Delhi District Court
Nikunj Woods Private Limited vs M/S Gujarat Colourlam Private Limited on 8 January, 2024
1
In the Court of Dig Vinay Singh, District Judge (Commercial Court)-03,
West, Tis Hazari Courts Extension Block, Delhi
CNR No. DLWT01-011688-2022
CS (COMM) No. 965/2022
M/s Nikunj Woods Private Limited
Through Its Director Mr. Girish Agarwal,
Plot No. 1, KH No. 35/23, Nilothi Village,
Near Bharat Singh Farm, Nangloi, New Delhi-110043 ......... Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Gujarat Colourlam Private Limited
Through its Directors
2285/2, At & Po: Tadkeshwar, Taluka: Mandvi,
Suraj, Gujurat - 394170 ...... Defendant
Date of institution : 07.12.2022
Date of arguments :08.01.2024
Date of judgment : 08.01.2024
JUDGMENT
1. This is a commercial suit for recovery of ₹5,49,717/- (₹Five Lakhs Forty-Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventeen Only). The dispute between the parties is a 'commercial dispute' in terms of Sec. 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Acts, 2015. The pre-ligation mediation between the parties remained unsuccessful vide a non-starter report dated 11.11.2022 issued by the concerned West District Legal Services Authority.
Judgment CNR No. DLWT01-011688-2022 CS (COMM) No. 965/2022 M/s Nikunj Woods Private Limited Versus M/s Gujarat Colourlam Private Limited dated 08.01.2024 Page 1/15 2
2. The facts of the case are that plaintiff company made advance payments to the defendant company totaling ₹21 Lakhs (₹Twenty-one Lakhs) between 01.12.2016 to 28.12.2016 against supply of Particle Boards, which the defendant was to supply to the plaintiff. The payments were made through banking transactions as detailed in para 6 of the plaint, which are as follows: -
Sr. No. Date HDFC Bank RTGS Transaction Amount in ₹
1. 01.12.2016 HDFCR52016120186809094 ₹3,00,000/-
2. 14.12.2016 HDFCR52016121487333414 ₹5,00,000/-
3. 28.12.2016 HDFCR52016122888017133 ₹10,00,000/-
4. 28.12.2016 RTGS-000000000000318 ₹3,00,000/-
Total Amount Advanced ₹21,00,000/-
2.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that despite receiving advance payment, no goods were supplied by the defendant. On persuasion of the plaintiff, ₹10 Lakhs was refunded by the defendant on 02.03.2016 and another sum of ₹8,96,665/- (₹Eight Lakhs Ninety-six Thousand Six hundred sixty-five) was refunded on 15.11.2017, both through RTGS. As per the plaintiff, the defendant did not return ₹2,03,335/- (₹Two Lakhs Three Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-five) and also did not supply any material. On the said balance amount, the plaintiff has calculated interest to the tune of ₹3,46,382/- as mentioned in para 12 of the plaint, which is as follows: -
Sr. No. PRINCIPAL FROM TO DATE DAYS INTEREST
AMT DATE INR
1. 21,00,000/- 01.02.2017 01.03.2017 29 30,033
2. 11,00,000/- 02.03.2017 14.11.2017 258 1,39,956
3. 2,03,335/- 15.11.2017 10.09.2022 1759 1,76,393
TOTAL INTEREST ₹3,46,382/-
Judgment CNR No. DLWT01-011688-2022 CS (COMM) No. 965/2022 M/s Nikunj Woods Private Limited Versus M/s Gujarat Colourlam Private Limited dated 08.01.2024 Page 2/15 3 2.2. Plaintiff, thus, seeks recovery of the suit amount i.e. ₹5,49,717/-, with interest @ of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization.
3. The defendant admitted having received ₹21 Lakhs from the plaintiff.
However, the defendant claims that even the balance amount of ₹2,03,335/- was returned to the plaintiff in cash on 28.02.2018, and against it even a debit note of even date was issued by the defendant and, therefore, the suit is without any cause of action. Defendant claims that it even replied to the notice of the plaintiff on 23.05.2019 which the plaintiff deliberately concealed. Defendant also claims that the suit is barred by limitation.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed.
"1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 5,49,717/-? (OPP).
