Delhi District Court
Bharati Bhawan vs Sanjay Kumar Upadhaya Prop Sanjay Book ... on 13 January, 2026
BEFORE THE COURT OF SH. S S RATHI, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMM.)-11 CENTRAL, THC, DELHI
CS Comm. No.360/2024
M/s. Bharati Bhawan
(Publishers & Distributors)
(Through Its Senior Manager
and Constituted Attorney
Sh. Dinesh Kumar Tripathi)
At: 4271/3, Ansari Road
Daryaganj, New Delhi - 110002 ..............Plaintiff
Vs.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Upadhaya
Proprietor of M/s Sanjay Book Depo
Sahupuri, Dulhipur, Mughalsarai,
Chandauli, Uttar Pradesh-232101
Also At:
1. Sahupuri Road, Dulhipur,
Chandauli, Uttar Pradesh-232101
2. Dulhipur, Sahupuri Road,
Mughalsarai, Chandauli, Uttar Pradesh-232101 ............Defendant
Date of Institution : 14.03.2024
Date of Final Arguments : 13.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 13.01.2026
Decision : Decreed
Judgment
1. This suit seeks recovery of Rs.7,82,902/- alongwith interest @9% per
annum as dues of goods sold. Apart from the above figure plaintiff is also
seeking recovery of Rs.42,846/- as pre-suit interest component. In terms
of Order 7 Rule 2 CPC plaintiff was duty bound to capitalise the pre-suit
page 1
CS Comm. No.360/2024 M/s Bharti Bhawan Vs. Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay
interest in the principal debit balance taking the total balance to
Rs.8,25,748/-.
Plaintiff's Case:
2. Case of the plaintiff as per amended plaint and the documents filed is that
it is a registered partnership firm at Daryaganj, Delhi and is in the
business of publishing and distributing books for schools and colleges in
English, Hindi and Bengali. The suit is filed by Sh. Dinesh Kumar
Tripathi their Senior Manager and also a special power of attorney.
Defendant is said to be proprietor of M/s Sanjay Book Depo at Chandoli,
Uttar Pradesh and is running a book distribution and sales shop. Both the
parties had commecial relations since 21.02.2022 whereunder plaintiff has
been supplying books to the defendant as per his requirement. It is
pleaded that defendant has never raised any issue qua quality of books
delivered.
3. The plaint is totally silent as to when the first sale was carried out
between the parties, total no. of invoices were raised, cumulative value of
all the sales made and total payment received. All that is pleaded is that
there was a debit balance of Rs.7,82,902/- as on 31.07.2023. It is pleaded
that when the dues were not cleared despite repeated demands plaintiff
was constrained to issue legal notice dated 13.10.2023. Despite due
service the same was neither replied nor complied. The plaint does not
comply with Order 7 Rule 2A CPC as it does not contain any reference
as to why plaintiff is seeking 9% interest. The plaint is silent if mandatory
Pre-Institution Mediation under Section 12A Chapter 3A Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 was carried out or not. There is no reference of filing of
any Non-Starter Report even in the list of documents. However it is
claimed that the copy of the Non-Starter Report dated 15.02.2024 is filed
page 2
CS Comm. No.360/2024 M/s Bharti Bhawan Vs. Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay
alongwith the suit wherein defendant did not participate. In this backdrop,
the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit in hand with following
prayers:-
Prayer:
1. Rs. 7,82,902.05/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Eighty-Two Thousand Nine Hundred Two and
Five Paise Only) together with pre-suit interest @9% p.a. from the date of last payment
when the account of Defendant was made inactive Plaintiff.
2. Since 31.07.2023 till the filing of suit dated 13.03.2024 and since 31.07.2023 to
13.03.2024 total number of 222 days stand for which Plaintiff requests this Hon'ble
Court to grant the said below mentioned pre-suit interest @9% p.a. and the amount for
the said interest period comes to an amount, amounting to Rs. 42,846/- (Rupees Forty-
Two Thousand Eight Hundred And Forty-Six Only).
