Delhi District Court
Yogesh Kumar vs Mayur Sehdev on 31 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF PAWAN KUMAR MATTO
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMM-04) : SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CS(COMM): 543/2024
CNR No. DLSH01-006579-2024
In the matter of
Sh. Yogesh Kumar
S/O Sh. Santosh Kumar
R/O House No-A-312/19.
Gali no-5, South Gamhrl
VTC: Garhi Mendu, P.O. Bhajan Pura. Seelampur,North-East,
Delhi-110053
Prop. Of: M/s A.P. Trading
Office At:- Plot No. 3, 9/1014,
Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar, East Delhi, Delhi-110031.
...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SH. MAYUR SEHDEV
Proprietor Of: M/S Mayur Traders
Office At: 01, Virat Shopping Palace
Chowk Bazar, Bageshwar, Uttrakhand-263642
Also At:-
01, Garur, Bageshshwar,
Uttarakhand-263635
...........DEFENDANT
Date of institution : 22.10.2024
Date of final arguments : 23.05.2025
Date of judgment : 31.05.2025
CS (comm) 543/2024 Yogesh Kumar Vs. Mayur Sehdev Page no. 1 of 13
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1.Briefly Stating that plaintiff has filed the present suit for Recovery of Rs. 3,40,648/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty Thousand Six Hundred Forty-Fight Only), stating therein that plaintiff is having business of trading of various kind of apparels items more particularly Readymade Garments under the name and style of "M/s A. P. Trading", having his registered office at: Plot No. 3, 9/1014, Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar, East Delhi, Delhi 110031.
2. It is also averred that the defendant is a trader and retailer of various kinds of apparels more particularly Readymade Garments and the defendant has been working under the name and style of "M/s Mayur Traders" having his Registered Office at: 01, Virat Shopping Palace Chowk Bazar, Bageshwar, Uttrakhand-263642.
3. It is also averred that the defendant had approached to the plaintiff and claimed himself to be a well settled businessman. Further claimed that he is primarily engaged in the business of Readymade Garments and he is having good reputation in the market. It is further averred that the defendant had requested to the plaintiff to supply various kind of apparels on credit basis. The plaintiff has also stated that considering the business prospect and the request of the defendant, the plaintiff had agreed to supply goods more particularly Readymade Garments to defendant on credit of 45 days and at the time of transactions, it was made clear to defendant that if the payment is not made within the period of 45 CS (comm) 543/2024 Yogesh Kumar Vs. Mayur Sehdev Page no. 2 of 13 days, then the defendant shall be liable to pay penal interest of 24% per annum (2% Per Month) to plaintiff and on the basis of such agreement/consent (term & condition of credit policy), defendant placed orders for supplying of various kinds of goods to the plaintiff.
4. It is also averred that as per the orders placed by the defendant, the plaintiff had supplied material goods to the defendant and the details of the same are as follows:
S. no. Particulars Amount
1. Sale-Vide Invoice No. 725/21-22 47,089.00
Dt. 28.10.2021
2. Sale-Vide Invoice No. 726/21-22 37,879.00
Dt. 28.10.2021
3. Sale-Vide Invoice No. 754/21-22 52,085.00
Dt. 20.11.2021
4. Sale-Vide Invoice No. 755/21-22 14,847.00
Dt. 20.11.2021
5. Sale-Vide Invoice No. 756/21-22 26,649.00
Dt. 20.11.2021
6. Sale-Vide Invoice No. 757/21-22 34,990.00
Dt. 20.11.2021
Grand Total 2,13,539.00
5. It is also averred that in respect of the above said materials being supplied to the defendant, the defendant also made part- payment to the plaintiff, the details of the same is as follows: -
S. No. Mode of payment and date of payment Amount
1. RTGS/NEFT- Dated 18.11.2021 10,000.00 Grand Total 10,000.00 CS (comm) 543/2024 Yogesh Kumar Vs. Mayur Sehdev Page no. 3 of 13
6. It is also averred that the consolidated transactions are as follows:
Details of the Total Sale Made by Plaintiff to the Defendant 2,13,539.00 Details of the Total payment Being made by defendant to the - 10,000.00 plaintiff 2,03,539.00
7. It is also averred that as per the ledger account being maintained by plaintiff, total amount of Rs. 2,03,539/- (Rupees Two Lakh Three Thousand Five Hundred Thirty-Nine Only) is due against the defendant.