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if any, if so, at what rate and for which period? (OPP).
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? (OPD).
4. Relief."
5. In support of its case, plaintiff examined PW-1 Girish Aggarwal, the Director of the plaintiff company, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and who relied upon the documents Ex. PW-1/1 to PW-1/12, which are as follows: -
"1. Print out from MCA site of the company Master Data of the Plaintiff's company is exhibited as EXB.PW1/1. (which is already exhibited as Ex. P1/1 during admission/denial).
2. True copy of Board Resolution dated 20.06.2022 is exhibited as EXB.PW1/2 (OS&R).
3. Print out from MCA site of company master of defendant company is exhibited as EXB.PW1/3. (which is already exhibited as Ex. P1/2 during admission/denial).
Judgment CNR No. DLWT01-011688-2022 CS (COMM) No. 965/2022 M/s Nikunj Woods Private Limited Versus M/s Gujarat Colourlam Private Limited dated 08.01.2024 Page 3/15 4
4. True copy of HDFC Bank statement showing the transactions are exhibited as EXB.PW1/4. (which is already exhibited as Ex. P1/3 during admission/denial).
5. True copy of bank statement showing the refund is exhibited as EXB.PW1/5. (which is already exhibited as Ex. P1/4 during admission/denial).
6. Copy of emails is exhibited as EXB.PW1/6 and WhatsApp messages are exhibited as EXB.PW1/7. (which is already exhibited as Ex. P1/5 during admission/denial).
7. True copy of the Ledger account is exhibited as EXB.PW1/8 and Balance sheet maintained by the Plaintiff's company is exhibited as EXB.PW1/9.
8. True copy of the application u/s 7 of IBC, 2016 before NCLT, Ahmedabad, showing the date of filing dated 06.12.2019 is exhibited as EXB.PW1/10.
9.True copy of order passed by the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 02.02.2021 is exhibited as EXB.PW1/11.
10.True copy of the order dated 08.06.2022 passed by the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad is exhibited as EXB.PW1/12."
5.1. The deposition of PW-1 is in lines to the averments contained in the plaint.
5.2. Plaintiff also examined its Chartered Accountant PW-2 / Manoj Kumar Sharma, who identified signatures of PW-1 and another Director on document Ex. PW-1/9.
6. On the other hand, on behalf of defendant, DW-1 Mahesh Kumar Rana i.e. the A/R of the defendant company, was examined as the only witness, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-1/A and he relied upon the documents Ex. DW-1/1 to DW-1/5.
7. I have heard Ld. Counsels for both the sides.
8. The issue wise findings are as follows: -
9. ISSUE NO. 3: -
"3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? (OPD)."
Judgment CNR No. DLWT01-011688-2022 CS (COMM) No. 965/2022 M/s Nikunj Woods Private Limited Versus M/s Gujarat Colourlam Private Limited dated 08.01.2024 Page 4/15 5 9.1. Onus to prove this issue was on the defendant. It is argued on behalf of the defendant that even as per plaintiff, the payments were made on 01.12.2016, 14.12.2016, 28.12.2016 & 28.12.2016, for ₹3 Lakhs, ₹5 Lakhs, ₹10 Lakhs and ₹3 Lakhs, respectively, and as per the case of the plaintiff, the two payments through electronic modes were made by the defendant on 02.03.2016 & 15.11.2017. It is also claimed that as per the case of defendant, cash amount was paid on 28.02.2018, whereas the suit was instituted on 07.12.2022 and, therefore, the suit is beyond limitation.
9.2. This issue has to be decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the following reasons.
9.3. First of all, in the plaint itself, the plaintiff pleaded that prior to filing the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Sec. 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) the said application was filed on 16.12.2019, i.e. within the period of limitation. The said application was disposed of by NCLT, Ahmadabad on 02.02.2021, with the observation that the said application under Sec. 7 was not maintainable and the plaintiff was given liberty to file proper application, subject to Law of Limitation. Thereafter, the plaintiff preferred another application under Sec. 9 of IBC, filed on 08.09.2021, which was also disposed of on 08.06.2022, for the reason that the default amount was found to be below the threshold limit and therefore that petition was held to be not maintainable.