4. Summons of the suit was issued to the defendant who was served on
29.04.2024. No WS was filed on behalf of defendant.
5. Evidence in this case was ordered to be recorded before Advocate namely
Sh. Abhishek Kumar, Ld. LC as per protocol created by this Court
under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC read with Order 15A Rule 6(l) and (o)
CPC as applicable to Commercial suits for the sake of timely disposal of
this case.
Evidence
6. To prove his case plantiff stepped into the witness box as PW1 Dinesh
Kumar Tripathi. Vide affidavit Ex.PW1/A he deposed on the lines of
plaint and exhibited following documents:
1. Copy of Registration Certificate is Ex.PW-1/1
2. Copy of Partnership Deed and Registration Certificate 'C' (OSR) and Registration
Certificate 'A' & 'B' due to non-availability of originals are de- exhibit as
Marked-P-1 & Marked-P-2.
3. Special Power of Attorney Dated 16.11.2023 is Ex.PW-1/3
4. Original Bill of Supply/Invoices alongwith Gate Passes, Worksheets, Purchase
Orders received by Plaintiff through E-mail from Defendant and Consignment
Notes of Transporte(s) is Ex.PW-1/4 (colly.)
5. Copy of Legal Notice Dated 13.10.2023 is Ex.PW-1/5
6. Original Postal Receipts Bearing No. ED500758341IN is Ex.PW-1/6
7. Original Postal Receipts Bearing No. ED500758576IN is Ex.PW-1/7
8. Original Postal Receipts Bearing No. ED500758457IN is Ex.PW-1/8
9. Tracking Report of Postal Receipt Bearing No. ED500758341IN procured from
Indian Postal Website is Ex.PW-1/9
page 3
CS Comm. No.360/2024 M/s Bharti Bhawan Vs. Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay
10. Tracking Report of Postal Receipt Bearing No. ED500758576IN procured from
Indian Postal Website is Ex.PW-1/10
11. Tracking Report of. Postal Receipt Bearing No. ED500758457IN procured from
Indian Postal Website is Ex.PW-1/11
12. Computer generated Ledger Account of Defendant maintained by Plaintiff for the
Financial Year 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 is Ex.PW-1/12
13. Computer generated Ledger Account of Defendant maintained by Plaintiff for the
Financial Year 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 is Ex.PW-1/13
14. Computer generated Ledger Account of Defendant maintained by Plaintiff for the
Financial Year 01.04.2023 to 10.10.2023 is Ex.PW-1/14
15. Non-Starter Report from DLSA, Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi is Ex.PW-1/15
16. Certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 pertaining to electronic records
is Ex.PW-1/16
17. Certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 pertaining to service of Legal
Notice(s) is Ex.PW-1/17
18. Statement of Truth is Ex.PW-1/18.
7. None has appeared on behalf of defendant to cross-examine this witness.
8. No evidence was led by the defendant.
9. I have heard arguments of Sh. Nikhil Tripathi, Sh. Yatendra Kumar,
Sh. Devender Dhawan, Ms. Megha Parashar and Sh. Abhishek Jat,
Ld. Counsels for plaintiff. None has appeared on behalf of defendant to
argue the case. I have perused the original pleadings and documents
produced by the plaintiff.
10. In order to discharge plaintiff's right to seek recovery of Rs.8,25,748/-
plaintiff is relying on invoices including bilties as Ex.PW1/4 colly.
available from page no. 64 to 194. Perusal of these documents shows that
they are printouts of digital invoices which bears physical signatures and
rubber stamp on behalf of the plaintiff. However subseqently unaltered
invoices were placed on record. Onus under Section 31, 33 and 39 of
Sale of Goods Act, 1930 is sought to be discharged by way of bilties
under Form 8 Carriage of Road Rules, 2011 formulated under
Carriage by Road Act, 2007. Sales were entered into ledger Ex.PW1/12
to Ex.PW14 as against total cumulative sale of Rs.19,17,052/-,
Rs.11,48,437/- was received leaving a debit balance of Rs.7,82,902/-.
page 4
CS Comm. No.360/2024 M/s Bharti Bhawan Vs. Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay
11. During the course of hearing in so far as it is found that the bilties were
without payment of GST. To show its bonafide plaintiff firm has deposited
GST of Rs.2,166/-.
