Delhi District Court
Dr. Veena Kachhwah vs M/S Eurizone Education Pvt Ltd on 6 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA :
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-06
TIS HAZARI COURTS, WEST: DELHI
CS (COMM) No. 834/2023
CNR No. DLWT010089212023
06.08.2025
M/s. Eurizone Education Pvt. Ltd.
Regd. Office at:
1-B, 1st Floor, Block 5,
Kirti Nagar Industrial Area,
New Delhi-110015
Through its AR Sh. Saurabh Agarwal,
Branch Office at:
817, 8th Floor,
Spaze Platinum Tower Malibu Town,
Sector-47, Gurgaon,
Haryana-122018. .....Plaintiff
Vs.
Dr. Veena Kachhwah
D/o. Maniram Kachhwah,
H-06, Kakda Abhinav Homes,
Ayodhya By Pass Road,
Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh-462022. ....Defendant
Date of filing : 02.11.2023
Date of arguments : 06.08.2025
Date of judgment : 06.08.2025
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 4,21,885/- ALONG WITH
FUTURE AND PENDENTE-LITE INTEREST.
AND
Counter Claim No. 5/2024
CNR No. DLWT010006862024
06.08.2025
M/s. Eurizone Education Pvt. Ltd.
.....Plaintiff/Non-counter claimant.
CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -1-
Vs.
Dr. Veena Kachhwah
....Defendant/Counter claimant.
Date of filing : 25.01.2024
Date of arguments : 06.08.2025
Date of judgment : 06.08.2025
COUNTER CLAIM UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 6A, CPC ON
BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT/COUNTER CLAIMANT
SEEKING MANDATORY INJUNCTION UPON THE
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT.
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. Vide this common judgment, I am deciding the suit for recovery of Rs. 4,21,885/- along with future and pendente-lite interest filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. Vide this common judgment, I am also deciding the Counter Claim under Order 8 Rule 6A filed by the defendant/counter claimant against the plaintiff/Non-Counter claimant seeking relief of mandatory injunction.
2. The essential facts for disposal of present suit as per plaint are as that the plaintiff is a private limited company having its registered office at 1-B, 1 st Floor, Block 5, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, New Delhi-110015. Sh. Saurabh Agarwal, who is AR/Director of plaintiff is fully conversant with the facts of the case and competent to depose before the Court. The plaintiff company has passed resolution dated 03.10.2023 in his favour authorizing him to sign, verify, institute and file the present case. The plaintiff company is providing A1, A2 and B1 German CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -2- language classes in India and also providing online classes since 2013. It is mentioned that prior to starting of course, the plaintiff company had executed the agreement with the defendant on 24.05.2021. The plaintiff has completed all the work as per said agreement. The defendant approached the plaintiff for Medical PG in Germany, Tution of German Language Levels - A1, A2 and B-2. The plaintiff raised invoices against the tution fees, Administrative Fees etc. The plaintiff in due course of its business had provided services to the defendant from time to time as per defendant's specification and requirement. The defendant being satisfied with the services of plaintiff made payment to the plaintiff on the same day of raising invoice. The plantiff is maintaining regular books of account and a separate running account in the name of defendant and as per books of account a sum of Rs. 4,21,885/- is outstanding against the defendant (as per the statement for the period from 01.04.2021 to 27.06.2023). The plaintiff from time to time made requests to the defendant to make the payment of Rs. 4,21,885/- but the defendant avoided the payment on one pretext or the other. It is mentioned that in the first week of July 2023, the plaintiff again requested the defendant for making the payment but till date the defendant has not made the payment. Plaintiff has approached Ld. Secretary, DLSA (West) for pre-institution mediation and non-starter report dated 17.08.2023 was issued by the authority. It is prayed by the plaintiff to pass a decree of Rs. 4,21,885/- in its favour and against the defendant. Plaintiff has also claimed interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization along with cost of the suit.
CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -3-3. The defendant has filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the suit filed by the plaintiff is without any basis. The plaintiff has filed the present suit with concocted facts. It is mentioned that the defendant being the customer of plaintiff is victim of the misinformation and false promises made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff company is nothing but a mere set-up established by its directors to lure the innocent public into attractive offers and extort money from such customers fraudulently. The claim of the plaintiff is barred in terms of the Indian Evidence Act. It is mentioned by the defendant that she is a doctor by profession since year 2001 and has long years of her medicine practice, earned immense reputation and respect in the society. The plaintiff had advertised a program wherein, it was claimed that through the services provided by the plaintiff, Indian doctors would be able to study and work in Germany and also learn the German language free of cost. The defendant came across the said advertisement and approached to enquire about the said program of the plaintiff. It was informed by the Director of the plaintiff company, namely Mr. Saurabh Agarwal that they help doctors in getting placed in Germany. Mr. Saurabh Agarwal has also informed the defendant that the plaintiff company is being run by him and his wife Ms. Hemali Gupta. It was also informed to the defendant that the plaintiff company has tie-up with the government of Germany. Mr Saurabh Agarwal also informed the defendant that plaintiff company is charging no other fees apart from the expenses incurred for the translation of documents into German language. Mr. Saurabh also stated that defendant can avail all such services of the plaintiff by paying an amount of Rs. 12 lacs as fees and in CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -4- return, the defendant would get a job as an Anaesthesia Doctor in Germany. The defendant conveyed to the director of the plaintiff that she is not having the amount of Rs. 12 lacs for making payment upon which Ms. Hemali Gupta offered the defendant to make the payment of Rs. 59,000/- as a security deposit and pay the remaining amount in installments. The defendant was asked to submit the necessary documents as per the list provided by the plaintiff company. The defendant sent all the required documents which included her MBBS degree, Post- Graduate (M.D) mark sheet etc. to the plaintiff company and also deposited an amount of Rs. 59,000/- as security to the plaintiff company. The defendant submitted the following documents based on the assurance of the plaintiff that the said documents would be returned within 3 month:-
(i) MBBS First Prof Marksheet.