Judgment CNR No. DLWT01-011688-2022 CS (COMM) No. 965/2022 M/s Nikunj Woods Private Limited Versus M/s Gujarat Colourlam Private Limited dated 08.01.2024 Page 5/15 6 9.4. In the plaint itself, the plaintiff has prayed exclusion of that period in terms of Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Under the said provision, a plaintiff can seek exclusion of the period during which the plaintiff had been prosecuting with due diligence any other civil proceeding, whether in a Court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, in unable to entertain it. The plaintiff in a suit can seek exclusion of that period while computing the period of limitation for any suit.
9.5. In Dr. Samir Majumdar Versus Exxon Mobile Co. India (P) Ltd. and Another 2009 SCC OnLine Del 2701, it is held as follows;
"13. ............... Exclusion of time is mandatory under Section 14, provided that the requisite conditions are satisfied. As per well settled law, the five conditions to be satisfied for application of Section 14 are:
--
Both the prior and subsequent proceedings are civil proceedings prosecuted by the same party;
The prior proceeding had been prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith;
The failure of the prior proceeding was due to defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature;
The earlier proceeding and the latter proceeding must relate to the same matter in issue and;
Both the proceedings are in a court.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
15. The plaintiff has referred to Union of India v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 458 at page 463 wherein as regards the expression "other cause of like nature", the observations of the court in that case were as follows:
"14. In the submission of Mr Malhotra, placing reliance on CST v. Parson Tools and Plants to attract the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the following requirements must be specified: "6. (1) both the prior and subsequent proceedings are civil proceedings prosecuted by the same party;
Judgment CNR No. DLWT01-011688-2022 CS (COMM) No. 965/2022 M/s Nikunj Woods Private Limited Versus M/s Gujarat Colourlam Private Limited dated 08.01.2024 Page 6/15 7 (2) the prior proceedings had been prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith;
(3) the failure of the prior proceedings was due to a defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature;
(4) both the proceedings are proceedings in a court." In the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, filing of civil writ petition claiming money relief cannot be said to be a proceeding instituted in good faith and secondly, dismissal of writ petition on the ground that it was not an appropriate remedy for seeking money relief cannot be said to be "defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature" within the meaning of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. It is true that the writ petition was not dismissed by the High Court on the ground of defect of jurisdiction. However, Section 14 of the Limitation Act is wide in its application, inasmuch as it is not confined in its applicability only to cases of defect of jurisdiction but it is applicable also to cases where the prior proceedings have failed on account of other causes of like nature. The expression "other cause of like nature" came up for the consideration of this Court in Roshanlal Kuthalia v. R.B. Mohan Singh Oberoi and it was held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act is wide enough to cover such cases where the defects are not merely jurisdictional strictly so called but others more or less neighbours to such deficiencies. Any circumstance, legal or factual, which inhibits entertainment or consideration by the court of the dispute on the merits comes within the scope of the section and a liberal touch must inform the interpretation of the Limitation Act which deprives the remedy of one who has a right."
17. He has also referred to TRAI Foods Ltd. v. National Insurance Co., (2004) 13 SCC 656 wherein it was held as under:
"8. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. However, we make it clear that since the matter has been pursued before the National Commission and this Court and the matter has not been entertained because of the discretionary power not to exercise the Commission's jurisdiction, we direct that in the event the appellant approached the civil court as directed by the National Commission, the period spent between the filing of the claim before the National Commission and the disposal of the matter today by us will be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963."
18. Learned Counsel for the defendants, on the other hand, has referred to Deena (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Bharat Singh (Dead) Through Lrs., (2002) 6 SCC 336 in support of his submissions. The following observations have been made in this case:
"13. From the provisions it is clear that it is in the nature of a proviso to Order XXIII Rule 2. The non-obstante clause provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rule (2) of Order XXIII of Judgment CNR No. DLWT01-011688-2022 CS (COMM) No. 965/2022 M/s Nikunj Woods Private Limited Versus M/s Gujarat Colourlam Private Limited dated 08.01.2024 Page 7/15 8 the Code of Civil Procedure the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 shall apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted by the court under Rule 1 of Order XXIII. For applicability of the provision in Sub-section (3) of Section 14 certain conditions are to be satisfied. Before Section 14 can be pressed into service the conditions to be satisfied are : (1) Both the prior and subsequent proceedings are civil proceedings prosecuted by the same party; (2) the prior proceeding had been prosecuted with due diligence and good faith; (3) the failure of the prior proceeding was due to defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature; (4) the earlier proceeding and the later proceeding must relate to the same matter in issue, and (5) both the proceedings are in a court.