8. It is further averred that as per the agreement, it was agreed if payment was not made by the defendant within the credit period of 45 Days, then defendant shall be liable to pay penal Interest @ 24% Per Annum (2% Per Month) on delayed payment to the plaintiff and as the defendant has not made payment to the plaintiff within the period of 45 days, So, the defendant is also liable to pay sum of Rs. 137109/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty-Seven Thousand One Hundred Nine Only) as Interest.
9. It is also averred that the consolidated outstanding amount against the defendant qua the sale made by the plaintiff is as follow:-
Total Outstanding Amount as on 30 10.2024 ₹2,03,539.00 Interest @ 24% PA/2% PM ₹1,37,109.00 Total Outstanding Amount Including Interest as on 27.08 2024. Rs.3,40,648.00 CS (comm) 543/2024 Yogesh Kumar Vs. Mayur Sehdev Page no. 4 of 13
10. It is also averred that , the plaintiff through his counsel had also issued a legal notice dated 30.08.2024 having tracking No. ED828847813IN Dated 31.08.2024, in respect of the due amount and thereby called upon the defendant for clearing the outstanding amount along with interest to the plaintiff within a period of 7 days. But, despite of the service of the legal demand notice, the defendant has failed to make the payment to the plaintiff within the time granted to the defendant.
11. It is further averred that the nature of transactions between the parties to the present lis are commercial in nature and the amount sought to be recovered is more than Rs 3,00,000 (Rupees Three Lakhs Only). Therefore, the plaintiff had filed an application for pre-institution mediation before the DSLSA, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and on the application of the plaintiff, notice to the defendant was issued for 24.09.2024 & 07.10.2024. However none appeared on behalf of the defendant. Thus, the Non- Starter Report was issued by the DLSA, Shahdara to the plaintiff.
12. It is also averred that the plaintiff had no other alternative/ efficacious remedy than to appear before this Court by way of filing this present suit.
13. It is also averred that the Cause of Action for filing the present suit arose in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant, firstly, when, the defendant contacted with the plaintiff for supplying of materials. It further arose, when, the defendant requested the CS (comm) 543/2024 Yogesh Kumar Vs. Mayur Sehdev Page no. 5 of 13 plaintiff to supply the materials on credit basis. It further arose, when, the plaintiff considered the business prospect and agreed to supply goods to the defendant on credit basis. It further arose, when, the defendant placed orders for the purchase of goods on credit more particularly, the Readymade Garments on various intervals. It further arose, when, the plaintiff had supplied goods, as per the demands of the defendant on credit basis, more particularly as on dates, as mentioned in the ledger account. It further arose, when, the Defendant did not make the payment to the Plaintiff in respect of the above said material being supplied to the Defendant and the plaintiff issued legal demand notice to the defendant dated 30.08.2024 through his counsel. It further arose in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant, when even after the service of the legal demand notice issued, the defendant failed to make the payment to the plaintiff within the time granted in the notice. It further arose, when the plaintiff instituted Pre-institution Mediation before the DLSA, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. It further arose, when, none had appeared on behalf of the defendant before the DLSA, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. It further arose, when, the DLSA, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi issued the Non-Starter Report (NSR) to the plaintiff and when, the defendant failed to discharge his legally enforceable liability to pay the suit amount and thus the cause of action is still continuning and subsisting one, as the defendant has failed to pay the outstanding amount till date.
CS (comm) 543/2024 Yogesh Kumar Vs. Mayur Sehdev Page no. 6 of 13
14. It is also averred that as there were regular transactions between the parties and plaintiff was maintaining current, open and mutual account of the defendant, so, the present suit is within the period of limitation. It is further averred that this court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit, as part Cause of Action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, this Court has Jurisdiction to entertain and to try the present suit and the plaintiff has prayed for passing a decre for recovery of Rs. 3,40,648/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty Thousand Six Hundred Forty-Eight Only) along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 24% Per Annum on the above stated amount with cost of the suit in favor of the Plaintiff and against the defendant.
15. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff has filed this Civil (comm) under Order 37 of CPC and when this matter was fixed consideration on dated 24.10.2024. Then, on dated 24.10.2024, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff had given the statement to treat the present suit filed under Order 37 of CPC, as an ordinary suit. Separate statement of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff was also recorded on dated 24.10.2024. So, the present suit was treated as an ordinary suit for recovery and the summons of the ordinay suit for recovery of money were issued to the defendant for 17.12.2024. The summon sent to the defendant through Nazarat Branch for 17.12.2024 was received back with the report that the defendant was served through his mother and the said process was assigned to the process server on 06.12.2024 and the process was also posted by the Assistant Nazir, of District Court, Bageshwar, Uttarakhand on dated CS (comm) 543/2024 Yogesh Kumar Vs. Mayur Sehdev Page no. 7 of 13 07.12.2024. The summons sent to the defendant on his first address through registered post and speed post were received back with the report of "refusal". But on dated 17.12.2024, despite of service of summons to the defendant through his mother, the defendant did not appear, despite of repeated calls and the matter was adjourned for 14.01.2025 with the direction to the defendant to file the written statement, statement of truth, affidavit of admission/denial within 30 days from the date of his service of summons. But even on dated 14.01.2025, despite of repeated calls, no one had appeared on behalf of the defendant since morning till 03:15 PM. So, vide order dated 14.01.2025, the defendant was proceeded exparte and the case was adjourned for exparte evidence of the plaintiff.
16. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has been examined himself as PW1, vide his affidavit Ex. PW-1/1 and in one way or the other, he has reiterated the contents of the plaint therein. He has relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/A to PW1/O.
17. Thereafter, the plaintiff had given the statement for closing the evidence of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the ex-parte evidence of the plaintiff was closed. Then, the matter was fixed for hearing exparte final arguments.
18. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
19. Sh. Siddanth Dhingra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that plaintiff had supplied the goods vide invoices Ex. Pw-1/D to PW-1/I. He has also submitted that certain e-way bills are CS (comm) 543/2024 Yogesh Kumar Vs. Mayur Sehdev Page no. 8 of 13 also placed on record. He has further submitted that the defendant has failed to pay the principal amount of Rs. 2,03,539/- and submitted that as per terms and conditions mentioned in the invoice, the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest @ 24% per annum. Therefore, the plaintiff has claimed Rs. 2,03,539 as principal amount and Rs. 1,37,109/- as interest @ 24 % per annum till the filing of the suit and the plaintiff has also claimed interest @ 24% from the date of filing the present suit till the realization of the suit amount and the cost of the suit. He has further submitted that despite of service of the summons the defendant has failed to appear and in order to prove his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 vide his affidavit Ex. PW-1/1 he has relied upon the documents Ex. PW-1/A to Ex. PW-1/O and submitted that the testimony of PW-1 and documents relied upon by him remained unchallanged, unrebutted and unimpeached. It is proved on the record that the plaintiff has supplied the goods to the defendant, but, the defendant has failed to pay the suit amount, so, the suit of the plaintiff may be decreed with interest and cost.
20. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.
21. The perusal of the record reveals that in the case in hand, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs.3,40,648/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty Thousand Six Hundred Forty Eight Only) with Pendent-Lite and future Interest@ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation of the suit and the cost. The plaintiff has climed that he had supplied the goods to CS (comm) 543/2024 Yogesh Kumar Vs. Mayur Sehdev Page no. 9 of 13 the defendant vide invoices Ex. PW-1/D to PW-1/I and claimed that the defendant has failed to pay the Principal amount ofRs. 2,03,539/-, so, the plaintif has also claimed Rs. 1,37,109/- as interest till the filing of the suit along with pendent-lite and future interest and cost.
22. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1, vide his affidavit Ex. PW-1/1 and in one way or the other, he has reiterated the contents of the plaint therein. He has relied upon the following documents-:
(i) Downloaded copy of GST certificate of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/A (Colly)
(ii) Downloaded copy of GST details of the defendant Ex.PW1/B (Colly.)
(iii) Attested copy of the ledger account of the defendant maintained by the plaintiff alongwith interest ledger Ex.PW1/C (Colly.)
(iv). Office copy of sale invoice no. 725/21-22 dated 28.10.2021 alongwith it's e-way bill No. 761220038971 Ex.PW1/D (Colly.)
(v) Office copy of sale invoice no. 726/21-22 dated 28.10.2021 alongwith it's e-way bill No. 761220038971 (which is also relating to the material as mentioned in invoice no. 725/21-
22 dated 28.10.2021) Ex.PW1/E.
(vi) Office copy of sale invoice no. 754/21-22 dated 20.11.2021 alongwith it's e-way bill No. 711224128161 Ex.PW1/F (Colly).