(ii) MBBS Second Prof Marksheet.
(iii) MBBS Final Part I Marksheet.
(iv) MBBS Final Part II Marksheet.
(v) MBBS Degree.
(vi) MBBS permanent registraton.
(vii) MBBS Transcript.
(viii) MBBS Cirriculum signed by Dean, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal.
(ix) MD Degree.
(x) MD Registration.
(xi) MD Transcript.
(xii) MD curriculum signed by Dean, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur.CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -5-
(xiii) Migration Certificate from Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur.
(xiv) Good Standing certificates.
(xv) MD Attempt Certificate.
(xvi) MD Experience certificate. (xvii) MD teaching certificate. (xviii) Work experience certificate from Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur. (xix)Work experience Certificate from People's Medical College, Bhopal.
(xx) Work experience certificate from Advance Medical College, Bhopal.
(xxi) Work experience certificate from All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal.
(xxii)Work experience certificate from Balco Medical Center Cancer Hospital, Raipur.
(xxiii) Internship completion certificate issued by Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal.
(xxiv) Birth Certificate.
(xxv) Resume.
4. It is further mentioned that Mr. Saurabh assured the defendant that all her documents are being taken only for the purpose of transaction, verification and other necessary formalities and would be sent back to her within a period of 3 months. It is also mentioned that the plaintiff company provided the mobile phone number of the teacher, who taught the German language to the defendant. The defendant was not satisfied with the way of teaching adopted by the said German teacher as, the CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -6- teacher used to evade her duties. A complaint was made to the plaintiff company about the said teacher and plaintiff company changed the teacher 3-4 times, which caused a lot of hardships to the defendant and she had to learn herself the German language. The defendant made numerous correspondences to the plaintiff company with regard to its deficient services but she was assured that it would not be repeated. It is mentioned that Mr. Saurabh sent registration form for signing on the email of defendant. There was some terms and conditions in the said form because of which the defendant was hesitant to put her signatures on the same. Upon asking about the said clauses of the registration form, the defendant was assured that the said clauses are just formal in nature. The defendant believing the assurance of plaintiff company that the degree of defendant is valid in Germany and believing the words of Mr. Saurabh, she put her signatures on the said form in the month of June 2021 and sent the same to Delhi. The registration form got signed by the plaintiff from the defendant under misrepresentation, therefore, the same does not hold any value in law. It is mentioned that defendant was having financial constraints because of which the amount of Rs. 12 lacs was borrowed by her from her friends and family and was paid to the plaintiff company. The plaintiff kept on asking for more money from the defendant and a sum of Rs. 3,03,282/- was transferred to the plaintiff's account. It is mentioned that Mr. Saurabh told the defendant that the entire process will take about 6-7 months but gradually two years passed. Defendant kept on asking for her documents which were given to the plaintiff company but plaintiff company only gave excuses and kept on delaying the same. It is also mentioned that CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -7- whenever the defendant demanded her documents, the plaintiff in turn asked for more money from the defendant. The defendant even told the plaintiff that due to lack of documents, she could lose her job. However, the plaintiff told that she may resign from her job as she would receive her Visa in next two or three months but, in fact the defendant received her Visa after 5 months. It is mentioned that on 23.02.2023 when the defendant reached Germany, she did not get facilities as promised by the plaintiff company. Due to wrong guidance of the plaintiff and the submissions of wrong documents, the permanent license of the defendant was rejected. It is mentioned that plaintiff after inspection of documents of the defendant told that degree obtained by the defendant in India is valid in Germany. However, the defendant came to know on 04.05.2023 that her degree was not valid in Germany and she had to pursue a degree of M.D in Germany itself. This was more catastrophic as the defendant had already completed her M.D degree in 2005 and she was having 17 years of experience. The Act of the plaintiff has a proportional ill effect on the finances and the mental and physical health of the defendant. The defendant did not have job and because of this the health of the defendant started deteriorating and her finances were severely impacted. On 12.05.2023, the defendant being absolutely hopeless, informed the plaintiff about returning back to India, explained her situation in detail and once again requested for her original documents to be returned. The parents and three children of defendant are financially dependent upon her. Due to the act of the plaintiff, defendant was not able to send money to India because of her financial difficulties. On 02.07.2023, the defendant returned to CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -8- India and contacted Mr. Saurabh and again demanded her documents back. The plaintiff company baselessly on 25.06.2023 through Whatsapp and 27.06.2023 through email demanded a sum of Rs. 4,21,885/-. The plaintiff told the defendant that the said documents will be returned only after clearing of the aforesaid amount. As per the defendant, she has paid a total sum of Rs. 15,03,282/- to the plaintiff company. It is mentioned that the defendant reported the illegalities vide complaint dated 05.07.2023 on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal and defendant also reported the matter to DCP Crime, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh vide complaint dated 19.07.2023. The defendant in the month of July 2023, sent a legal notice through counsel to the plaintiff for returning back the amount of Rs. 15,03,282/-. The plaintiff unlawfully withheld all the original documents of the defendant.
In reply on merits, it is mentioned that the invoices in fact sent to the defendant for the first time on 27.06.2023, where as the plaintiff claimed that the said invoices were due in February 2023. As per defendant, there is no legal dues against her. The defendant has not seen any invoices of translators. In reply on merits similar averments are made. Dismissal of suit is prayed by the defendant.
5. The plaintiff has filed replication and controverted the allegations made in the written statement and further reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint.
6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by this court on 12.02.2025, which are as under:-
CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -9-(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 4,21,885/- from the defendant, as prayed ? (OPP)
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the amount of Rs. 4,21,885/-, if yes then at what rate and for what period ? (OPP)
(iii) Relief.