14. The main factor which would influence the Court in extending the benefit of Section 14 to a litigant is whether the prior proceeding had been prosecuted with due diligence and good faith. The party prosecuting the suit in good faith in the court having no jurisdiction is entitled to exclusion of that period. The expression 'good faith' as used in Section 14 means "exercise of due care and attention". In the context of Section 14 expression 'good faith' qualifies prosecuting the proceeding in the Court which ultimately is found to have no jurisdiction. The finding as to good faith or the absence of it is a finding of fact. This Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Rampal v. Diwan Devi observed : (AIR p. 1670, para 3) "The expression good faith qualifies prosecuting the proceeding in the Court which ultimately is found to have no jurisdiction. Failure to pay the requisite court fee found deficient on a contention being raised or the error of judgment in valuing a suit filed before a Court which was ultimately found to have no jurisdiction has absolutely nothing to do with the question of good faith in prosecuting the suit as provided in Section 14 of the Limitation Act."
15. The other expressions relevant to be construed in this regard are 'defect of jurisdiction' and "or other cause of a like nature". The expression "defect of jurisdiction" on a plain reading means the Court must lack jurisdiction to entertain the suit or proceeding. The circumstances in which or the grounds on which, lack of jurisdiction of the Court may be found are not enumerated in the Section. It is to be kept in mind that there is a distinction between granting permission to the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with leave to file a fresh suit for the same relief under Order XXIII Rule 1 and exclusion of the period of pendency of that suit for the purpose of computation of limitation in the subsequent suit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The words "or other cause of a like nature" are to be construed ejusdem generis with the words 'defect of jurisdiction', that is to say, the defect must be of such a character as to make it impossible for the court to entertain the Judgment CNR No. DLWT01-011688-2022 CS (COMM) No. 965/2022 M/s Nikunj Woods Private Limited Versus M/s Gujarat Colourlam Private Limited dated 08.01.2024 Page 8/15 9 suit or application and to decide it on merits. Obviously Section 14 will have no application in a case where the suit is dismissed after adjudication on its merits and not because the Court was unable to entertain it."
9.6 In the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Versus Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council and Others 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2746 and in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Versus Triweni Enterprises & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2834, the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was extended for the period commencing from the date when the application was filed before the MSEFC.
9.7 The plaintiff of this case pursued petitions under the IBC, 2016. The said proceedings were also civil in nature. U/s 7 of IBC a financial creditor is allowed to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process. U/s 9 of IBC an application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by operational creditor can be filed. There is nothing on record to suggest that the plaintiff did not pursue those petitions diligently or bonafidely. However, mislead the plaintiff was or even if he was under wrong legal advice in pursuing that petition, the plaintiff is entitled to get excluded the period which he pursued that petition, as he pursued that petition with due diligence and in good faith. However, erroneous the view of the plaintiff in preferring those application before IBC, may be, the law is well settled that where the earlier proceedings are pursued bonafidely and with due diligence, the benefit should go to the plaintiff.
Judgment CNR No. DLWT01-011688-2022 CS (COMM) No. 965/2022 M/s Nikunj Woods Private Limited Versus M/s Gujarat Colourlam Private Limited dated 08.01.2024 Page 9/15 10 9.8 Even otherwise, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 came to be excluded while computing the limitation because of extraordinary situation of Covid-19 Pandemic.
9.9 It is not in dispute that even as per the case of plaintiff the last electronic payment from the defendant to the plaintiff was made on 15.11.2017, i.e. for Rs. 8,96,665/-. Thereafter, within the period of limitation the plaintiff preferred petition U/s 7 of IBC, which was filed on 16.12.2019 and which continued till 02.02.2021. Thereafter, between 08.09.2021 to 08.06.2022 the plaintiff preferred petition U/s 9 of IBC. The present suit was filed on 07.12.2022 and therefore once the plaintiff is given benefit of pursuing the petitions under IBC as well as the pre- litigation mediation period spent by the plaintiff between 13.09.2022 to 11.11.2022, the present suit is within limitation.