12. The evidence in this case is primarily documentary. The documents relied
upon by the plaintiff are the documents maintained by a company in the
ordinary course of its business. Though the exceptions cannot be ruled
out, but generally taking a judicial notice of the business, these documents
can be considered to be duly executed in due course of the business and
capable of binding the parties into a contractual relationship.
13. The pleadings in the plaint and annexed documents have remained
unrebutted, unchallenged and uncontroverted. In the absence of any
plausible denial on behalf of defendant, case of the plaintiff is deemed to
be admitted. On the basis of pleadings, evidence led and the documents
exhibited plaintiff has discharged the onus of proving its case.
14. As per case titled Jayam Company Vs. T. Ravi Chandaran 2003 (3)
RCR (Cr.) 154 Madras presumption is drawn against defendant that they
have admitted the contents of the legal notice.
15.In another case titled as Metropolis Travels & Resorts (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Sumit Kalra and Ors., 2002 Latest Caselaw 714 Del wherein it was
observed that :
"13. There is another aspect of the matter which negates the argument of the
respondent and that is that the appellant served a legal notice on the respondent
vide Ex. PW1/3. No rely to the same was given by the respondent. But in spite of the same, no adverse inference was drawn against the defendant. This court in the case of Kalu Ram Vs. Sita Ram 1980 RLR 44 observed that service of notice having been admitted without reservation and that having not been replied in that eventuality, adverse inference should be drawn because he kept quite over the notice and did not send any reply. Observations of Kalu Ram's case (supra) apply on all force to the facts of this case. In the case in hand also despite receipt of notice, respondent did not care to reply nor refuted the averments of demand of theamount on the basis of the invoices/ bills in question. But the Ld. Trial court failed to draw inference against the respondent".
(Emphasis Supplied) page 5 CS Comm. No.360/2024 M/s Bharti Bhawan Vs. Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay
16.Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has also relied upon case titled as Krishan Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Life Insurance Corporation 2010 Latest Caselaw 3344 Del wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that:
"65. No explanation has been rendered by the respondent as to why letter dated 23rd August, 2008 and the legal notice send by the appellant were not repudiated or even replied. Despite due receipt, the respondent did not bother to even send any response to the letter dated 23 rd August, 2008 or the legal notice, the contents whereof would be deemed to have been admitted. In the judicial precedents reported in Rakesh Kumar Vs. Hindustan Everest Tool Ltd. MANU/SC0396/1988: (1988) 2 SCC 165 & Hirallal Kapur Vs. Prabhu Chaudhary MANU/SC/0189/1988 : (1988) 2 SCC 172 it was held by the Supreme Court that a categorical assertion by the landlord in a legal notice if not replied to and controverted, can be treated as an admission by a tenant.
"66. In a Division Bench proceedings of this court reported in Metropolis Travels and Resorts Vs. Sumit Kalra MANU/DE/0562/2002 : 98 (2002) DLT 573 (DB), no adverse inference was drawn against the respondent for failure to reply the legal notice on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. Reference was made to proceedings reported in Kalu Ram Vs. Sita Ram wherein it had been observed that service of notice being admitted without reservation and that having not been replied, in that eventuality, adverse inference should be drawn".
(Emphasis Supplied)
17.As per judgments of Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, plaintiff has been successful in showing on record that non-reply of legal notice by the defendant calls for drawing of presumption as to correctness of the facts contained therein.
18. A strong exception is taken over the conduct of the defendant of not participating in Pre-Institution Mediation despite issuance of notice.
19. Not only Pre-Institution Mediation is mandatory on account of its promulgation and inclusion in Commercial Courts Act 2015 by way of Commercial Court Amendment Act, 2018 whereby Chapter 3 and Section 12A were introduced. For ready reference Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is reproduced hereunder:
Section 12A CC Act, 2015: Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement page 6 CS Comm. No.360/2024 M/s Bharti Bhawan Vs. Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay
(l) A suit, which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief under this Act, shall not be instiluted unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre-institution mediation in accordance with such manner and procedure as may be prescribed by rules made by the Central Government.