7. The essential facts for disposal of the Counter claim filed by the Counter claimant/ defendant (hereinafter will be referred as defendant) are as that the defendant is a peace loving and law abiding citizen of India. The defendant is a Doctor by profession since 2001 and throughout the long years of medicine practice, earned immense reputation and respect in the society. The plaintiff/ Non-counter claimant (hereinafter will be referred as plaintiff) had advertised a program wherein, it was claimed that through the services provided by the plaintiff, Indian doctors would be able to study and work in Germany and also learn the German language free of cost. The defendant has made similar averments in the counter claim as made in the written statement. The defendant has prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction in her favour and against the plaintiff, directing the plaintiff to return all the original documents to her. The defendant has also prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction in her favour and against the plaintiff directing the plaintiff to provide all the translated copies of all the documents of the defendant which were duly certified by the German Consulate, Mumbai along with all the notarized copies of the documents.
CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -10-8. The plaintiff/ Non-counter claimant has filed reply to the counter claim taking preliminary objections that defendant has concealed the material facts and concocted a false story. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,21,885/- on the basis of agreement dated 25.05.2021. As per the plaintiff, the defendant is required to make the payment of Rs. 4,21,885/-. It is mentioned that all the documents and forms were submitted with German Medical council for verification. On 24.03.2022 the German Medical Council raised the bill of 700 EUROS for expenses for verification/authenticity check. The plaintiff appointed the teacher two times but the defendant was not able to manage her own time of the classes and teachers were facing problems in teaching the defendant. The said teacher contacted the defendant through Whatsapp and phone call for sharing the meeting ID and Password for conducting the classes. The behaviour of the defendant towards the teacher was not ethical. The payment was not made by the defendant to German Medical Council. The plaintiff has made payment to German Medical Council on behalf of defendant. The defendant through Whatsapp requested the plaintiff to clear the said payment. It is mentioned that defendant from the beginning wanted to learn German language through Zoom App/ VC, so plaintiff appointed a teacher to teach her the German language. The defendant never supported the teacher. As per the plaintiff, it has clearly explained to the defendant about each and every line of the agreement which was executed between the parties. The defendant has signed the agreement after understanding the same. The plaintiff in the agreement has clearly mentioned about its services in India and in Germany are separate and also stated the step by CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -11- step process regarding each of the stages and accordingly payments were demanded as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. The plaintiff has explained the process verbally as welll as in written form about German language. It is mentioned that plaintiff has completed each and every step regarding the admission process in PG Degree of the defendant as per terms and conditions of the said agreement. The plaintiff always charged according to the work. As per terms and conditions of the agreement all the invoices were raised according to step by step process. The plaintiff company always raised the bills according to work regarding the defendant and time to time all the bills/invoices were sent to the defendant. The plaintiff always sent proforma invoices to the defendant. The defendant never disputed any proforma invoice/ Tax invoice. As per the agreement, B1 German language certificate is mandatory in order to get Difizitbescheid (Deficiency in certification) and Difizitbescheid (Deficiency in certification) is the most important requirement for visa approval. It is mentioned that the B1 exam passing date was 02.03.2022 from the date of registraton i.e. 24.05.2021. The plaintiff company tried to explain several times to the defendant that getting the original documents in between the process can jeopardize the process because the German Medical Council has forwarded the documents to the German Consulate in Mumbai for verification. It is further mentioned that after getting verification process over and Difizitbescheid (Deficiency in certification) in hand in October 2022, the plaintiff asked the council on 13.01.2023 to return the documents but council has refused because the defendant's curriculum was under equivalance test process in Bonn in Germany. The CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -12- defendant was in direct contact with the Officers of German Consulate in Mumbai as well as Dresden, Germany for Visa process. Defendant's visa approval got delayed because embassy has asked her to submit the Difizitbescheid (Deficiency in certification). The plaintiff personally went to VFS global office on 07.10.2022 to submit her Difizitbescheid (Deficiency in certification) and after that defendant got visa approval on 01.02.2023 and she travelled to Germany. The defendant reached Frankfurt and took train to Dresden. The defendant has not opted airport pickup service which was optional. The defendant was welcomed in plaintiff's guest house provided by German partner Kastner Kolleg Institute. In the same institution the defendant has successfully passed B2 exam but failed in C1 exam. The plaintiff has also given FSP exam preparation course invitation without any tuition fees as mentioned in the agreement. The defendant has submitted wrong curriculum of 2016 instated of 1996-2001. Defendant has not translated all the pages of the report. Vide report dated 15.05.2023 the council had also given her a chance to appeal against the decision within one month but defendant failed to do so. It is mentioned that the email dated 12.05.2023 of the defendant shows that she wanted to stop her further process because her file was rejected. It is further mentioned that if Indian degree is not equivalent to German degree then one has to pass the KP exam. It is mentioned in the report dated 04.05.2023 that defendant's degree is not equivalent due to submission of wrong curriculum. The council was not able to examine defendant's MBBS curriculum therefore, her further MD Anaesthesia curriculum alone cannot prove equivalency of her entire medical training in India. The defendant CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -13- got another chance for proving her medical knowledge and skills by passing KP exam, which will allow her to practice medicine permanently in Germany. It is mentioned that plaintiff has sent her Difizitbescheid (Deficiency in certification) by email on 06.10.2022 along with the proforma invoice to make the payment of Rs. 1,76,174/-. The defendant sent message on the plaintiff's whatsapp number and told him that she is not having money and plaintiff told her to pay whenever she can. It is mentioned that after defendant's visa approval on 01.02.2023 and again on 16.02.2023, plaintiff sent Difizitbescheid (Deficiency in certification) open invoice along with new invoice which she has to pay after visa approval amount of Rs. 1,23,900/-. The defendant has not paid the amount of Rs. 20 lacs to Eurizone with extra cost of GST. It is mentioned that the email conversations between the plaintiff and defendant show that she was aware about the due amount. It is mentioned that when the defendant returned to India, plaintiff asked to pay the due amount of two invoices but she refused to pay. As per the plaintiff if someone cancels the process in between then one has to pay tuition fees of A1, A2 and B1 courses which defendant took free of cost along with cancellation fees and DHL charges to send documents back from Germany to India.