(vii) Office copy of sale invoice no. 755/21-22 dated 20.11.2021 Ex.PW1/G. CS (comm) 543/2024 Yogesh Kumar Vs. Mayur Sehdev Page no. 10 of 13
(viii) Office copy of sale invoice no.756/21-22 dated 20.11.2021 alongwith it's e-way bill No. 711224128161 (which is also relating to the material as mentioned in invoice no. 754/21- 22 dated 20.11.2021) Ex.PW1/H (Colly).
(ix) Office copy of sale invoice no. 757/21-22 dated 20.11.2021 Ex.PW1/I.
(x) Carbon copy of transport receipt GR No. 191 dated 28.10.2021 (which is relating to the goods supplied to the defendant vide invoice no. 725/21-22 and 726/21-22) ExPWI/J.
(xi) Carbon copy of transport receipt GR No. 8331 dated 20.11.2021(which is relating to the goods supplied to the defendant vide invoice no. 754/21-22 and 756/21-22) Ex.PWI/K.
(xii) Office copy of legal demand notice dated 30.08.2024 alongwith it's postal receipts Ex.PWI/L (Colly.) (running into 6 pages).
(xiii) Downloaded copy tracking report Ex.PWI/M.
(xiv) Certificate w/o 11 Rule 6 (3) of Commercial Court Act in support of all the electronic record Ex.PW1/N (Colly) .
(xv) Attested copy of non starter report dated 08.10.2024 Ex.PW1/0.
23. The plaintiff did not examine any other witness and closed his evidence.
24. Form the testimony of the plaintiff, it is poved that the plaintiff is running the business of trading of various kind of appearls more particlarly Ready made Garments under the name and style of M/s A.P. Trading. The defendant is also running his business of trading CS (comm) 543/2024 Yogesh Kumar Vs. Mayur Sehdev Page no. 11 of 13 various kind of apparels more particular Redaymade Garments under the name and style of M/s Mayur Traders, who had approached to the plaintiff and represented himself as a well settled businessman and engaged in the business of Readymade Garments and on the request of the defendant, the plaintiff agreed to supply goods more particularly Readymade Garments to the defendant on credit basis for 45 days and it was made clear by the plaintiff to the defendant, at the time of transactions that defendant shall be liable to pay penal interest 24% Per annum (2% per month), if payment is not made within 45 days. It is also proved on the record that the defendant has failed to make the payment of remaining amount of Rs. 2,03,539/- (being Principal amount)/-, so, the plaintiff had sent the legal notice on dated 30.08.2024 Ex.PWI/L (Colly). But, despite of service of the legal notice, the defendant has failed to make the payment of the said amount. It is also proved on the record that an amount of Rs. 2,03,539/- (i.e. Principal amount) is payable by the defendant to the plaintiff and the defendant has failed to make the payment of this Principal amount of Rs. 2,03,539/- (i.e. Principal amount), since the testimony of plaintiff remained unrebutted, uncontroverted and unimpeached and it is also corroborated with the documents viz. Ex. PW-1/C(colly) i.e. ledger and Ex. PW-1/D to PW-1/I i.e. sale Invoices along with e-way bill. So, I have no ground to disbelieve the testimony of the plaintiff and documents relied upon by him. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that plaintiff is entitled to recover Principal amount of Rs. 2,03,539/- from the defendant. No doubt plaintiff has sought to recover interest @ 24% per annum and filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 3,40,648/-. But, in the considered opinion of this court, CS (comm) 543/2024 Yogesh Kumar Vs. Mayur Sehdev Page no. 12 of 13 the rate of interest claimed by the plaintiff appears to be exorbitent, so, the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 2,03,539/- (i.e the principal amount) along with interest @ 9% per annum (on this principal amount) from the date of institution of the suit till the realization of the said amount along with cost of the suit is decreed against the defendant. The defendant is directed to pay Rs. 2,03,539/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the realization of the decretal amount with cost of the suit to the plaintiff.
25. In the above said terms, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
26. File be consigned to record room.
PAWAN Digitally by PAWAN signed KUMAR MATTO KUMAR Date:
MATTO 2025.05.31 14:45:51 +0530 Announced in the open (PAWAN KUMAR MATTO) court on this 31st day of May DISTRICT JUDGE. of 2025. (COMMERCIAL COURT)-04.
SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI.
CS (comm) 543/2024 Yogesh Kumar Vs. Mayur Sehdev Page no. 13 of 13