(2) The Central Government may, by notification, authorise the Authorities constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act. 1987, for the purposes of pre institution mediation.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the Authority authorised by the Central Government under sub-section (2) shall complete the process of mediation within a period of three months from the date of application made by the plaintiff under sub-section (l ): 19 of 1987 Provided that the period of mediation may be extended for a further period of two months with the consent of the parties:
Provided further that, the period during which the parties remained occupied with the pre-institution mediation, such period shall not be computed for thc purpose of limitation under the Limilation Act, 1963.
(4) lf the parties to the commercial dispute arrive at a settlement, the same shall be reduced into writing and shall be signed by the parties to the dispute and the mediator.
(5)The settlement arrived at under this section shall have 26 or 1996 the same status and effect as if it is an arbitral award on agreed terms under sub-section(4) of section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996."*
20. Parliament in its wisdom even promulgated PIMS Rules, 2018. Hon'ble Supreme Court in celebrated jugement of Patil Automation Limited Vs. Rakheja Engineering Private Ltd. (2022) Latest Caselaw 645 SC has already ruled that carrying out preinstitution mediation is not optional or directory but is rather mandatory. For ready reference relevant paras of Patil Automation Judgment are reproduced hereunder:
43. "Section 12A cannot be described as a mere procedural law. Exhausting pre-
institution mediation by the plaintiff, with all the benefits that may accrue to the parties and, more importantly, the justice delivery system as a whole, would make Section 12A not a mere procedural provision. The design and scope of the Act, as amended in 2018, by which Section 12A was inserted, would make it clear that Parliament intended to give it a mandatory flavour. Any other interpretation would not only be in the teeth of the express language used but, more importantly, result in frustration of the object of the Act and the Rules"...........
58. A perusal of the Act and the Rules reveal the existence of a complete Code. Mediation contemplated under Section 12A and the Rules, may not succeed in every case. To begin with, the figures may not be reassuring but even if success does not elude the Mediator, in a few of the cases, a good part of the object of the Legislature, would stand achieved.
page 7 CS Comm. No.360/2024 M/s Bharti Bhawan Vs. Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay
72. The Act did not originally contain Section 12A. It is by amendment in the year 2018 that Section 12A was inserted. The Statement of Objects and Reasons are explicit that Section 12A was contemplated as compulsory. The object of the Act and the Amending Act of 2018, unerringly point to at least partly foisting compulsory mediation on a plaintiff who does not contemplate urgent interim relief...... The object is clear. It is an undeniable reality that Court in India are reeling under an extraordinary docket explosion. Mediation, as an Alternative Dispute Mechanism, has been identified as a workable solution in commercial matters. In other words, the cases under the Act lend themselves to be resolved through mediation. Nobody has an absolute right to file a civil suit. A civil suit can be barred absolutely or the bar may operate unless certain conditions are fulfilled. A trained Mediator can work wonders. Mediation must be perceived as a new mechanism of access to justice......... The fact that the mediation can become a non-starter, cannot be a reason to hold the provision not mandatory.
84. Having regard to all these circumstances, we would dispose of the matters in the following manner. We declare that Section 12A of the Act is mandatory and hold that any suit instituted violating the mandate of Section 12A must be visited with rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11. This power can be exercised even suo moto by the Court as explained earlier in the judgment. We, however, make this declaration effective from 20.08.2022 so that concerned stakeholders become sufficiently informed. Still further, we however direct that in case 95 plaints have already been rejected and no steps have been taken within the period of limitation, the matter cannot be reopened on the basis of this declaration. Still further, if the order of rejection of the plaint has been acted upon by filing a fresh suit, the declaration of prospective effect will not avail the plaintiff. Finally, if the plaint is filed violating Section 12A after the jurisdictional High Court has declared Section 12A mandatory also, the plaintiff will not be entitled to the relief.