In preliminary submissions, it is mentioned that defendant has issued the Authority letter on 18.06.2023 in favour of Saurabh Agawal to do acts on her behalf. She has also authorized Dr. Hycham Mansour to present the documents, sign and other deeds and acts on her behalf. The documents of the defendant were presented by Dr. Hycham Mansour before the concerned authority. The plaintiff never represented the document of the CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -14- defendant before any government authority in Germany. Sh. Saurabh Agarwal handed over the documents to Dr. Hycham Mansour as per directions of the defendant. The original documents were kept by Dr. Hycham Mansour due to non- payment of Rs. 2,60,000/- for the services provided. Dismissal of counter claim is prayed by the plaintiff.
9. The counter claimant has filed replication/ rejoinder to the reply and controverted the allegations made in the reply and further reaffirmed the averments made in the counter claim.
10. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by this court on 25.07.2024, which are as under:-
(i) Whether the counter claimant is entitled for a decree of Mandatory injunction, as prayed ? (Onus to prove on counter claimant)
(ii) Relief.
11. Vide order dated 25.07.2024, the suit bearing No. 834/2023 filed by the plaintiff against the defendant and Counter claim No. 5/2024 filed by the Counter claimant against Non- counter claimant were clubbed together for the purpose of recording evidence and it was ordered that evidence recorded in CS (Comm) No. 834/2023 be also read in CC No. 5/2024.
12. In evidence Sh. Saurabh Agarwal, AR/Director of the plaintiff appeared as PW-1. This witness has filed affidavit on the lines of plaint. This witness has proved the copy of resolution dated 03.10.2023 as Ex. PW1/2, Copy of statement of account as CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -15- Ex. PW1/5, Copy of translated email/bill as Ex. PW1/7, copy of documents and emails regarding B1 certificate and approval of Visa as Ex. PW1/10 (colly), Copies of invitations, proof of payment, B2 exam passing certificate and C1 exam failing certificate as Ex. Pw1/11 (colly), Copies of emails along with translation as Ex. PW1/12 (I) to P-1/12 (iv) (colly), Copies of emails as PW1/13. Same is de-exhibited as it is already admitted and exhibited as Ex. P-16, Pen drive of video clip as Ex. PW1/14 (placed in counter claim) and Certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW1/15.
This witness is duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant. In cross examination, this witness has admitted that no other document was signed by the defendant with the plaintiff company except Ex. PW1/3. He has stated that defendant is a doctor by profession and she had approached the plaintiff company for providing services to her. He has stated that the plaintiff company had provided services i.e. German Language Class, documentation like verification of documents by German Embassy, Mumbai and Medical Council in Germany. This witness has stated that he has also provided documents for Visa application such as invitation letter for German Language and licence examination called as FSP (Fachsprachprufung) i.e. (Patient Communication Test), along with accommodation arrangement. He has stated that the defendant approached the plaintiff company for availing its services in May, 2021. He has stated that the plaintiff company has provided translation services to the defendant through third party i.e. Sofia Gloukh. He has admitted that the plaintiff has not placed on record any agreement/invoice executed between the plaintiff company and CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -16- Sofia Gloukh. He has admitted that the copy of translated documents was never sent to the defendant. He has voluntarily stated that it was sent to the Medical Council in Germany directly. He has stated that the plaintiff has got one set of hard copy and it was sent to Medical Council in Germany. He has admitted that no document regarding sending of hard copy to Medical Council, Germany is placed on record. He has voluntarily stated that without receiving translation of the documents, the Medical Council, Germany would have not issued the deficiency letter. A question was put by Ld. Counsel for defendant to the witness that the documents/degrees which are equilant and non equilant to the German Degrees for the purpose of KP Exam/for obtaining permanent licence to practice in Germany? The witness replied that without passing KP Exam the degree outside European Union is not automatic equivalent in Germany. This witness has stated that he had personally seen the degree of the defendant before starting the process. This witness has voluntarily stated that all the non European degrees like India are not automatically equivalent to work as doctor in Germany without passing KP Exam which is permanent license exam in Germany. This witness has stated that he has intimated to the defendant that before starting practice in Germany, she had to clear KP Exam. This witness has stated that he has informed the defendant that the curriculum which she had given is not from the same year of graduation and then she said that at her graduation time the same curriculum was not available. He has admitted that defendant has made the payment regarding checking of authentication of documents. He has admitted that the language fees was to be deducted from the registration fees in CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -17- case of cancellation. He has admitted that the registration fee was paid by the defendant. He has admitted that at present the original documents of the defendant are with Mr. Hysham Mansour, who is his partner and he is taking care of his office in Germany. This witness has admitted that he and Mr. Hysham Mansour were the power of attorney holder of defendant for submission of documents. This witness has stated that he had received a sum of Rs. 10 lacs approximately from the defendant. This witness has stated that he has no knowledge regarding Email dated 14.02.2024 sent by LANDESDIRECTION SAXONY i.e. German Medical Council to the defendant. He has admitted that as per this email German Medical Council has returned the documents to his partner Mr. Hysham Mansour. This witness has stated that his email ID is [email protected].