9.10 Accordingly, issue no. 3 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
10 ISSUE NO. 1&2"1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 5,49,717/-? (OPP).
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if any, if so, at what rate and for which period? (OPP)."
10.1 As mentioned above, there is no dispute to the fact that the plaintiff made advance payment of ₹21 Lakhs to the defendant on the above mentioned dates. There is also no dispute that the defendant did not supply any material to the plaintiff. In view of admitted facts in this case, the entire controversy narrows down to the fact whether Judgment CNR No. DLWT01-011688-2022 CS (COMM) No. 965/2022 M/s Nikunj Woods Private Limited Versus M/s Gujarat Colourlam Private Limited dated 08.01.2024 Page 10/15 11 defendant succeeds in proving that the balance amount of ₹2,03,335/- was repaid in cash to the plaintiff or not.
10.2 Defendant in its entire written statement took the only plea that the defendant paid cash payment of ₹2,03,335/- on 28.02.2018 and regarding it the defendant placed on record one so called debit note, which is denied by the plaintiff. In its evidence, DW-1 exhibited that note as Ex. DW-1/3, which is original receipt. Therefore, the onus was on the defendant to have proved this document.
10.3 However, DW-1 admitted in his cross-examination that this receipt does not bear the name of the person or the mobile number of the person who received the cash amount from the side of the plaintiff. It is nobody's case that the Director of plaintiff i.e. PW-1 signed this document.
10.4 The claim of DW-1 that at the time of execution of this document, he was personally present, is suspicious for the reason that this document, admittedly, does not bear writing or signature of DW-1. Instead, this document is claimed to be in the handwriting of one Mr. Om Singh, another employee of the defendant. Mr. Om Singh has not been examined by the defendant.
10.5 In the entire evidence of the defendant, the name of the representative of the plaintiff who alleged came to accept the money had not been disclosed. All that is claimed is, that when this money was paid to the representative of the plaintiff, the Director of the defendant company telephonically spoke to PW-1. No such claim of telephonic Judgment CNR No. DLWT01-011688-2022 CS (COMM) No. 965/2022 M/s Nikunj Woods Private Limited Versus M/s Gujarat Colourlam Private Limited dated 08.01.2024 Page 11/15 12 conversation is averred in the WS. No such claim exists in the reply to the notice sent by the defendant to the plaintiff Ex. DW-1/5. Ex. DW- 1/5 instead suggests that as if the amount was received by the Director of the plaintiff company under his own signatures. As per DW1 the director of defendant company namely Mr. Amit Aggarwal spoke to PW1 at the time of handing over of the payment to the representative of the plaintiff, but Mr. Amit Aggarwal has not been examined.
10.6 It is also highly suspicious that the amount of ₹2,03,335/- would be paid to the plaintiff in cash, whereas admittedly other two amounts of ₹10 Lakh and the amount of ₹8,96,665/- were re-paid through electronic modes.
10.7 Besides Ext. DW1/3, there is absolutely no other proof available with the defendant that the said amount was repaid to the plaintiff.
10.8 So far as the balance sheet of the defendant company Ext. DW1/4 is concerned, the said document has not been proved in accordance with law, as Ext. DW1/4 is a computer generated statement of account qua which no certificate U/s 65B of the Evidence Act has been proved by the defendant. Even if this document had been proved in accordance with law, yet it would not have established anything beyond the scope of Sec. 34 of the Indian Evidence Act according to which the statement of account, even if proved, cannot by itself create or prove any liability.
10.9 The contention of the counsel for defendant that from the WhatsApp chat relied by the plaintiff, some reference about C Forms and that from the answers of PW1 in his cross-examination, it is apparent that Judgment CNR No. DLWT01-011688-2022 CS (COMM) No. 965/2022 M/s Nikunj Woods Private Limited Versus M/s Gujarat Colourlam Private Limited dated 08.01.2024 Page 12/15 13 besides the transaction in question there were other transactions between the parties and therefore the suit should be dismissed, is without any force. Even if, there were earlier business transactions between the parties regarding which C Form was being asked, yet in this case it would not make any difference because the defendant specifically admitted having received advance payment of ₹21 Lakh and out of which it was the defendant who was to prove payment of the balance amount of ₹2,03,335/- as it was the defendant who claimed that he made payment of that amount in cash.