(Emphasis Supplied)
21. Despite the statutory promulgation and strict interpretation of the same by Hon'ble Supreme Court it is surprising to observe that defendant appears to be having scant regard for the law as promulgated by the Parliament or the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court which is itself a law under Article 141 of Constitution of India. The above legal position mandates every citizen and corporation to strictly follow the same.
22. Mediation is one of the pivotal alternate Dispute Resolution Mechanism which finds recognition in Section 89 CPC as it was reintroduced in the 2002 Amendment. Gauging the success of its inclusion the Parliament decided to make it mandatory for Commercial Courts at a pre-institution stage with an aim to elevate India's position in the Ease of Doing Business, a report prepared by World Bank for ranking investment page 8 CS Comm. No.360/2024 M/s Bharti Bhawan Vs. Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay friendly countries. Out of the 10 components of Ease of Doing Business one of the component is time taken by the countries in "enforcement of contracts". While India's dismal ranking of 161 in 2014 has now reached a somewhat respectable position at 63 rank but in the enforcement of contract component which pertains to time taken by the country in resolving commercial disputes our country still ranks at poorly 171 out of 191 countries.
23. In a similar case recently Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Maxwell Partnership Firm Regards Vs. National Insuranace Company Ltd. And Anr. in I.A. No. 9893/2024 on 03.05.2024. Hon'ble High Court was pained to observe that the defendant in the cited case, despite being a flagship Government owned insurance company did not participate in the Pre-Institution Mediation proceedings. For ready reference the relevant paras are reproduced hereunder:
9. A perusal of the report would show that the insurance company has failed to appear in thepre-litigation mediation as well. Such conduct on behalf of the Insurance Company is contrary to the spirit of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, to say the least. The Plaintiff has already borne 25% of the court fees in the first round as the same could not be returned in terms of decicion in Patil Automation Private Limited & Ors. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited ((2022) 10 SCC OnLine SC 1028). Due to the mediation being a non-starter, it has been compelled to again file the present suit. The entire purpose of pre-litigation mediation has been defeated by the Insurance company.
10. The non-appearance of parties in mediation proceedings carries significant legal ramifications,as provided by various legal provisions. Under the Punjab and Haryana High Court Mediation Rules (Rule 12), parties are mandated to attend mediation sessions, whether in person, through legal representatives, or by means of power of attorney holders. Failure to comply with this requirement may lead to the Mediator or other parties to seek court intervention. Upon finding unjustified absence, the Court can impose costs or initiate contempt proceedings against the parties. Similarly, Rule 13 of the Delhi High Court Mediation Conciliation Rules stipulates that deliberate or wilful non-attendance warrants Court intervention, with the Court empowered to issue appropriate directions. The said Rule is extracted hereinbelow:
"12. Consequences of Non-Attendance: If a party deliberately or willfully fails to attend a session, the other party or mediator/conciliator may apply to the Court. The Court may issue directions based on the case's facts and circumstances"
page 9 CS Comm. No.360/2024 M/s Bharti Bhawan Vs. Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay
11. This principle is also prevalent in Rule 14 of the Telangana High Court Mediation Rules 2015 and Rule 13 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005 wherein it is elucidated that failure to attend mediation due to deliberate acts may result in judicial intervention and the issuance of necessary directives. The same has been emphasized in the case of Smt Amalapooh Mary & Ors. v. Sri V Ravindra & Ors. (WP51491/2016) wherein it was held that if the party is absent in the mediation proceedings, the Court could impose costs.
21. In terms of Rule 13 of Mediation Rules, 2005, the Court has the power to direct a party to appearbefore the mediator, in the event of a Court finding that a party is absenting himself before the mediator without sufficient reason, costs could be imposed on such a party. The quantum of costs that could be imposed by the Court is at the discretion of the Court, which the Court could decide upon and impose depending on the nature of the matter.