13. On the other hand, defendant has examined herself as DW-1. This witness has filed affidavit on the lines of written statement. This witness has relied on copy of advertisement which is Ex. D-1. This witness has proved courier receipts Mark A (colly), Email dated 11.01.2023 as Ex. DW1/3, Payment receipt as Ex. DW1/4, Email dated 17.04.2023 and 18.04.2023 as Ex. DW1/5, Documents with respect to health and travel insurance as Ex. DW1/6, Documents in respect to Block Account as Ex. DW1/7, Whatsapp chat with Ms. Keerti as Ex. DW1/8, E-mail dated 14.01.2023 which is D-2, Letter dated 04.05.2023 as Ex. DW1/10, Email dated 12.05.2023 which is Ex. D-3, Whatsapp chat between defendant and plaintiff as Ex. DW1/12, Complaint dated 19.07.2023 as Mark-B, Copy of legal CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -18- notice as Ex. DW1/14, Email dated 28.06.2023 as Ex. DW1/15, Email dated 14.02.2024 as Ex. DW1/16, Declaration U/o XI Rule 6 read with Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act dated 09.01.2024 as Ex. DW1/17, Declaration U/o XI Rule 6 read with Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act dated 19.04.2024 as Ex.DW1/18.
This witness is duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. During cross examination, this witness has stated that she is Professor and Head in department of Anesthesilogy at Government Medical College, Satna, MP since 21.06.2024. She has stated that prior to that she was working as Professor and Head of the Department at Mahavir Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal. This witness has stated that he is using Whatsapp on her mobile No. 6261754535. This witness has stated that she is also using whatsapp facility on mobile No. 8120432597. This witness has voluntarily stated that she occasionally used this mobile number. This witness has stated that her email ID is [email protected]. She has stated that in the last week of May, 2021, she had seen an advertisement of the plaintiff on Facebook and she had contacted the plaintiff on the whatsapp number and Mr. Saurav Aggarwal had responded her that he will call her after 05 minutes. She has admitted that Ex. PW1/3 was executed between her and the plaintiff. This witness has voluntarily stated that she had conveyed Mr. Saurav Aggarwal, Director of the plaintiff that there are certain terms which are not agreeable to her then Mr. Saurav Aggarwal told her that this agreement is merely a formality. This witness has admitted that she had not conveyed this fact to the plaintiff through whatsapp or email. This witness CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -19- has stated that she wanted to settle in Germany to do job and to settle there because she is a single mother of three daughters and education is also free in Germany. This witness has admitted that she had not cleared the Licence exams called FSP and KP which is required in order to practice in Germany as a doctor. This witness has voluntarily stated that she had only cleared Language Exam. The witness has further voluntarily stated that she could not clear FSP and KP exam as she was facing financial hardship. She has also stated that the date of FSP examination was after five months and for KP exam, she had to submit the documents with the plaintiff on his guidance. She has admitted that FSP Exam and KP Exam were the part of the agreement Ex. PW1/3. She has admitted that as per Ex. PW1/3 she has to pay the examination fee of both the above mentioned exams. This witness has admitted that she returned from Germany at her own will. She has stated that the plaintiff has also assured her that it will provide coaching for language exam but the plaintiff has changed the teacher for 3-4 times and she had to study herself without assistance of any teacher. She has stated that one language teacher Ms. Anshika Tyagi had taught her only for one day in Delhi. She has stated that the name of other teacher is Ms. Kirti Shrivastav and she taught her for about four months. She has stated that Ms. Kirti Shrivastav used to take classes only for 15 minutes and she had no experience to teach language to the doctors. This witness has admitted that she had not made any written complaint in this regard to the Director of the plaintiff. This witness has voluntarily stated that she had only made oral complaints to the plaintiff. She has stated that the third teacher Ms. Diksha had only taken classes for 20 days in a month. This CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -20- witness has admitted her conversation with the plaintiff which is exhibited as Ex.DW1/PX-1 (colly). This witness has stated that she did not remember if she had deposited any money in respect of the language classes taken by her. This witness has admitted that she had not placed on record any document to show that she had paid any amount /charges for taking language classes from the plaintiff. This witness has stated that she used to receive the bills from the plaintiff on whatsapp and on her email. This witness has admitted that she had not raised any objection in respect of the bills raised by the Plaintiff on her while she was in India. This witness has stated that she had raised objection on the bill of Rs.4,21,000/- raised by the plaintiff, when she was in Germany. This witness has stated that she had raised objection by making whatsapp call to the plaintiff and sent email in this regard. This witness has stated that she came to India on 02.07.2023. This witness has stated that she did not remember if the fees of verification of her documents were deposited by the plaintiff. This witness has admitted that she had admitted that verification fees was deposited by the plaintiff in her whatsapp conversation which is Ex. DW1/PX-2. This witness has admitted that she that she had conveyed to the Embassy officials of Germany that she will clear the FSP exam in Germany and on this assurance the Visa was granted to her. She has stated that the plaintiff has demanded amount of Rs. 03 lakh as mentioned in para no. 14 of her evidence affidavit through email. This witness has stated that she has placed on record the email. This witness has stated that she had only authorised Mr. Saurav Aggarwal to appear before German Medical Council. This witness has admitted that she had received email Ex. DW1/PX-3 (colly) from CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -21- the plaintiff. She has voluntarily stated that the plaintiff conveyed her that it was only a formality. This witness has stated that she is not aware if her original documents were deposited with German Medical Council or not. This witness has voluntarily stated that she had given all her original documents to Mr. Saurav Aggarwal. She has admitted that German Medical Council had verified all her documents. This witness has stated that she did not remember if the verification fee of her documents was paid by the plaintiff or by her. She has admitted that verification fee was deposited by the plaintiff and she had also paid the amount of verification fee to the plaintiff. This witness has admitted that she had not demanded her original documents from the German Medical Council before filing the counter claim. This witness has admitted that she had received a response from German Medical Council informing her that all her original documents are with Mr. Hysham Mansour, his representative in Germany. This witness has voluntarily stated that she did not know Mr. Hysham Mansour and the plaintiff conveyed her that it is a formality to give address of one native person of Germany. This witness has stated that the plaintiff has himself mentioned the name of Hysham Mansour in the documents as her representative. This witness has admitted that she had not deposited any fee directly to Mr. Hysham Mansour.
