Delhi District Court
Amit Khanna vs Mota Khan on 23 August, 2025
DLCT010045572025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH : DISTRICT
JUDGE (COMMERCIAL) -01 : CENTRAL DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM.) /1141/2024
In the matter of :
Sh. Amit Khanna
Proprietor of: M/s. Saarthak Trading Co.,
Situated at: 5715, Lower Ground Floor,
Gali No. 80, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi -110005
....Plaintiff.
VERSUS
Sh. Mota Khan,
Proprietor of: M/s. Udaba Classic Shirts,
Situated at: 6193, Gali No. 2,
Pawan Complex, Block No. 1,
Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi - 110005
....Defendant.
Date of Institution of Suit : 18.10.2024
Date of reserving Judgment : 07.08.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 23.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This Judgment shall dispose of the suit for recovery of ₹10,09,822/- along with interest and costs filed by plaintiff against the defendant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff, who is stated to be proprietor of M/s. Saarthak Trading Co., is carrying on business of fabrics and is responsible for day-to-day business activities of his firm. The defendant is also stated to be the proprietor of M/s Udaba Classic Shirts and is CS (Comm.)1141/2024 Page 1 of 18 liable for day-to-day business activities of the said firm.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that as per the orders placed by defendant, he had supplied fabrics to the defendant through following invoices and delivery challans, which were duly received by the defendant: -
S. Invoice No. Challan Date of Amount
No. No. Invoice (₹).
1. STC/1340/23-24 1340 02.9.2023 91,732/-
2. STC/1380/23-24 1380 06.9.2023 78,457/-
3. STC/1394/23-24 1394 12.9.2023 55,125/-
4. STC/1414/23-24 1414 13.9.2023 77,529/-
5. STC/1455/23-24 1455 16.9.2023 84,425/-
6. STC/1469/23-24 1469 17.9.2023 94,941/-
7. STC/1501/23-24 1501 19.9.2023 77,587/-
8. STC/1512/23-24 1512 20.9.2023 96,792/-
9. STC/1518/23-24 1518 21.9.2023 85,976/-
10. STC/1523/23-24 1523 22.9.2023 96,867/-
11. STC/1553/23-24 1553 24.9.2023 81,761/-
12 STC/1572/23-24 1572 27.9.2023 88,931/-
4. It is stated that the plaintiff has maintained the running ledger in his office and as per the ledger account statement of the defendant, a sum of ₹10,09,822/- is due as outstanding against the defendant along with interest @18% per annum.
5. It is further the case of the plaintiff that his staff several times called upon the defendant to release the aforesaid outstanding amount, but the defendant kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the plaintiff got issued legal demand notice dated 08.01.2024 to the defendant, thereby calling upon him to pay a sum of ₹10,09,822/- along with interest @ 18% per annum. The CS (Comm.)1141/2024 Page 2 of 18 said notice was refused to be accepted by defendant and no payment has been made by him to the plaintiff.
6. It is further stated that the plaintiff had approached DLSA for Pre Institution Mediation against the defendant, thereby demanding the said amount. However, the defendant did not appear before DLSA, Tis Hazari Courts, despite notice being sent to him. Consequently, after the completion of the mediation, DLSA, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi has issued Non-Starter report on 28.8.2024.
7. Hence, the present suit has been filed by plaintiff to recover the amount of ₹10,09,822/- along with interest @ 18% per annum along with pendent-lite and future interest @ 24% per annum against the defendant.
8. The summons were served upon the defendant through registered AD on 05.11.2024. The defendant appeared on 21.11.2024 and has contested the suit by filing written statement, in which he has taken the following preliminary objections:-
8.1 The suit is not maintainable as correct particulars of defendant, have not been disclosed by the plaintiff;
8.2 No cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff to file the present suit against the defendant;
and 8.3 No valid and proper notice has been served upon the defendant.