22. In view of Rule 13 of the Mediation Rules, 2005, it is no longer permissible for either counsel orthe party in a proceeding to refuse participation in mediation proceedings, if at all a party were to absent himself, the Court could impose costs as also repeated costs until the party were to appear and participate in the mediation proceedings. The Court is not powerless to issue appropriate directions to the parties to attend the Mediation infact it is the bounden duty of the Court to issue necessary directions so that all the parties participate in the mediation process in terms of the Mediation Rules, 2005.
xxx xxx xxx 43.3. In terms of Paragraph 36 of the Afcon's Judgment, there is no requirement to obtain consent of either lawyers appearing for the parties or of the parties themselves.
xxx xxx xxx 43.4. In the event of any of the parties not presenting themselves before the Mediation Centre or the Lok- adalat, the Court could exercise powers under Rule 13 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules 2005 and impose such costs as it may deem fit to compel the attendance of the parties before the Mediator so appointed. "
14. In essence, the obligation to attend mediation is of paramount importance as theentire purpose of the enactment of the provision, as a mandatory step to be taken before commencing litigation, would otherwise be defeated. Especially in the case of organisations which have a public character, effective participation in pre-litigation mediation is essential. If mediation has to be taken seriously and with a result oriented approach, institutions with a public character including government departments etc., ought to participate through proper appearance of officials or duly authorised persons. Any non-participation ought to invite consequences in law.
16. Let the written statement to the plaint be filed within 30 days. Along with thewritten statement, the Defendants shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the Plaintiffs, without which the written statement shall not be taken on record. In view of the conduct of the Defendant through the previous litigation and non-attendance in the mediation proceedings, non-appearance despite service of advance copy, the Defendants are shall deposit costs of Rs. 5 lakhs with the worthy page 10 CS Comm. No.360/2024 M/s Bharti Bhawan Vs. Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay Registrar General of this Court, as a pre-condition to file the written statement. If the costs are not deposited, the Written statement would not be liable to be taken on record.
(Emphasis Supplied)
24. In the light of the above, the defendant is burdened with cost of Rs.25,000/- for his non-participation in Pre-Institution Mediation to be paid to plaintiff.
25. In the absence of any documentary evidence and no defence at all, defendant has not been able to put any dent on the merits of the plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff has discharged the onus of proving its case. Interest
26. The interest is payable as per Section 34 CPC. For ready reference, Section 34 CPC is reproduced hereunder:
Section 34 CPC: Interest
(i)"Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding 6% per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the court thinks fit.
(ii).Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed 6% per annum but shall not exceed the contractual rate or interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalized banks in relation to commercial transactions.
Explanation (i) In this sub-section, "nationalized bank" means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970.
Explanation (ii) For the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability.
Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest (on such principal sum) from the date of the decree to the date of the payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit therefore shall not lie.
(Emphasis Supplied)
27. Section 34 CPC provides that plaintiff will be entitled the interest at the rate at which Court finds reasonable. For a general suit, the rate of interest prescribed is 6% and for commercial suit, the Parliament promulgates that page 11 CS Comm. No.360/2024 M/s Bharti Bhawan Vs. Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay rate of interest may increase from 6% to a rate which is found reasonable. Plaintiff is accordingly entitled to only the rate at which RBI has issued Circular for Commercial suits.
28. As far as the interest is concerned, rate applicable to Commercial transaction shall be payable. As per RBI notification dated 30.08.2022 issued vide Press Release no.2022-2023/794 whereby advisory issued by RBI to Schedule Commercial banks of accepting deposit rates @ 9.05% per annum.
Relief
29. In view of the above, suit of the plaintiff stands decreed with cost for a sum of Rs. 7,82,902 + Rs.43,628 {interest @ 9% w.e.f 01.08.2023 (as per last sale) to 14.03.2024 (date of filing of the suit)} = Rs. 8,26,530/- and further 9% interest on Rs. 8,26,530 + Rs.2,166 (GST paid) = Rs.8,28,696/- pendente lite and till realization. Plaintiff's Lawyer's fees is assessed as Rs.35,000/-.
30. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room Digitally after due compliance as per rules.
signed by
SURINDER S
SURINDER RATHI
S RATHI Date:
2026.01.27
14:51:42
+0530
(S S RATHI)
District Judge,
Commercial Court -11
Central District, THC
Delhi/13.01.2026
page 12
CS Comm. No.360/2024 M/s Bharti Bhawan Vs. Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay