Delhi District Court
M/S Qss Enterprises Pvt Ltd vs M/S Vsns Industries on 23 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL, DISTRICT JUDGE,
COMMERCIAL COURT-02, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS(COMM) NO. 14/2023
INDEX
SI. NOS. HEADINGS PAGE NOS.
1. Memo of Parties 2
2. The Plaint 3-5
3. Proceedings in the suit 6
4. Written Statement & 6-7
Replication
5. Admission/Denial 8
6. Issues framed 9
7. Plaintiff's Evidence 9-10
8. Defendant's Evidence 11
9. Issue-wise analysis & findings 11-44
10. Relief 44
CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 1 of 44
Digitally signed
KIRAN by KIRAN
BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23
15:59:08 +0530
CS(COMM) NO. 14/2023
MEMO OF PARTIES
In the matter of:
M/S QSS ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.
OFFICE AT: X-722, GALI NO.8,
CHAND MOHALLA,
GANDHI NAGAR,
DELHI - 110031
......PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/S VSNS INDUSTRIES
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
SMT. SMRITI KATHURIA,
1273, DEEP PLAZA BUILDING
OLD DELHI GURGAON ROAD,
KAPASHERA,
NEW DELHI - 110037
ALSO AT:
PHASE - III, PLOT NO.451, UDHOG
VIHAR GURUGRAM,
HARYANA - 122016
......DEFENDANT
DATE OF INSTITUTION 18.07.2018 & 07.01.2023 (e-CourtIS)
DATE OF RESERVE THE JUDGMENT 26.12.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT 23.01.2026
CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 2 of 44
Digitally signed
KIRAN by KIRAN
BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23
15:59:15 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall dispose of the present commercial suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of outstanding amount along with pendente lite and future interest.
THE PLAINT
2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the case of the plaintiff as per the amended plaint is that the plaintiff is manufacturing and selling garments and the defendant is also in the same business and used to purchase garments from the plaintiff company. It is further stated that the defendant placed order on the plaintiff for purchasing garments from time to time through different invoices in the year 2017 and accordingly plaintiff supplied the garments as per the request/order of the defendant and as per the ledger account maintained by the plaintiff, lastly balance of Rs.3,34,026.50/- was due against the defendant. It is also stated that in discharge of the legal liability, the defendant issued cheque for part payment bearing no.188572 dated 16.10.2017 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Kishan Ganj Branch, Delhi - 110007 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and also assured the plaintiff that the said cheque will be honored on its presentation. However, the said cheque on presentation returned unpaid with remark of "payment stopped".
3. The plaintiff immediately informed the defendant about the fate of the dishonor of cheque and requested for payment of entire due amount but defendant ignored and refused the said request of the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested the defendant on several occasion for the payment, but defendant refused to make any payment with malafide intention due to which the plaintiff has suffered immense monetary loss as well as mental agony.
CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 3 of 44 Digitally signedKIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 15:59:20 +0530 The plaintiff, thereafter, served a legal notice dated 24.01.2018 and then 24.04.2018 calling upon the defendant to make the payment which was duly served upon the defendant, but the defendant neither replied nor complied with the terms of the legal notice. The plaintiff thus, approached the Court and filed the suit under Order XXXVII CPC for recovery of the due amount.
4. Plaintiff has further mentioned that he has initially filed the suit bearing no. 660/18 which was returned by the Court of Sh. Vineet Kumar, Ld. ADJ, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi vide order dated 24.12.2021 for filing the same before the appropriate Commercial Court being matter related to commercial transaction and after completing all the legal formalities and receiving the original plaint from the Court of Sh. Vineet Kumar, Ld. ADJ, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, the plaintiff approached DLSA, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi for pre- institution mediation on 10.11.2022 and the defendant also appeared for mediation but the mediation failed and a non-starter report dated 17.12.2022 was issued by DLSA office, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. It is further stated that despite legal notice, contesting the case before learned ADJ earlier and receiving notice from the DLSA, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, the defendant was not coming forward to clear the outstanding dues which it is legally bound to pay.
5. Cause of action stated to have arisen when the defendant ordered for supply of garments to the plaintiff, but the defendant did not make payment. Further, cause of action arose when the legal notice were sent and also when the non-starter was issued by DLSA, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. It is stated that the plaintiff works for gain at Shahdara and also transactions between the parties were held at Shahdara. The cause of CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 4 of 44 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.01.23 15:59:25 +0530 action for filing the present suit has arisen at Shahdara as all the purchase orders has been received at the registered office of the plaintiff and all the orders were delivered from the registered office of the plaintiff. Hence, this Court has jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit. Plaintiff is claiming an amount of Rs.3,34,026.50/- as principal and Rs.4,07,640.45/- as interest.
6. Plaintiff has thus, prayed for a decree of Rs.7,41,666.95/- along with pendent lite and future interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its actual realization in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant as well as cost of the suit along with litigation expenses. The plaint is accompanied with the affidavit of AR of the plaintiff company along with affidavit under Order XI Rule 6 CPC in support of digital/electronic records filed. The suit is stated to be within limitation.
7. It is pertinent to mention that the suit was initially filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,34,026.50/- along with pendente lite and future interest as the same was filed in the court of Ld. ADJ and was returned vide order dated 24.12.2021 under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for filing before the competent jurisdiction. Thereafter, the said plaint was filed in the present suit and as the present suit was not filed as a commercial suit, counsel for plaintiff had sought time to make necessary amendments in the original suit returned by the Court of Ld. ADJ. Thereafter, the amendment application was filed by the plaintiff. Vide order dated 18.03.2023, the amendment application was allowed. Through this amendment application, the plaintiff had changed the suit to be one under Commercial Courts Act and also claimed interest.
Digitally signed by KIRANKIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.01.23 15:59:31 +0530 CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 5 of 44 PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUIT
8. Summons for judgment were issued and the defendant had filed an application seeking leave to defend. The plaintiff filed reply to the application seeking leave to defend. The leave to defend application was allowed subject to deposit of the principal amount in the Court and the defendant was directed to file WS along with documents, affidavit of admission/denial etc. The said order of granting conditional leave to defend was challenged by the defendant in the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court had modified the said order directing the defendant to deposit the cheque amount in the form of FDR before the Trial Court. The defendant complied with the said order of the Hon'ble High Court and has placed on record an FDR. Thereafter, the defendant filed WS along with SPA, statement of truth and also the affidavit of admission/denial along with list of documents etc. Thereafter, the matter was posted for admission/denial and settlement of issues.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
9. Defendant in his WS has stated that the present suit is liable to be dismissed with cost as no transaction has taken place for the alleged amount. Defendant has also stated that no supportive documents have been filed in respect of the said claim and the same is hit by law of limitation. It is further stated that the present suit is not maintainable in the eye of law as the same has not been filed and signed by duly authorized person of the company. It is also stated that the present court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit. It is further submitted that no acknowledgment on behalf of the defendant has been filed against the supplies. It is further submitted that no legal notice as stated in the plaint was ever received by the defendant and due to this reasons no reply was given to CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 6 of 44 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.01.23 15:59:36 +0530 the plaintiff to the alleged legal notice. It is further submitted that the present suit is liable to be dismissed as the present suit is hit by Order VII rule 2A CPC and under Order VII Rule 14 CPC. It is further stated that defendant is dealing in the business of purchase of garments from the plaintiff. It is further stated that the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant were not of the same specifications as given by the defendant and due to this reason, the defendant's client rejected the goods and debit note was raised in this respect. It is further submitted that the suit is not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. Prayer has been made to dismiss the suit with cost.