9. On merits, it is stated that the defendant is running his shop in the name of Azil Classic (Mfrs.) & Wholesalers of CS (Comm.)1141/2024 Page 3 of 18 Shirts. The invoices and delivery challans, as filed along with plaint, are false and fabricated, as no purchase orders were ever issued by defendant for said invoices, and no such deliveries was ever received by the defendant. It is further stated that the defendant had contacted the plaintiff at their said firm and had purchased the goods and made payment of approximately ₹3-4 lacs for said goods through UPI. It is further stated that the plaintiff is not aware about the correct name of defendant, and the correct name of defendant is 'Surhabil'. Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the suit.
10. Replication was filed by the plaintiff, in which, the plaintiff has denied that the defendant is running his shop in the name of Azil Classic (Mfrs.) & Wholesalers of Shirts. It is stated that the defendant had given his visiting card to the plaintiff, in which, his name is mentioned as Mota Khan and the name of his firm is written as Udaba Classic Shirts. Further, the plaintiff has downloaded the Instagram page of defendant, in which his Instagram ID is mentioned as mota.khan.520gym_lovers and in his whatsapp ID, his photograph is displayed as Udaba Mota Khan TR. It is further stated that the defendant had firstly approached the plaintiff in the month of December, 2021 and the plaintiff had supplied first consignment to the defendant on 14.12.2021, for which, the plaintiff has received ₹5000/-.The second bill was issued on 03.09.2022 for ₹30,357/- and the next bill was issued on 06.09.2022 for ₹10,056/- and the goods of the said bill were duly received by defendant, which were also mentioned in running ledger of the plaintiff. It is further stated that the CS (Comm.)1141/2024 Page 4 of 18 payments qua said bills were received by plaintiff on 08.10.2022, 13.10.2022, 16.11.2022 and 23.11.2022 of ₹5000/-, ₹10,000/-, ₹10,000/- and ₹ 20,000/- respectively. Thereafter, no payment was received from the defendant. It is further stated that these bills and payments reflect that the defendant is running his business in the name of Udaba Classic Shirts. Rest of the contents of written statement have been denied.
11. Admission / denial of the documents was done, in which, the defendant has denied all the documents filed by plaintiff. Likewise, the plaintiff has also denied all the documents filed by defendant.
12. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 20.3.2025 for consideration:-
(i) Whether the defendant is the proprietor of M/s.
Udaba Classic Shirts? OPP.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for recovery of the suit amount from the defendant? OPP.
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendent-lite and future interest?If so, at what rate? OPP.
(iv) Relief.
13. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has examined only himself as PW1 and led his chief examination by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/1) and deposed on the lines of averments made in the plaint. He has also relied upon/proved the following documents:-
CS (Comm.)1141/2024 Page 5 of 18Srl. Document/Particulars Exhibit(s) no
1. 12 Invoices from 02.09.2024 to Ex.PW1/A1 27.09.2024 to Ex.PW1/A2
2. 12 delivery challans in respect of Ex.PW1/A13 aforesaid invoices to Ex.PW1/A24
3. Ledger account from 01.04.2023 to Ex.PW1/B 30.11.2023
4. Legal notice dated 08.01.2024 and Ex.PW1/C & postal receipt Ex.PW1/C1
5. Non-starter report dated 28.08.2024 Ex.PW1/D
6. GST Certificate of plaintiff's firm Ex.PW1/E
7. Visiting Card of the defendant Ex.PW1/F
8. Ledger from 01.04.2021 to Ex.PW1/G1 30.11.2024 in the name of M/s to Udaba Classic Shirts and ledger Ex.PW1/G2 from 01.04.2020 to 30.11.2024 in the name of Mota Khan
9. Invoice dated 07.05.2023 in the Ex.PW1/H name of Mota Khan
10. Challan dated 07.05.2023 Ex.PW1/J
11. Invoice Nos. STC/1835/2022, Ex.PW1/K1 STC/1035/2023, and to STC/1044/2023 in the name of firm Ex.PW1/K3 of defendant
12. Challan Nos. 1835, 1035 and 1044 Ex.PW1/L1 to Ex.PW1/L3
13. Screenshots of Instagram Page, Ex.PW1/M1 Whatsapp Page, Facebook Page, to and Linked.in page of the defendant Ex.PW1/M4
14. Affidavit/ declaration as per Order Ex.PW1/N XI Rule 6 CPC filed with plaint
15. Affidavit/ declaration as per Order Ex.PW1/O XI Rule 6 CPC filed with evidence CS (Comm.)1141/2024 Page 6 of 18
14. PW1 has been cross-examined at length by the defendant.
However, the same is not being mentioned herein and shall be considered in subsequent paras of this judgment, while rendering findings on the issues.
15. The plaintiff closed his evidence, vide his statement recorded on 15.5.2025.
16. On the other hand, since the defendant did not pay the costs imposed upon him from time to time, he was not allowed to lead evidence as per the provisions of Order XVA Rules 6 & 8 CPC as applicable to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and hence his evidence was closed, vide order dated 24.7.2025.
17. I have already heard the final arguments advanced by Sh. Vikas Bhatia, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sh. R.K. Ray, Advocate for the defendant. I have also carefully 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.
18. My issue-wise findings are as follows:-
ISSUE NO.1
19. Firstly, I shall take up issue no.1, which is reproduced here as under:-
Issue no. (i) - Whether the defendant is the proprietor of M/s. Udaba Classic Shirts? OPP.
20. The initial burden to prove this issue was placed upon the plaintiff in view of categorical stand taken by defendant in his written statement that he has no concern with M/s CS (Comm.)1141/2024 Page 7 of 18 Udaba Classic Shirts and also that he is running his business under the name and style of 'AZIL CLASSIC (Mfrs.) & Wholesalers of Shirts'.
21. In order to discharge the burden, the plaintiff has examined only himself as PW1 during trial, as already noted above. In his chief examination by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A), PW1 has categorically testified in Para no. 2 thereof that the defendant is the proprietor of M/s Udaba Classic Shirts, situated at 6193, Gali No.2, Pawan Complex, Block No.1, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005 and is liable for day-to-day business activities of the said firm. He further deposed in Para no.6 thereof that the defendant had given his visiting card, in which, his name is mentioned as "Mota Khan" and also name of his firm as "Udaba Classic Shirts," situated at 6193, Gali No.2, Pawan Complex, Block No.1, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005. He further deposed that he has downloaded the Instagram page, in which his Instagram id is mentioned as 'mota.khan.520gym_lovers'. He also produced Whatsapp id of defendant, in which his photograph is appearing and "Udaba Mota Khan TR" are mentioned. Further, he has also downloaded the photo from Linked.in, wherein his photograph is posted with his Linked.in id mota.khan.529gym_lovers. He has proved screenshots of Instagram Page, Whatsapp Page, Facebook Page and Linked.in Page of the defendant as Ex.PW1/M1 to Ex.PW1/M4 respectively. He has further deposed that the defendant intentionally and deliberately denied his identity and name of his firm.
22. During his cross-examination on behalf of defendant, PW1 CS (Comm.)1141/2024 Page 8 of 18 deposed that the defendant had given his visiting card (Ex.PW1/F) before start of business dealings with him. He denied the suggestion that there is no firm in the name of M/s Udaba Classic Shirts of Mota Khan at the address of 6193, Gali No.2, Pawan Complex, Block No.1, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005, or that the defendant is running his firm in the name of 'AZIL CLASSIC (Mfrs.) & Wholesalers of Shirts' since beginning, or that he manipulated the facts and documents only after filing of written statement by the defendant.
23. After referring to the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led during trial, Ld. Counsel of plaintiff vehemently argued that the defendant himself had handed over his Visiting Card [Ex.PW1/F] to the plaintiff at the time when business dealings had started between the parties. Further, the defendant himself has disclosed his identity as Mota Khan not only in Instagram page, but also in Facebook account, Linked.in account and Whatsapp account. He also drew attention of this Court towards photographs of the defendant appearing in screenshots [Ex.PW1/M1 to Ex.PW1/4] thereof, as proved by PW1 during trial. Based on oral testimony of PW1 and the said documents, Ld. Counsel of plaintiff contended that the plaintiff has been able to discharge the burden of proving this issue and therefore, he urged that this issue may be decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
24. Per contra, while refuting the arguments advanced on behalf of plaintiff, Ld. Counsel of defendant submitted that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proving CS (Comm.)1141/2024 Page 9 of 18 this issue even on the basis of preponderance of probability and thus, this issue may be decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. In this regard, he submitted that the defendant is running his firm in the name and style of 'AZIL CLASSIC (Mfrs.) & Wholesalers of Shirts'. He contended that the actual name of defendant is 'Mr. Surhabil' and since, the defendant has no concern whatsoever with M/s Udaba Classic Shirts, in which name the invoices in question have been raised by plaintiff, no liability can be fastened upon the defendant to pay any amount against these invoices. Therefore, he urged that this issue may be decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Analysis & Findings:
25. Though, the defendant has disputed his identity by claiming that his actual name is 'Surhabil' and he is running his business in the name and style of 'AZIL CLASSIC (Mfrs.) & Wholesalers of Shirts', however, it is pertinent to note that the defendant has nowhere disputed that he had handed over visiting card [Ex.PW1/F] to the plaintiff at the time of commencement of the business dealings between the parties to the suit. No question whatsoever has been asked from PW1 on behalf of the defendant on this aspect.
26. Moreover, the defendant himself is found to have admitted during cross-examination of PW1 that business dealings had taken place between him and the plaintiff. The relevant portion of cross-examination of PW1, in this regard, is extracted here as under:-
CS (Comm.)1141/2024 Page 10 of 18"xxxx I received payment of goods from defendant as mentioned in para 7 in my affidavit. It is wrong to suggest that I have received the payment from the defendant total 21 times. xxxx"
27. Thus, it is quite evident from above that the defendant has admitted the factum of receipt of goods from the plaintiff. Further, the defendant has alleged that he had made payment on 21 occasions to the plaintiff against receipt of such goods. Apart from this, the defendant nowhere challenged the authenticity and correctness of the screenshots of Instagram Page, Whatsapp account, Facebook account and Linked.in account [Ex.PW1/M1 to Ex.PW1/4] during trial. No question whatsoever has been asked by defendant from PW1 with respect to said documents. Thus, the relevant portion of his chief examination has remained unchallenged and un-rebutted from the side of defendant. It is well settled law that relevant portion of testimony of a witness, which remains unchallenged and uncrossed, gives rise to an inference that the opposite side has not disputed the same. Still, if any, authority is required then reference with advantage can be made to the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in cases titled as 'Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah v. Muddasani Sarojana' reported as AIR 2016 SC 2250 and ' Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra' reported as AIR 2020 SC 2451.
28. Even during the course of final arguments, this Court had enquired from counsel of defendant as to whether picture of the person, as also IDs mentioned therein, appearing in Ex.PW1/M1 to Ex.PW1/M4, is that of defendant or of CS (Comm.)1141/2024 Page 11 of 18 some other person, on which, counsel of defendant fairly conceded that said picture is that of the defendant only.
29. A bare perusal of said documents would clearly show that the defendant himself has disclosed his identity as "Mota Khan" on his Instagram page. He also did not dispute that said Instagram Page, Whatsapp account, Facebook account and Linked.in account do not belong to him. Besides the fact that he has mentioned his identity therein as "Mota Khan", he has mentioned the URL of his Youtube Channel as http://youtube.com/@surhabilkhanaartist5787 in his Instagram Page [Ex.PW1/M1]. Likewise, details of the defendant, as found appearing in his Whatsapp account [Ex.PW1/M2], is Udaba Mota Khan TR. Further, in his Facebook account [Ex.PW1/M3], the defendant has disclosed his identity as Mota Khan and in his Linked.in account [Ex.PW1/M4], he has disclosed his identity as Surhabil Khan.
