accordingly, DE was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
Final Arguments on Behalf of the Plaintiff
30. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff that the present suit has been filed for recovery of a legitimate amount of Rs. 12,21,377/- being the unpaid balance against supply of goods made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. It is argued that the Plaintiff is engaged in the business of engineering and supply of electrical components and had supplied material of OBO Betterman brand to the Defendant in the ordinary course of business against a valid Purchase Order raised by the Defendant and a corresponding Invoice being duly issued by the Plaintiff.
31. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff had raised Invoice No. TI-0244 dated 25.01.2020 against the material supplied and despite repeated requests, reminders, and issuance of a legal notice dated 24.01.2023, the Defendant failed and neglected to make payment of the said outstanding amount. It is argued that the Defendant's failure to pay has caused serious financial loss and business inconvenience to the Plaintiff.
CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 15 of 31 : 16 :32. It is submitted that the plea of the Defendant that there existed no privity of contract between the parties is false, misconceived, and contrary to record. The Plaintiff has placed on record email communications exchanged between the representatives of both parties, along with the officials of M/s OBO Betterman, which clearly demonstrate that the Defendant had directly placed the order upon the Plaintiff and was fully aware of the goods being supplied. The email trail, quotation dated 24.12.2019 (Ex.PW-1/3), and Purchase Order dated 22.01.2020 (Ex.PW1/4) form part of the same transaction and clearly indicate that the Defendant was the buyer and beneficiary of the goods supplied.
33. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff that the Defendant's contention that the Purchase Order was forged or unsigned is baseless, as the same is a computer-generated document, which expressly mentions that no physical signature is required. The Defendant has not denied receipt of emails or the communications forming part of Ex.PW1/2 (Colly.), and in fact, the Defendant's own emails refer to the Purchase Order and material specifications, which sufficiently establish the authenticity of the transaction.
34. It is further argued that the Defendant's plea that the goods were meant for NCC Ltd. and hence the Plaintiff has no cause of action against the Defendant is without merit. It is submitted that the goods were supplied strictly as per the Defendant's directions to the site mentioned in the Purchase CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 16 of 31 : 17 : Order, and the fact that the site belonged to NCC Ltd. does not absolve the Defendant of its liability to pay the invoice amount. The Plaintiff's contractual relationship was with the Defendant, who had placed the order and was to make the payment.
35. It is further submitted that during cross-examination of PW-1, nothing material has come up which can discredit the Plaintiff's version or shake the foundation of the Plaintiff's case. The Defendant has not led any evidence in support of its allegations or its defence, and hence the case of the Plaintiff stands uncontroverted and un-rebutted. It is settled law that where the Defendant fails to produce any evidence in support of its denial, the Court can safely rely on the unchallenged testimony of the Plaintiff's witness.
36. It is also argued that the Defendant's plea regarding non- generation of an e-way bill is immaterial to the merits of the case, as the Plaintiff has already produced sufficient documentary proof of dispatch and delivery of the goods. The Defendant never raised any objection or complaint regarding non-delivery at the relevant time, which shows that the goods were duly received and utilized. The Defendant's silence for more than three years before the filing of the suit demonstrates its mala fide intent to avoid payment.
37. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has duly complied with the requirement of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act by initiating pre-institution mediation and has filed the non-
CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 17 of 31 : 18 :starter report dated 30.11.2023 (Ex.PW1/8). Hence, the suit is maintainable in its present form and within the limitation period.
38. It is lastly submitted that the Defendant's conduct throughout the proceedings has been evasive and non- cooperative. Despite service of notice and repeated opportunities, the Defendant has failed to make payment of its admitted dues. The Defendant has not produced any material to prove its plea that it was merely an intermediary or facilitator. The entire defence is based on bald denials without any documentary support.
39. Accordingly, it is prayed by Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff that in view of the cogent documentary evidence, uncontroverted testimony of PW-1, and absence of any evidence from the Defendant's side, this Court may be pleased to decree the suit in favour of the Plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 12,21,377/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum, as claimed in the plaint.
Final Arguments on Behalf of the Defendant
40. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the defendant argued that the present suit is wholly misconceived, legally untenable, and liable to be dismissed at the very threshold on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. It is argued that the Defendant company carries on its business exclusively from its registered CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 18 of 31 : 19 : office situated at SCO No. 10, 2nd and 3rd Floor, Old Delhi Road, Sector-14, Gurugram, Haryana, and that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of Delhi. The Plaintiff has deliberately instituted the suit in Delhi only to harass the Defendant and to confer jurisdiction upon this Court by artificial means, which is impermissible in law. Reliance is placed upon Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 791 and Swastik Gases (P) Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2013) 9 SCC 32, to contend that jurisdiction lies only where the Defendant resides, carries on business, or where the cause of action arises, which in the present case is solely within Gurugram.
41. It is further submitted that the suit also suffers from misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, as the real contractual relationship was between the Plaintiff and M/s NCC Ltd., and not with the Defendant. It is argued that the Plaintiff's own witness (PW-1) has admitted in cross-examination that the goods in question were delivered to NCC Ltd. at its project site in West Bengal. This clearly indicates that the supply was meant for NCC Ltd., which was the actual buyer. The Defendant was merely a liaison or intermediary for coordination purposes and was not a contracting party. The absence of NCC Ltd. and M/s OBO Betterman India Pvt. Ltd. from the array of parties renders the suit bad for non-joinder and liable to be dismissed.
CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 19 of 31 : 20 :42. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Defendant that there existed no privity of contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Plaintiff has failed to produce any written agreement, signed Purchase Order, or duly acknowledged invoice to establish any contractual nexus. The mere exchange of certain emails, without any signature, seal, or written confirmation, cannot constitute a binding contract. Reliance is placed on M.C. Chacko v. State Bank of Travancore, (1969) 2 SCC 343 and Coats Viyella India Ltd. v. India Cement Ltd., (2000) 9 SCC 376, to submit that a person who is not a party to a contract cannot be held liable under it.
43. It is next argued that as per the standard business terms of the Plaintiff itself, payment was to be made "100% against PI before dispatch" - meaning that the goods were to be dispatched only after full advance payment. However, in the present case, the Plaintiff claims to have dispatched the goods without any payment, which is in direct violation of its own terms and policies. The Plaintiff cannot now claim payment contrary to the express terms of its quotation (Ex.PW1/3). In cross- examination, PW-1 has admitted that the written payment terms were not complied with and that there was no written communication superseding those terms. The Plaintiff, therefore, cannot take advantage of its own breach.
44. It is further argued that under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, once the terms of a contract are reduced CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 20 of 31 : 21 : into writing, no oral evidence can be adduced to vary, contradict, or supplement such written terms. The Plaintiff's attempt to rely upon oral assertions or emails contrary to the written quotation and payment clause is impermissible. Reliance is placed upon Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. N. Raju Reddiar, (1996) 4 SCC 551; Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani, (2003) 6 SCC 595; and Mangala Waman Karandikar v. Prakash Damodar Ranade, (2021) 6 SCC 139.
45. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff has failed to produce any valid or original authorization to institute the present suit. The so-called extract of the Board Resolution placed on record is neither signed by any other Director nor bears the seal or authentication of the company. It is argued that such an unsigned extract cannot confer authority upon the deponent to institute or verify the pleadings on behalf of the Plaintiff. Reliance is placed on Nibro Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Ltd., AIR 1991 Delhi 25, wherein it was held that in absence of a valid board resolution authorizing institution of the suit, the proceedings are not maintainable.
46. It is further argued that the Plaintiff has not produced on record any original proof of delivery of goods nor has any e-way bill been generated for the alleged interstate movement of goods, which is mandatory under law for consignments exceeding Rs. 50,000/- in value. The PW-1 himself admitted during cross-examination that no e-way bill was filed and that CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 21 of 31 : 22 : the alleged proof of delivery is only a colour copy, not bearing any signature or seal of the Plaintiff. Moreover, the original of such delivery document is stated to be with M/s OBO Betterman, who is not a party to the suit. Such infirmities cast serious doubt upon the veracity of the Plaintiff's claim and render the alleged transaction legally invalid. Reliance is placed on Harish Mansukhani v. Ashok Jain, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1242, affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
47. It is also submitted that no formal Purchase Order was ever issued by the Defendant. The so-called Purchase Order relied upon by the Plaintiff is neither signed nor stamped by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff has not placed any communication showing its formal issuance. On the contrary, the Defendant's email dated 22.01.2020 at 10:28 a.m. clearly states that the "formal Purchase Order is to be issued", which indicates that no final order had been placed. Hence, the alleged document cannot create any contractual liability upon the Defendant.
48. It is further contended that the Plaintiff's invoice relied upon in the plaint also bears no signature, seal, or acknowledgment from the Defendant. The Defendant was never made aware of any such invoice, nor was the same delivered to it. In the absence of proof of delivery of invoice and acknowledgment, no liability can be imposed upon the Defendant for any payment.
CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 22 of 31 : 23 :49. It is further submitted that the testimony of PW-2, the GST officer, is unreliable and inadmissible. There is no valid certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act accompanying Ex.PW2/1, and none of the pages bear any stamp or signature of the GST Department. The witness has admitted that he has no personal knowledge of the transaction between the parties and did not prepare or verify the records himself. Hence, his evidence cannot be relied upon to prove the Plaintiff's claim. Reliance is placed upon Sonu @ Amar v. State of Haryana, (2017) 8 SCC 570, wherein it was held that electronic records are inadmissible in absence of proper certification.
50. It is lastly argued by Ld. Counsel for the Defendant that the entire suit is based on conjectures, incomplete documents, and self-serving assertions of the Plaintiff without any legal or factual basis. The Plaintiff has failed to establish (a) existence of any contractual relationship, (b) delivery of goods to the Defendant, (c) issuance of a valid invoice or proof of payment, and (d) authorization to institute the suit. The Defendant has throughout acted bona fide and has no liability towards the Plaintiff. The suit is thus liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs for being frivolous and vexatious.
Findings of the Court
51. On the basis of arguments rendered by both the parties, CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 23 of 31 : 24 : evidence lead by both the parties and the documents filed in support of its case, my issue wise findings are as under:-
(iii) Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP
52. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff on 15.01.2024. The invoice bearing No. TI-0244 (Ex. PW-1/5) is dated 25.01.2020, and as per its terms, the payment thereunder was due by 24.02.2020. Accordingly, the period of limitation for filing a suit for recovery of the said amount would ordinarily commence from 24.02.2020, being the date on which the cause of action first arose.
53. The plaintiff has contended that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is liable to be excluded in computing limitation, in view of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, whereby the limitation periods prescribed under general and special laws were extended owing to the extraordinary circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff has further submitted that the time consumed in pre-institution mediation proceedings before the Central District Legal Services Authority, which were initiated on 09.06.2023 and concluded with a Non-Starter Report dated 27.09.2023, also deserves to be excluded from computation of limitation under Section 12-A(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 24 of 31 : 25 :54. In light of the above, and upon a holistic consideration of the judicial directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the statutory exclusion contemplated under the Commercial Courts Act, I am of the considered view that the present suit, filed on 15.01.2024, falls well within the prescribed period of three years from the date of accrual of cause of action, after due exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 under the Supreme Court's suo motu extension orders, and the period from 09.06.2023 to 27.09.2023 spent in pre-institution mediation. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
(v) Whether the plaintiff has complied with Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act? OPP
55. Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, mandates pre-institution mediation for commercial disputes before a suit can be filed, unless urgent interim relief is needed. This means parties must attempt to resolve the dispute through mediation before approaching a court. The mediation process, as per the Commercial Courts (Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement) Rules, 2018, should be completed within three months, with a possible extension of two months with mutual consent. Settlements reached through this process are legally binding and has effect of an arbitral award.
56. In the present case, plaintiff has filed the copy of Non- Starter Report dated 27.09.2023 issued by Central District Legal CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 25 of 31 : 26 : Services Authority. It is mentioned in the report that the notices were issued to the opposite party on the addresses given by the complainant for 03.08.2023, 09.09.2023 and 27.09.2023 dates for obtaining consent to participate in mediation process. Sh. Utkarsh Sharma, Counsel for Plaintiff, was present on 03.08.2023. The opposite party did not turn up. Therefore, the present matter was stated as 'Non-Starter'.
57. Accordingly, on the basis of above discussion, I am of this considered opinion that plaintiff has been duly complied with the provisions Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
(ii) (iv) Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPP
58. The onus to prove this issue lies on the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has raised an objection that this court does not have appropriate territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit on the ground that the defendant carries on business at SCO no. 10, 2 nd and 3rd Floor, Old Delhi Road, Sector-14 , Gurugram, Haryana, falling outside the local limits of jurisdiction of this court.
59. The principles governing territorial jurisdiction in respect of Civil/ Commercial Suits for recovery are primarily enshrined in Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 20 CPC is reproduced below:
CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 26 of 31 : 27 :"20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of, action arises .- Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-
(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."
60. It is a settled principle of law that the question of territorial jurisdiction has to be decided, prima facie, by looking into the averments made in the plaint and not by the defence which may be set up by the defendant. It is equally true that to determine the question of jurisdiction of the Court on the basis of bundle of acts, it is not enough to look only at a paragraph of the plaint, the entire plaint must be taken into consideration to ascertain the bundle of facts which give rise to the cause of action and to determine whether any one or more of such facts occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.
CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 27 of 31 : 28 :61. Bearing these broad principles in mind, I revert to the facts at hand. In the plaint, in para 12, which is the jurisdiction clause, the plaintiff states as under:
" That the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, hence this Hon'ble Court is competent to entertain and try the present suit."
62. Apart from the above statement, the plaintiff has merely asserted that the purchase order was issued to the plaintiff by the defendant through email, addressed to the plaintiff's Delhi office, and was processed by the plaintiff from its office at Bhagirath Palace, Delhi. Apart from this bare statement, there is not even a whisper in the entire plaint explaining how and in what manner any cause of action has actually arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
63. A "cause of action" is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable, gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. In contractual disputes, cause of action generally arises at the place where the contract is made, where it is to be performed, or where payment is to be made.
64. In the present case, as per the plaint and documents placed on record by the plaintiff, the defendant company has its office at SCO No. 10, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Old Delhi Road, Sector- 14, Gurugram, Haryana-122001. The pleadings and documents, particularly the proof of delivery (Ex. PW-1/6), indicate that the CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 28 of 31 : 29 : goods were supplied by the manufacturer M/s OBO Bettermann India Pvt. Ltd. from Oragadam, Tamil Nadu, directly to the project site of the defendant situated at Biswa Bangla University, Beside Webel IT Park, Shibpur, Bolpur, District Birbhum, West Bengal-731204. Even the invoice relied upon by the plaintiff (Ex. PW-1/5) stipulates that payment was to be made into the bank account of the plaintiff maintained at Vaishali, Ghaziabad (U.P.). Thus, the relevant acts pertaining to the transaction i.e. the business location of the defendant, the place of dispatch of goods, the site of delivery, and the place of payment - all are situated outside Delhi. None of these events, which constitute the bundle of facts forming the cause of action, do not confer jurisdiction upon this Court within the meaning of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908.
65. Merely mentioning certain terms in the invoice (Ex. PW- 1/6) purporting to confer jurisdiction upon Delhi Courts cannot be treated as a valid conferment of jurisdiction where such jurisdiction does not otherwise exist under Section 20 CPC. It is trite law that parties by contract cannot confer jurisdiction upon a Court which it does not possess under statute. In Aanchal Mittal & Ors. Vs. Ankur Shukla (CM(M) 1086/2021) it was observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court :
"21. In the opinion of this Court, the counsel for the petitioners/defendants in this regard has correctly placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Patel Roadways (supra) to contend that a jurisdiction cannot be vested on a Court by agreement of the parties if that Court inherently lacks jurisdiction.
22 It is evident from the facts of the present case that there is no principal or subordinate office of the LLP in the State of CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 29 of 31 : 30 : Delhi and neither are the books of accounts kept in Delhi, therefore, there is no cause of action in respect of the present suit, which is arising within the territorial limits of the Courts in Delhi. Furthermore, the parties by agreement cannot give jurisdiction to a Court, which otherwise does not have such jurisdiction. Thus, I am of the considered view that the Courts in Delhi lack the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit."
66. The plaintiff has also contended that the purchase order was sent by the defendant through email and addressed to plaintiff's Delhi office. The mere fact that a purchase order was addressed to the plaintiff company and processed at its Delhi office does not constitute even a part 'cause of action'. Merely processal of a purchase order at the plaintiff's office does not in itself form a bundle of facts, which if traversed, would grant a remedy to the plaintiff against the defendant. It does not in itself constitute a "cause of action" in whole or even in part within the meaning of Section 20 CPC. Therefore, it is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court.
67. In A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem [(1989) 2 SCC 163], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the making of a contract is part of the cause of action. A suit on a contract, therefore, can be filed at the place where it is made. However, in the present case, no valid or concluded contract has been shown to exist between the parties. The quotation dated 24.12.2019 (Ex. PW-1/3) was merely an invitation to offer, while the alleged purchase order dated 22.01.2020 (Ex. PW- 1/4), at best, constituted an offer. There is no material to establish that such offer was ever accepted by the plaintiff in a CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 30 of 31 : 31 : legally recognized manner, thereby completing the contract.
68. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of Delhi. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court holds that it lacks territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present matter.
Conclusion
69. In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. No order as to costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced & dictated Digitally signed by
in the open Court on this
NEELAM NEELAM SINGH
1st day of November, 2025 SINGH Date: 2025.11.01
14:28:22 +0530
(NEELAM SINGH)
District Judge
Commercial Court-05
South East, Saket Courts,
New Delhi
Previously posted as District
Judge (Commercial Court)-06
Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS (Comm) 111/24 Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Network Bull Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 31 of 31