14. I have heard Ld. Counsels for both the parties at length in CS (Comm) No. 834/2023 and Counter Claim No. 5/2024 and perused the records carefully.
15. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -22-16. Firstly, I am deciding the issues framed in CS (Comm) No. 834/2023.
17. Issue No. 1 -Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 4,21,885/- from the defendant, as prayed ? (OPP)
18. At the very Outset, I may observe that the provisions of Section 2 (1) (c)(xviii) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are very clear which reads as under:-
(c) "commercial dispute" means a dispute arising out of-
(i) ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents, including enforcement and interpretation of such documents;
(ii) export or import of merchandise or services;
(iii) issues relating to admiralty and maritime law;
(iv) transactions relating to aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft equipments and helicopters, including sales, leasing and financing of the same;
(v) carriage of goods;
(vi) construction and infrastructure contracts, including tenders;
(vii) agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce.
(viii) franchising agreements;
(ix) distribution and licensing agreements;
(x) management and consultancy agreements;
(xi) joint venture agreement;
(xii) shareholders agreements;
(xiii) subscription and investment agreements pertaining to the services industry including outsourcing services and financial services;
(xiv) mercantile agency and mercantile usage;
(xv)partnership agreements;
(xvi) technology development agreements;CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -23-
(xvii) intellectual property rights relating to registered and unregistered trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications and semiconductor integrated circuits; (xviii) agreement for sale of goods or provision of services;
(xix) exploitation of oil and gas reserves or other natural resources including electromagnetic spectrum; (xx) insurance and re-insurance; (xxi) contracts of agency relating to any of the above; and (xxii) such other commercial disputes as may be notified by the Central Government.
19. The provisions of Section 2 (1) (c) (xviii) of Commercial Courts Act as above are very much clear. Sale of goods are governed by Sale of Goods Act, they pertain to movable properties, any dispute of sale or agreement to sale of goods of specified value do come within the jurisdiction of Commercial Courts Act. The clause also includes the services and guarantee given for the goods sold. The service or guarantee may be oral or written. Therefore, the facts which alleged in the plaint comes under the Commercial disputes.
20. Secondly, now the question arises whether this Court has the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter which is dispute. In this regard, the provisions of Section 3 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides that:
Section 3 : Constitution of Commercial Courts:
(1) The State Government, may after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute such number of Commercial Courts at District level, as it may deem necessary for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction and powers conferred on those Courts under this Act:CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -24-
[Provided that with respect to the High Courts having ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute Commercial Courts at the District Judge level:
Provided further that with respect to a territory over which the High Courts have ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakh rupees and not more than the pecuniary jurisdiction exercisable by the District Courts, as it may consider necessary. ] 3[1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the State Government may, after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakh rupees or such higher value, for whole or part of the State, as it may consider necessary.]
21. Admittedly, the Commercial Court Act was amended on 03.05.2018 and by virtue of the amendment and by virtue of the notification, the pecuniary value of the Commercial Courts Act shall not be less than Rs. 3,00,000/-. In the present case, the claim amount which is shown in the plaint is of Rs. 4,21,885/-. So, commercial court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
22. Burden to prove this issue is on the plaintiff.
23. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 4,21,885/- arising from 3 invoices detailed as under :-
S.NO. Particular of Invoice Date Amount
CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -25-
1.
EZE/23-24/F/030 27.06.2023 1,23,900/-
2.
EZE/23-24/F/031 27.06.2023 1,91,750/-
3.
EZE/22-23/F/0032 27.06.2023 1,06,236/-
24. Now, I will deal with each of the invoices individually.
25. Firstly, invoice of Rs. 1,23,900/- was raised by the plaintiff to the defendant. This invoice is in respect of administration fee after getting visa approval of Rs. 90,000/-, translation fees of Rs. 9,000/- and DHL charges of Rs. 6,000/- with 18% IGST Rs. 18,900/-.
I have perused the registration form exhibited as PW 1/3 wherein in column "F" administration charges after getting visa approval is chargeable at € 1000/-. This registration form is duly signed by the defendant on 18.06.2021. The visa of the defendant bearing no. 066602425 is exhibited as P-15. Defendant has not denied the fact that she has received her visa. Perusal of the WhatsApp chat shows that the plaintiff has duly guided the plaintiff in receiving her German visa. On 16.02.2023 Plaintiff sent a reminder email to clear 2 pending invoices. Plaintiff also issued performa invoice no. EZE/22-23/F/080 of Rs. 1,23,000/- on 16.02.2023. The defendant replied to the plaintiff via email dated 16.02.2023 stating that she will pay the dues when her CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -26- earning starts again as she is not able to pay due to financial problems. It is clear that the defendant admitted to pay administration fees after getting visa approval. The defendant can not withdraw from her liability when she has duly admitted to receive her visa. Plaintiff has also claimed DHL charges however no document has been placed on record to show this amount was paid to DHL. Plaintiff has also claimed Rs. 9000 as translation fees. However, in the cross-examination PW-1 stated that the plaintiff company has provided translation services to the defendant through a third-party i.e; Sophia Gluokh. He also admitted that he has not placed on record any agreement/invoice executed between the plaintiff and Sophia Gluokh. He further admitted that the copy of translated documents was never sent to the defendant. Consequently, in absence of any concrete proof the plaintiff cannot claim translation fee. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay Rs. 1,06,300/- (90,000/- + 18% IGST i.e; Rs. 16,200).