30. In view of these, this Court is of the considered view that the defence raised by defendant, thereby disputing his identity and consequently, his liability to pay suit amount, is wholly devoid of any merit and the plaintiff has been able to prove that the defendant is also known as "Mota Khan" on the basis of preponderance of probability.
31. In view of above, the burden of proof stood shifted upon the defendant to rebut the same. As already noted above, the defendant did not lead any evidence during trial. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming from the side of the defendant as to why he did not enter into witness box. In case he would have entered into witness box, the plaintiff CS (Comm.)1141/2024 Page 12 of 18 would have the opportunity to cross-examine him on all the relevant aspects relating to his identity, as also the screenshots of his Instagram Page, Whatsapp Page, Facebook Page and Linked.in Page. Having not so done, the irresistible conclusion which follows is that the identity of defendant being Mota Khan and he being the proprietor M/s Udaba Classic Shirts, would have been established. Hence, this Court finds considerable force in the submission made on behalf of plaintiff that the defendant has failed to prove his defence that his real name is Mr. Surhabil Khan and not Mr. Mota Khan, or that he has no concern with M/s Udaba Classic Shirts. Accordingly, it is held that the defendant is also known by the name of 'Mota Khan' and also he is the proprietor of M/s Udaba Classic Shirts'. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.2.
32. Now, I shall take up the issue no.2, which is reproduced hereunder:-
Issue no. (ii) - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for recovery of the suit amount from the defendant? OPP.
33. The initial burden to prove this issue was placed upon the plaintiff. PW1 has deposed on identical lines of the averments made in the plaint during his chief-examination by way of affidavit [Ex.PW1/A]. Despite cross- examination at length, the defendant could not impeach testimony of PW1. In his cross-examination, PW1 deposed that in December, 2021, the defendant came to his shop for CS (Comm.)1141/2024 Page 13 of 18 the first time. He could not tell the first date when he had given the goods to the defendant, however, he categorically stated that it was in December, 2021. Further, PW1 categorically deposed that no payment was received by him from the defendant from 02-09-2023 to 27-09- 2023. He categorically deposed that his business policy is that he only accepts the accounts payee cheque, UPI payment and payment through other online mode. He further deposed that defendant had told him that he had a big order and as such, he had requested him to supply the fabric. He also deposed that normally, there is a practice in their trade that 30-45 days' credit is available and as such, he had supplied the fabric to the defendant from 02-09- 2023 to 27-09-2023 under the belief that when defendant would complete his order, then he would pay the entire bill amount qua those material.
34. He categorically deposed that his person went to the shop of defendant to supply the goods and took the receiving on challan, which was given either by defendant or his staff. He further deposed that if the party desired to take the goods in his own name, then he used to supply the goods in his own name and to issue the bills in his own name and if the party desired to take the goods in the name of his firm, then he used to supply the goods in the name of his firm and used to issue the bills accordingly in his firm's name and as such, he was maintaining two ledgers i.e. one in the name of defendant and another in the name of his firm.
35. PW-1 has proved Ledger Account Statement in the name of defendant firm M/s Udaba Classic Shirts, for the period CS (Comm.)1141/2024 Page 14 of 18 from 01-04-2023 to 30-11-2023, as Ex.PW1/B, which clearly reflects entries of 12 invoices in question and shows an outstanding balance of ₹10,09,822/- i.e. the suit amount, as on 27-09-2023. Apart from above, PW1 also proved ledger account statement in the name of defendant firm i.e. Udaba Classic Shirts, for the period from 01-04-2021 to 30-11-2024 as Ex.PW1/G1, which also shows the closing balance of ₹10,09,822/- as on 27-09- 2023, after giving adjustment of payments of ₹45,171/- received from the defendant. Besides, PW1 has also proved ledger account in the name of defendant Mota Khan, for the period from 01-04-2020 to 30-11-2024, as Ex.PW1/G2, which shows sale of goods worth ₹10,175/- by plaintiff to the defendant in his individual name, vide invoice dated 07-05-2023 and the entire payment of ₹10,000/- is shown to have been received from the defendant on 14-06-2023 (₹6,000/-) and on 15-06-2023 (₹4,000/-) after writing off the balance amount of ₹175/- on account of rate difference, as reflected therein. Further, PW1 has also proved delivery challans as Ex.PW1/A13 to Ex.PW1/24, which bear signatures and seal of defendant's firm i.e. M/s Udaba Classic Shirts. All these documents have virtually gone unchallenged and unrebutted from the side of defendant. Since, he preferred not to cross-examine PW1 regarding these documents.
36. Ld. Counsel of defendant contended that plaintiff did not adjust the payments made by defendant to the plaintiff on several occasions, for which, he also referred to copies of screenshots of UPI payments as filed by defendant alongwith written statement. However, said argument is CS (Comm.)1141/2024 Page 15 of 18 found to be totally misconceived and bereft of any merit. Pertinently, the screenshots of said UPI payments have not been proved at all by the defendant. Said documents were not even put to PW1 during his cross-examination. Moreover, all the payments as were made by defendant in his individual capacity, as also in his capacity as proprietor of M/s Udaba Classic Shirts, to the plaintiff, are shown to have been duly reflected in ledger account statements Ex.PW1/G1 and Ex.PW1/G2.
37. In view of foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has been able to prove this issue on the basis of preponderance of probability and thus, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount of ₹10,09,822/- from the defendant.
38. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.3
39. Now, I shall take up the issue no.3, which reads as under:-
Issue no. (iii) - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendent-lite and future interest? If so, at what rate? OPP.
40. The plaintiff has claimed pendent-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum in prayer no.(a) and @ 24% per annum in prayer no.(c) of the plaint. However, it is relevant to note that the invoices in question contained stipulation regarding payment of interest @ 18% per annum after due date. Since, there is no evidence led by plaintiff during trial as to what was due date and time within which the CS (Comm.)1141/2024 Page 16 of 18 defendant was required to make payment of the invoice amount and keeping in view the fact that the plaintiff has no where charged any interest in the ledger account statement Ex.PW1/G1, the Court is of the view that he is not entitled to claim interest either @ 24% per annum or even @ 18% per annum.
41. Nevertheless, the defendant is found to have illegally and without any reasonable ground, withheld the aforesaid amount due towards the plaintiff and utilized the said amount for his benefit, this Court is of the view that he is liable to pay interest on the said amount.
42. Section 34 CPC clearly provides that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed 6% per annum but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest, or where, there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalized banks in relation to the commercial transactions.
43. After considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that the subject matter of dispute arise out of commercial transactions between the parties, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met by awarding pendent-lite and future interest @ 10% per annum on the suit amount from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the amount. It is so directed accordingly.
44. The plaintiff has also claimed the cost of the suit. Keeping in view the provisions contained in Sections 35 and 35A CPC, it has been established that the defendant failed CS (Comm.)1141/2024 Page 17 of 18 to pay the outstanding dues not only despite service of legal notice, but also, despite service of summons of the suit upon it. Therefore, the defendant is responsible for the cost of the litigation to the extent of court fee and lawyers fee etc. as per the relevant rules. In my view, the plaintiff is accordingly entitled for the cost of litigation against the defendant.
45. Accordingly, this issue is decided in the aforesaid terms.
RELIEF
46. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, Court is of the view that the plaintiff has been able to prove his case on the basis of preponderance of probability. Thus, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and following reliefs are granted:-
46.1 The plaintiff is entitled to recover ₹10,09,822/- from the defendant;
46.2 Pendent-lite and future interest is awarded @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.
46.3 Cost of the proceedings is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
47. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance. Digitally signed by VIDYA Announced in the open Court VIDYA PRAKASH PRAKASH Date:
2025.08.23 On 23rd Day of August, 2025 11:29:00 +0530 (VIDYA PRAKASH) DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01 CENTRAL DISTRICT/THC/DELHI CS (Comm.)1141/2024 Page 18 of 18