10.10 During cross-examination of PW1, attention of PW1 was not even drawn towards Ext. DW1/3 by the defendant and no question as to that document was asked by the defendant from the plaintiff. Only a suggestion was made to PW1 to the effect that cash payment was made, which PW1 obviously denied. Also, the defendant failed to prove copy of visitor's entry register to prove that anybody on behalf of the plaintiff went to the office of defendant to receive that amount on 28.02.2018, despite the fact that DW1 in his cross-examination admitted that such a register was indeed being maintained at their office.
10.11 Accordingly, the defendant fails to prove payment of cash amount of ₹2,03,335/- back to the plaintiff.
10.12 Thus, the plaintiff succeeds in proving the fact that out of the advance payment of ₹21 Lakh, the defendant failed to return ₹2,03,335/-.
Judgment CNR No. DLWT01-011688-2022 CS (COMM) No. 965/2022 M/s Nikunj Woods Private Limited Versus M/s Gujarat Colourlam Private Limited dated 08.01.2024 Page 13/15 14 10.13 On this amount and on the other amounts, which were retained and thereafter returned by the defendant, the plaintiff has calculated interest @ 18% per annum as elaborated in the above mentioned table in para 12 of the plaint. The said tabulated information reveals that between 01.02.2017 to 01.03.2017, plaintiff has added interest on the total amount of ₹21 Lakh and thereafter interest has been calculated on the remaining amount on reducing basis.
10.14 Though, admittedly, there is no written understanding between the parties as to calculation of interest in case of delayed repayment, but otherwise it is not in dispute that the transaction between the parties was a commercial transaction. Yet, the interest calculated @ 18% is exorbitant. Interest of justice would be met if the plaintiff is awarded interest @ 9% per annum.
10.15 Accordingly, the plaintiff shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on ₹21/- Lakh for the 29 days between 1.02.2017 to 01.03.2017. Thereafter, between 02.03.2017 to 14.11.2017, plaintiff shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on balance ₹11/- Lakh. Thereafter, on the balance payment of ₹2,03,335/- the plaintiff shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum for the period 15.11.2017 till the date of realisation of that amount. The suit of the plaintiff is accordingly entitled to be decreed for a sum of ₹2,03,335/- and for the interest as mentioned above till the date of decree. From the date of decree, the plaintiff shall be entitled to simple interest @ 7% per annum on the total decretal amount which shall be ₹2,03,335/- plus the interest up to the date of decree on the above mentioned amounts and periods.
Judgment CNR No. DLWT01-011688-2022 CS (COMM) No. 965/2022 M/s Nikunj Woods Private Limited Versus M/s Gujarat Colourlam Private Limited dated 08.01.2024 Page 14/15 15 10.16 This issue no. 1 & 2 are accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
11 Relief 11.1 Suit of the plaintiff is accordingly decreed for a sum of ₹2,03,335/-
(Two Lakh Three Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Five) and for the interest as mentioned above, till the date of decree. Thereafter, the plaintiff shall be entitled to simple interest @ 7% per annum on the decretal amount which shall be ₹2,03,335/- plus the interest up to the date of decree on the above mentioned amounts and periods. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to the cost of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
11.2 A copy of the judgment be supplied to the plaintiff as well as the defendant through electronic modes in compliance of Order 20 Rule 1(1) of CPC. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court DIG Digitally signed
by DIG VINAY
SINGH
on 08th day of January, 2024. VINAY Date:
SINGH 2024.01.08
12:51:15 +0530
(DIG VINAY SINGH)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-03
West / Tis Hazari / Delhi(s)
Judgment CNR No. DLWT01-011688-2022 CS (COMM) No. 965/2022 M/s Nikunj Woods Private Limited Versus M/s Gujarat Colourlam Private Limited dated 08.01.2024 Page 15/15