26. Secondly, invoice of Rs. 1,91,750/- was raised by the plaintiff to the defendant. This invoice is in respect of administration fees after getting Defizitbescheid from GMC amounting to Rs. 1,48,500/- (€ 1650 @ Rs. 90), DHL Charges (curriculum, B1, passport true copy and medical) of Rs. 8,000/- and DHL Charges (PCC, GSC) of Rs. 6000/- with 18% IGST of Rs. 29,250/-
I have perused the registration form exhibited as PW 1/3 wherein in column "G" administrative charges after getting Defizitbescheid from GMC is chargeable at €1650. This registration form is duly signed by the defendant on 18.06.2021.
CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -27-The Defizitbescheid issued by Saxony State Directorate dated 28.09.2022 was received by the defendant on 06.10.2022. The plaintiff asked the defendant on WhatsApp whether she got Defizitbescheid? The plaintiff replied in affirmative. Thereafter, the plaintiff texted "Don't forget to pay the fees of Defizitbescheid to LDS" to which the defendant replied in affirmative and asked the mechanism through which she has to make the payment. On the same date i.e; 06.10.2022 plaintiff raised performa invoice no. EZE/22-23/F/045 of Rs. 1,76,174/- in respect of administration fees after getting Defizitbescheid from GMC amounting to Rs. 1,35,300/- (€ 1650 @ Rs. 82), DHL Charges (curriculum, B1, passport true copy and medical) of Rs. 8,000/- and DHL Charges (PCC, GSC) of Rs. 6000/- with 18% IGST of Rs. 26,874/-. The defendant did not raise any dispute in respect of this invoice. In fact, she agreed to pay the said amount in her WhatsApp chat with the plaintiff. Thereafter, on 16.02.2023 Plaintiff issued another reminder email to clear 2 pending invoices. Plaintiff also issued performa invoice no. EZE/22-23/G/045 of Rs. 1,91,750/- on 16.02.2023 as the previous performa invoice no. EZE/22-23/F/045 of Rs. 1,76,174/- remained unpaid by the defendant and the rate of Euro had also appreciated by this time from € 82 to € 90. The defendant replied to the plaintiff via email dated 16.02.2023 stating that she will pay the dues when her earning starts again as she is not able to pay due to financial problems. It is clear that the defendant admitted to pay administration fees after getting Defizitbescheid from GMC. The Defendant cannot withdraw from her liability when she has duly admitted to receive Defizitbescheid. Plaintiff has also claimed DHL charges however CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -28- no document has been placed on record to show this amount was paid to DHL. Consequently, in absence of any evidence the plaintiff cannot claim DHL charges amounting to Rs. 14,000/-. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay Rs. 1,75,230 (1,48,500/- + 18% IGST i.e; Rs. 26,730) .
27. Lastly, the plaintiff has demanded Rs. 1,06,235 in respect of tuition fees for German language levels A1, A2 and B1 of Rs. 50,000/- , application cancellation fees as Rs. 25,000/- and DHL charges for shipping documents from Germany to India at Rs. 15,030/- with 18% IGST of Rs. 16,205.
I have perused registration form executed between the plaintiff and the defendant exhibited as PW1/3. It is clearly mentioned in this document that the A1, A2 and B1 German classes by the plaintiff company in India are offered to the students absolutely free of cost and would be conducted online by their global faculty. It is further mentioned in this document that in case of cancellation of student's registration or visa rejection, the plaintiff company will deduct an amount of ₹50,000 from the total amount paid against registration fees as the tuition fee of A1, A2 and B1 levels excluding taxes. Furthermore, exhibit D1 clearly shows that the plaintiff company provided A1-B1 or B2-C1 German classes online free of cost. In the cross-examination PW-1 admitted that the language fees were to be deducted from the registration fee in case of cancellation. He further admitted that registration fee was paid by the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot erroneously charge for language classes when it had promised to provide it free of cost. Furthermore, in PW1/3 there is no mention of application CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -29- cancellation fees of Rs. 25,000/-. Plaintiff has also not placed on record any DHL receipt to show that Rs. 15,030/- was paid as shipping charges to procure documents from Germany to India. Thus, the defendant is not liable to pay Rs. 1,06,235 to the plaintiff.
28. In view of the aforementioned discussion the plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 1,06,300/- + Rs. 1,75,230 = Rs. 2,81,530/-. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided partly in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
29. Issue No. 2- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest on the amount of Rs. 4,21,885-, if yes then at what rate and for what period ? (OPP) The burden to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. Plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18% from the date of filing of suit till realization. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for defendant that plaintiff is not entitled to interest. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has drawn my attention towards the invoices wherein, it is mentioned that "Payment shall be made within 7 working days failing which an interest of 12% p.a. will be charged from the date of Proforma Invoice". Admittedly, no agreement regarding rate of interest was executed between the parties. Reliance can be placed in this regard on the judgment of Central Bank of India Vs Ravindra & Ors MANU/SC/0663/2001 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In this judgment it is held that according to stroud's Judicial dictionary of Words and Phrases interest means, inter alia, compensation paid by the borrower to the lender for deprivation of the use of his money. In Secretary, CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -30- Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa & Ors Vs G. C. Roy Manu/ SC/0297/1992 (1992) 2 SCC 508, it is held that the constitution bench opined that a person deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name. It may be called interest, compensation or damages. This is the principles of Section 34 CPC.
In this judgment, Judgment of Dr. shamlal Narula Vs CIT Punjab MANU/ SC/0109/1964 (53) was also relied upon wherein it is held that interest is paid for the deprivation of the use of the money. In this judgment it is also held that in whatever category "interest in a particular case may be put, it is a consideration paid either for the use of money or for forbearance in demanding it, after it has fallen due, and thus, it is charge for the use of forbearance of money. In this sense, it is a compensation allowed by law or fixed by parties, or permitted by customs or usage, for use of money, belonging to another, or of the delay in paying money after it has become payable.
Reliance can also be placed on the judgment of Aditya Mass Communication (P) Ltd Vs APSRTC MANU/SC/0759/2003 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court granted interest @ 12% p.a. Reliance can also be placed on the judgment of "M/s IHT Network Limited Vs. Sachin Bhardwaj" in RFA No. 835/2016 & CM Appl.14617/2020 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has granted interest @12% per annum. I am of the view that interest claimed by the plaintiff is every excessive and plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. which is reasonable and usually prevailing market rate of interest on the amount of Rs. 2,81,530/- from 27.06.2023 till realization.
CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -31-30. Now, I am deciding the issues framed in Counter Claim No. 5/2024 filed by the Counter claimant/ defendant against the non-counter claimant/ plaintiff.
31. Issue No. 1- Whether the counter claimant is entitled for a decree of Mandatory injunction, as prayed ? (Onus to prove on counter claimant) The burden to prove this issue is upon the defendant/ counter claimant. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for defendant that plaintiff has not returned the original documents of the defendant. On the other hand, it is contended by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that original documents were not handed over to the plaintiff rather the document was handed over to Dr. Hycham Mansour, who was the representative of the plaintiff in Germany.
I have perused the document showing website of the plantiff. On this website Dr. Hycham Mansour is shown as MD, Resident Doctor in E.N.T, so the photograph of Dr. Hycham Mansour is on the Website of the plaintiff. PW-1 in the cross examination has admitted that at present the original documents of the defendant are with Dr. Hycham Mansour, who is his partner and he is taking care of his office in Germany. PW-1 has also admited that he has no knowledge regarding email dated 04.02.2024 sent by Landesdirection Sexony i.e. German Medical council to the defendant. PW-1 has admitted that "It is correct that as per this email German Medical Council has returned the documents to his partner Mr. Hycham Mansour". I have perused the email dated 12.05.2023 sent to Dr. Saurabh Agarwal, placed on record by the defendant. In this email the defendant has CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -32- demanded her original documents and requested to send the documents as early as possible to Bhopal at her home address. In response to the email, the Director of the plaintiff sent email and asked the plaintiff to make the payment. Ld. Counsel for defendant has also drawn my attention towards the Whatsapp conversation between the plaintiff and defendant dated 25.06.2023 in which the defendant is asking for her documents as to when she will get the documents back and plaintiff replied that she will get her document back as soon as she will clear the pending payment. So, the Director of the plaintiff has not denied that these documents are not with him. I am of the view that even if the defendant has returned from Germany and was not willing to pursue her carrier in Germany, plaintiff cannot withhold the original documents of the defendant. Ld. Counsel for defendant has placed reliance on judgment titled " Dr. Arjun Saili Vs. Union of India and Others" 2021 SCC Online Del 4212 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, wherein, it is held that the action of the respondent nos. 1 & 2 to retain the documents in the absence of any condition in the Bond authorixing such retention could be totally arbitrary and illegal. Ld. Counsel for defendant has also placed reliance on judgment titled as " Monika Vs. PT. B.D. Sharma, University of Health Sciences and Others " 2022 SCC Online P&H 1890 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, wherein, it is held that "certificates of a student are his/her individual property. No other institution/individual can retain the same without lawful authority. If, something is due from a student or a student is required to do something lawfully stipulated, upon refusal, recourse can be taken to means provided under the law for ensuring compliance. Adopting the method of CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -33- retaining original certificates/documents is unfair to say the least". Ld. Counsel for defendant has placed reliance on judgment titled as "Dr. S. Giridharan and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Principal Secretary health and Family Department and Others" 2022 SCC Online Mad 2394 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Madras, wherein, it is held that "it is well settled that an Educational Certificate is not a marketable commodity therefore, there cannot be exercise of any lien in terms of Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It has been held in caterna of cases that management cannot retain the certificates of the students". Ld. Counsel for defendant has also placed reliance on judgment titled as " M. Kesavan Vs. The Principal, Cheran College of Pharmacy & Ors. " WP No. 34541 of 2023 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Madras, wherein, it is held that "the settled position of law in this regard is that certificates of a student cannot be withheld for arrears of fees as the educational institution can claim no lien over the same".
I am of the view that the Director of the plaintiff has retained the documents without any reason. The director of the plaintiff has admitted that Mr. Hycham Mansour is his partner and taking care of his office in Germany. As per email German Medical Council has returned the documents to his partner Mr. Hycham Mansour. I am of the view that Counter Claimant/ defendant has made out the case in her favour in respect of original documents. The defendant / counter claimant has also prayed for translated copies of her documents. However, no where in the counter claim it is mentioned that plaintiff/ non- counter climant has withheld her documents that are duly certified by German Consulate, Mumbai and notarized with him.
CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -34-Further, defendant / counter claimant has not lead any evidence to show that her documents that are duly certified by German Consulate, Mumbai and notarized copies are in possession of the plainitff/ non-counter claimant. Accordingly, this issues is decided partly in favour of the defendant/ Counter claimant and against the plaintiff/ Non-counter claimant.
32. Relief.
(i) In view of my above discussions, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed and a decree of Rs. 2,81,530/- is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff is also entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.
2,81,530/- from 27.06.2023 till realization. Plaintiff is also entitled to the proportionate cost of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room, after necessary compliance.
(ii) In view of the above discussions, the counter claim filed by the defendant/ counter claimant is partly allowed. The plaintiff is, directed to return all the original documents of defendant/ counter claimed withheld. Counter claimant is also entitled to the proportionate cost of the counter claim. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room, after necessary compliance.
Announced in the (NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA)
open court on 06.08.2025 District Judge, Comm. Court-06
West, Tis Hazari Courts
Digitally signed Extension Block, Delhi/06.08.2025 by NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date:
2025.08.06 16:39:30 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 834/23 & CC No. 5/24 -35-