REPLICATION
10. Plaintiff in his replication has stated that the WS of the defendant is not maintainable as the defendant has suppressed the true facts and has not come with clean hands and the same was filed with malafide intention. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that the present suit was filed on the basis of invoices and return of cheques. It is further stated that the plaintiff company and defendant company both are doing manufacturing and selling work of readymade garments/fabrics and the defendant used to give some stitching work to the plaintiff company for pants whereas cutting of the pants was done by the defendant itself. It is further submitted that defendant has not returned any defective pants as alleged by the defendant against which debit note was issued. It is also stated that an authority letter dt. 09.11.2022 has been filed by the AR of the plaintiff and AR has also signed the plaint and vakalatnama. It is further submitted that defendant has never complained about the alleged defects in stitching of pants.
Digitally signedKIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 15:59:45 +0530 CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 7 of 44 ADMISSION & DENIAL
11. The defendant has admitted the contents, execution and custody of some documents relied upon by plaintiff, however, the defendant has also neither admitted nor denied the contents, execution and custody of some documents of plaintiff which are as under:
(i) The document filed at page no. 17-25 supplied with the present plaint i.e. the certified copy of the previous civil suit no. 660/18 is Ex.P1;
(ii) The document filed at page no. 26 supplied with the present plaint i.e. certified copy of the previous civil suit no. 660/18 is Ex.P2;
(iii) The document GST Registration Certificate is neither admitted nor denied and is Ex.P3;
(iv) Copy of Ledger Account is also neither admitted nor denied is Ex.P4;
(v) Cheque bearing no. 188572, dated 16.10.2017 of defendant company is admitted, however, the contents of cheque are not admitted, the same is Ex.P5;
(vi) Certified copy of list of documents along with documents filed by defendant company on 06.08.2019 in CS No.660/18 is admitted, the same is Ex.P6;
(vii) Certified copy of application under Order 37 Rule 3 (5) CPC along with affidavit and documents filed by defendant is admitted, the same is Ex.P7.
Plaintiff has admitted the contents, execution and custody of following documents relied upon by defendant i.e.
(i) Email dated 29.11.2017, the same is Ex.D1,
(ii) Email dated 01.12.2017, the same is Ex.D2.
CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 8 of 44 Digitally signed by KIRANKIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.01.23 15:59:52 +0530 ISSUES FRAMED On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled for consideration-
I. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation? OPD.
II. Whether the suit has not been duly instituted by duly authorized person? OPD.
III. Whether the present court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present case? OPD. IV. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree? If so, to what amount? OPP.
V. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
VI. Relief.
12. Plaintiff in support of their case and in order to prove its case, has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Mohd. Taushif, who has also been examined as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as PW1/1.
He also proved the following documents-
(a) Original Board Resolution dated 14.02.2024 is Ex.PW1/A;
(b) Certified copy of previous civil suit No.660/2018 is Ex.PW1/B(Colly-running into 9 pages);
(c) List of documents of previous civil suit No.660/2018 is Ex.PW1/C;
(d) Computerized GST registration of plaintiff is Ex.PW1/D;
(e) Ledger account of plaintiff is Ex.PW1/E;
(f) Job work invoice is Ex.PW1/F (Colly-running into 7 CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 9 of 44 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 16:00:19 Date: 2026.01.23 +0530 pages);
(g) Original cheque bearing no.188572 dated 16.10.2017 of defendant company is Ex.PW1/G;
(h) Legal notice along-with postal receipt is Ex.PW1/H(Colly-
running into 3 pages);
(i) Certified copy of all order sheets in civil suit No.660/2018 are Ex.PW1/I (Colly-running into 13 pages);
(j) Certified copy of application under order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC along-with affidavit and documents filed by defendant are Ex.PW1/J (Colly-running into 7 pages);
(k) Aadhaar Card of deponent is Ex.PW1/K(OSR);
(l) Original Non-starter Report is Ex.PW1/L;
13. Plaintiff has examined summoned witness namely Sh. Sumit Raghav, Manager, Punjab National Bank, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi as PW-2. He has also proved the following documents-
• Cheque bearing no. 188572 dated 16.10.2017 is Ex.PW2/A; • Return memo dated 16.10.2017 is Ex.PW2/B(colly-running into one pages back to back) (OSR);
• Certified copy of account statement dated 16.10.2017 printed on 25.07.2024 is Ex.PW2/C;
• Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW2/D (colly-running into two pages);
• Certificate u/s 63(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is Ex.PW2/E;
• Proof of stop payment transaction date 16.10.2017 which is printed on 25.07.2024 is Ex.PW2/F. CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 10 of 44 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.01.23 16:00:25 +0530 Both the witnesses were cross examined by the defence counsel. Thereafter, PE was closed on the statement of plaintiff/PW-1.
14. On the other hand, the defendant has examined her SPA as DW1 Sh. Sanjay Pathak who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/1. He has relied upon the following documents:
a. SPA dated 03.01.2024 is Ex.DW1/A; b. Debit Note Ex.DW1/B is de-exhibited and marked as Mark A; c. E-mail dated 29.11.2017 is Ex.DW1/C; d E-mail dated 30.11.2017 is Ex.DW1/D; e. Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of emails dated 29.11.2017 and 30.11.2017 is Ex.DW1/E.
Thereafter, defendant was duly cross-examined and DE was closed on the statement of defendant/DW1.
ISSUE-WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
15. The court has gone through the testimony of PW1, PW2 and DW1 and gone through the documents proved on record. The court has also gone through the law on the point and duly considered the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Ld. counsel for defendant. The issue wise finding of this court is as follows:
ISSUE NO. I: WHETHER THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF IS BARRED BY LAW OF LIMITATION? OPD.
16. The onus of proving this issue was upon the defendant. The present suit has been instituted on 18.07.2018 and has been re-filed before the present court on 07.01.2023. The suit was initially instituted on 18.07.2018 as CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 11 of 44 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:00:32 +0530 per the endorsement on the plaint which have been returned by the earlier Court of Ld. Addl. District Judge-01. The same was returned vide order dated 24.12.2021. The cheque regarding part payment for an amount of Rs.2 lacs of which the payment was stopped is Ex.PW1/G is dated 16.10.2017. As per the ledger Ex.PW1/E and invoices Ex.PW1/F, the first sale invoice is dated 29.08.2017 and the last invoice is dated 25.12.2017. As the job work was done in the year 2017, the suit instituted on 18.07.2018 is within the limitation. The same was returned by the previous Court and after the return of the original plaint, the same original plaint has been re-filed in the present Court along with original documents after the plaintiff had complied with the mandatory provision regarding pre-institution mediation.
17. Ld. Counsel for defendant has argued that as the earlier suit was returned by the Court of ADJ-01, no liberty was granted nor any liberty was prayed by the plaintiff to file fresh suit by changing certain facts of the case and the Hon'ble Court had returned the case to place before the competent jurisdiction. It is stated in the WS that the present suit has been filed on 31.01.2023 after a delay of 13 months with a new claim amount which is not permissible in the eye of law. It is stated that the plaintiff has completely changed the claim in the present suit, as compared to the earlier suit and the same is not in consonance with the order dated 24.12.2021 and therefore, the same has to be treated as a fresh cause of action. It is stated that the present suit has been filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,41,666.95/-, but this was not the claim of the earlier suit. Counsel for defendant has argued that the present suit is barred by limitation, as the suit has been instituted in the present Court on 31.01.2023 and the cheque Ex.PW1/G is dated 16.10.2017.
Digitally signedKIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:00:37 +0530 CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 12 of 44
18. Though, in the WS, counsel for defendant has stated that the suit has been instituted on 31.01.2023, but this plea/statement by defendant is not correct as per the record, inasmuch as, perusal of the file reveals that the plaint in the present court was received through e-Portal on 09.01.2023 and as per the eCourtIS App, the date of re-filing of the plaint is 07.01.2023 and the same was received in the Court on 09.01.2023. However, the suit was initially instituted on 18.07.2018.
19. The claim of the plaintiff in the original plaint was for an amount of Rs.3,34,026/-. The said plaint was returned on 24.12.2021 for filing before the Court of competent jurisdiction. As the same was returned for filing the same before the Court of competent jurisdiction, this arguments of the counsel for defendant that no liberty was granted to the plaintiff to file it again is thus, devoid of merit. Perusal of the stamp on the certified copy of the memo of parties of the plaint reveals that the certified copy was applied for 12.01.2022. The same was prepared on 02.03.2022.
20. The plaintiff has only re-filed the said plaint after complying the necessary requirements as per Commercial Courts Act and after the return of the original plaint from the Court of Ld. ADJ-01. Thereafter, as the earlier suit was filed as a regular suit under Order 37 CPC and not Commercial Suit, counsel for plaintiff had sought time to make necessary amendments in the original suit returned by the Court of Ld. ADJ as revealed from order dated 31.01.2023. The said order also specifically reveals that the matter was taken up for consideration of the suit under Order 37 CPC for recovery of Rs.3,34,026/- along with pendente lite and future interest @24% per annum.
Digitally signedKIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:00:43 +0530 CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 13 of 44
21. Plaintiff thereafter, had moved amendment application and through this application, the plaintiff wanted to make amendment in the title of the suit as well as contents of the plaint as consequence of the return of the original plaint by the Court of ld. ADJ. It was also observed in the order dated 18.03.2023 that the plaintiff has also changed the suit amount claimed by adding the interest after institution of the original civil suit. However, the additional court fees had not been affixed. The amendment application was specifically allowed by the Court vide order dated 18.03.2023 and the plaintiff was also directed to deposit the additional court fees within 2 days positively. The claimed amount was thus, changed with the permission of the Court to Rs.7,47,666.95ps./- in the amended plaint, as the plaintiff had claimed an additional amount of Rs.4,07,640.45ps/- as interest. Moreover, it is not the case that the plaintiff has changed the suit amount on their own without seeking specific permission of the Court. The principal amount claimed by the plaintiff in the amended plaint is still the same i.e. Rs.3,34,026.50ps/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that by way of amendment, the plaintiff had changed the subject matter of the suit.
22. Though, the amount claimed in the amended plaint is changed, however, it cannot be said that the same is not inconsonance with the order dated 24.12.2021 or that the same has to be treated as a fresh cause of action. As the earlier plaint was returned for filing the same in the commercial court, the present proceedings are in continuation of the said suit. The period of limitation has to be seen on the date when the suit was filed at the first instance and not on the date when the same has been re-filed and therefore, the suit is instituted within the period of limitation.
Digitally signedKIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:00:49 +0530 CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 14 of 44
23. Even if, for the sake of arguments, the present suit is considered to be instituted on 07.01.2023, still as per the ledger Ex.PW1/E, the last invoice is dated 25.12.2017. The said invoice is part of the Ex.PW1/F and therefore, the limitation for filing the suit for the ledger balance would be till 25.12.2020. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020 titled as "In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation initiated suo-moto proceedings dated 23.03.2020" had passed the following directions:
"(i) The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or specific laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.
(ii) Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.
(iii) In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining,with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
(iv) It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings".
24 As per the above order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the period of limitation from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was exempted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the purposes of computing limitation due to Covid pandemic. Also, as per the non-starter report Ex.PW1/L, the application for pre-institution mediation was filed on 10.11.2022 and non-starter report was issued on 17.12.2022. The period consumed during the pre-institution mediation is also not to be computed for the purposes of limitation as per Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. After excluding the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, the period of limitation would have CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 15 of 44 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:00:55 +0530 extended till 10.12.2022 and after adding up the period consumed in pre- institution mediation i.e. 1 month and 7 days, the period of limitation would have expired on 17.01.2023 and as the original plaint (which was initially filed on 18.07.2018) was re-filed also on 07.01.2023, the same is still filed within the period of limitation. It is also pertinent to mention here that the period consumed in obtaining the certified copy i.e. from 12.01.2022 till 02.03.2022 has not been adjusted and the same is also required to be adjusted while computing the limitaiton and even without giving benefit of the said period to the plaintiff, the suit of the plaintiff even if considered to be instituted on 07.01.2023, is still within limitation.
Issue no. 1 is thus, decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. II: WHETHER THE SUIT HAS NOT BEEN DULY INSTITUTED BY DULY AUTHORIZED PERSON? OPD.
25. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. The suit has been instituted by Md. Taushif as Director of the plaintiff company. The board resolution authorizing him to represent the company in the proceedings initiated before the court is Ex.PW1/A and is dated 14.02.2024. Ex.PW1/D is the GST registration certificate of the plaintiff firm which also reveals that Md. Taushif is one of the director of the plaintiff company. When the suit was re-filed in the year 2023, thereafter, the amended plaint was filed and signed by Raj Kumar Rana and authority letter dated 09.11.2022 in his favour is Ex.PW1/D2.
26. Relevant cross of Mohd. Taushif, PW-1 in this regard is reproduced herein below:
CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 16 of 44 Digitally signedKIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:01:01 +0530 ".....It is wrong to suggest that I have not signed on the suit. I do not know how many suits I have filed against the defendant and only my lawyer can explain the same.
Q. Do you know about the present suit pending in this Court ? A. I know about the present suit.
Q. Whether any one has signed the suit pending before this Court today ?
A. The signature of previous AR are existing on the plaint at all pages and also on the verification but are not there at one place i.e. the end of the plaint. The said plaint is now exhibited as Ex.PW1/D1 at point 'X'.
I have appearing on behalf of plaintiff company as a witness for recovery of amount due and I am also one of the director of the company. It is wrong to suggest that I have not filed any board resolution regarding my authorization. Raj Kumar Rana was the employee of the plaintiff Company and he is a field boy and he used to go on my behalf wherever I could not go. Raj Kumar Rana was having an authority letter in his favour for filing the present suit. The authority letter dated 09.11.2022 in his favour is Ex.PW1/D2. It is wrong to suggest that the authority has not been given to Raj Kumar Rana. The suit Ex.PW1/B filed earlier is bearing my signature at the prayer clause and verification.
Q. Is it correct that Ex.PW1/B is bearing the signature of R.K. Rana on each and every page ? Objected to by the counsel for the plaintiff on the ground that the same were signed by R.K. Rana after the return of the plaint by the earlier Court and when the same were to be filed along-with the plaint CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 17 of 44 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:01:07 +0530 in the present case and the list of documents and as the plaint and documents were required to be signed on each and every page as per the Commercial Courts Act. It is stated that other documents i.e. copy of order sheet, copy of W.S. etc. are also bearing the signature of R.K. Rana along-with the stamp of the plaintiff.
In view of the objection by the counsel for the plaintiff, Question disallowed and the defence counsel may refer to the contents of the documents at the time of final arguments. Q. Whether any resolution was passed in favour of Mr. Raj Kumar Rana by the plaintiff company to sign the suit, affidavit and other documents in the Court at the time of filing of the present suit?
A. Board resolution was passed authorizing Raj Kumar Rana to file this present suit however, I do not remember it specifically today.
Q. Do you have filed the resolution copy with the registrar of companies passed authorizing Mr. Raj Kumar Rana ?
A. My accountant would know about the same.
Q. Can you bring the records in respect of the board
resolution filed with the ROC ?
Question disallowed as no such prior notice to bring the document was given to the plaintiff.
Q. Whether any records of the ROC has been filed in the present suit in respect of the resolution passed in favour of Raj Kumar Rana ?
A. No.
....."
CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 18 of 44
KIRAN Digitally signed by
KIRAN BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23
16:01:13 +0530
27. Counsel for defendant has argued as the board resolution in favour of Md. Taushif is of the subsequent date, therefore, at the time of institution of the suit he had no authority and therefore, he was not duly authorized person to institute the suit and thus, the present suit has not been duly instituted or validly filed.
28. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that the suit was instituted on 18.07.2018, however, the board resolution authorizing Mohd. Taushif, Director to represent and do all necessary acts on behalf of plaintiff company in the suit is dated 14.02.2024.
29. In this regard, it is relevant to mention here that merely because the company has issued the board resolution subsequent to the institution of the suit, such authorization can not be said to be invalid, as it is a settled law that the ratification can be done at any stage and it relates back to the original date. In this regard, reference can be made to judgement of Hon'ble SC in Maharashtra State Mining Corporation vs Sunil SLP (Civil) No.20513 of 2005 decided on 24.04.2006. In this case, the respondent was employed by the appellant and on account of several activities of misconduct, he was placed under suspension and later followed by disciplinary enquiry. The managing director concurred with the opinion of the enquiry officer and later, an order of dismissal was passed against the respondent. The respondent, thereafter, challenged the order of dismissal before Hon'ble HC and when the proceedings were pending, board of directors passed a resolution ratifying the action taken by the Managing Director in respect of the disciplinary action against the respondent. The Hon'ble HC allowed the petition holding that the CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 19 of 44 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 16:01:18 Date: 2026.01.23 +0530 managing director was not competent being not authorised to do so. Setting aside the said order, it was observed by Hon'ble SC as follows:
"The High Court was right when it held that an act by a legally incompetent authority is invalid. But it was entirely wrong in holding that such an invalid act cannot be subsequently 'rectified' by ratification of the competent authority. Ratification by definition means the making valid of an act already done. The principle is derived from the Latin maxim 'Ratihabitio priori mandato aequiparatur' namely a subsequent ratification of an act is equivalent to a prior authority to perform such act'. Therefore ratification assumes an invalid act which is retrospectively validated. .....
In the present case, the Managing Director's order dismissing the respondent from the service was admittedly ratified by the Board of Directors on 20th February 1991, and the Board of Directors unquestionably had the power to terminate the services of the respondent. On the basis of the authorities noted, it must follow that since the order of the Managing Director had been ratified by the Board of Directors such ratification related back to the date of the order and validated it."
30. Moreover, in this regard the reference can be made to judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank Of India vs Sh. Naresh Kumar And Ors SCC decided on 18 September, 1996. The Hon'ble SC had observed as follows :
CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 20 of 44 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN
BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23
16:01:24 +0530
"In cases like the present where suits are instituted or defended on behalf of a public corporation, public interest should not be permitted to be defeated on a mere technicality. Procedural defects which do not go to the root of the matter should not be permitted to defeat a just cause. There is sufficient power in the Courts, under the Code of Civil Procedure, to ensure that injustice is not done to any party who has a just case. As far as possible a substantive right should not be allowed to be defeated on account of a procedural irregularity which is curable. It cannot be disputed that a company like the appellant can sue and be sued in its own name. Under Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure a pleading is required to be signed by the party and its pleader, if any. As a company is a juristic entity it is obvious that some person has to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company. Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, provides that in a suit by against a corporation, the Secretary or any Director or other Principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case might sign and verify on behalf of the company. Reading Order 6 Rule 14 together with Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure it would appear that even in the absence of any formal letter of authority or power of attorney having been executed, a person referred to in Rule 1 of Order 29 can, by virtue of the office which he holds, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation. In addition thereto and de hors Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a company is a juristic entity, it can duly authorise any person to sign the plaint or the written statement on its behalf and this would be regarded as sufficient CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 21 of 44 KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 16:01:29 +0530 Date: 2026.01.23 compliance with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A person may be expressly authorised to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company, for example by the Board of Directors passing a resolution to that effect or by a power of attorney being executed in favour of any individual. In absence thereof and in cases where pleadings have been signed by one of it's officers a Corporation can ratify the said action of it's officer in signing the pleadings. Such ratification can be express or implied. The Court can, on the basis of the evidence on record, and after taking all the circumstances of the case, specially with regard to the conduct of the trial, come to the conclusion that the corporation had ratified the act of signing of the pleading by it's officer."
"The courts below could have held that Sh. L.K. Rohatgi must have been empowered to sign the plaint on behalf of the appellant. In the alternative it would have been legitimate to hold that the manner in which the suit was conducted showed that the appellant bank must have ratified the action of Sh. L.K. Rohatgi in signing the plaint. If, for any reason whatsoever, the courts below were still unable to come to this conclusion, then either of the appellate courts ought to have exercised their jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 27 (1) (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure and should have directed a proper power of attorney to be produced or they could have ordered Sh. L.K. Rohatgi or any other competent person to be examined as a witness in order to prove ratification or the authority of Sh. L.K. Rohatgi to sign the plaint. Such a power should be exercised by a court in order CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 22 of 44 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:01:34 +0530 to ensure that injustice is not done by rejection of a genuine claim."
31. The board resolution dated 14.02.2024 ratifies the act of Sh. Mohd. Taushif in instituting the suit, therefore, the present suit has been duly instituted by the authorized person. The original plaint was filed under the signatures of Mohd. Taushif, who is also the director of the plaintiff company. Thereafter, when the same was re-filed, it was signed by Raj Kumar Rana. The amended plaint was also signed by Raj Kumar Rana in whose favour an authority letter has been issued by Mohd. Taushif, which is Ex.PW1/D2.
Thereafter, an application under Section 151 CPC was filed for substitution of the AR stating that the earlier AR of the plaintiff company is unable to attend the court proceedings due to personal reasons and Mohd. Taushif who is also one of the director of the plaintiff company was substituted as the new AR of the plaintiff company vide order dated 01.04.2024. In fact, counsel for defendant had also not even objected to allowing of the application on 01.04.2024 (though inadvertently in the order dated 01.04.2024, it was recorded that the counsel for plaintiff has no objection to allowing of the application but it was in fact counsel for defendant who had not objected to the application of the plaintiff for substitution of the AR).
32. Ld. counsel for the defendant has relied upon following judgements in support of his case:
a) State Bank of Travancore vs M/s Kingstone Computers (I) Pvt Ltd Civil Appeal No. 2014 of 2011 decided by Hon'ble SC on 22.02.2011 CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 23 of 44 KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:01:39 +0530
b) M/s Schmenger GMBH and Company vs M/s Saddler Shoes Private Limited Civil Suit no. 689 of 1999 decided by Hon'ble Madras HC on 29.10.2010
c) Nibro Ltd vs National Insurance Co. Ltd AIR 1991 Delhi 125
d) M/s New Shelter Enterprises Thr Prop vs Smt. Meenakshi Civil Revision Application No. 62 of 2017 decided by Hon'ble Bom HC on 21.07.2017.
Thus, the above said cases are discussed as follows:
a. State Bank of Travancore vs M/s Kingstone Computers (I) Pvt Ltd: The ld. counsel for the defendant has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble SC in State Bank of India vs Kingston Computers (I) P. Ltd III (2011) SLT 53. In this case, the suit was filed by the respondent through Sh. Ashok K. Shukla who described himself as one of the directors of the company and claimed that he was authorised by Shri Raj K. Shukla, the CEO of company vide letter dated 02.01.2003. However, the appellant had objected to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that Sh. Ashok K. Shukla was not authorised to file the suit.
33. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, trial court dismissed the suit on ground that Sh. Ashok K. Shukla was not authorised to file the same. Being aggrieved by it, the respondent approached the Hon'ble HC which decreed the suit and reversed the finding of trial court. Thus, the appeal.
34. It was argued by the counsel for the appellant that the authorization by Sh. Raj K Shukla was not a valid authorization and that no board of resolution was filed on record authorizing Sh. Ashok K Shukla to CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 24 of 44 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:01:46 +0530 sign, verify and institute the suit on behalf of the company. The Hon'ble SC held that respondent has not produced any evidence to prove that Sh. Ashok K. Shukla was appointed as a director of the company and a resolution was passed by the board of directors authorising Sh. Ashok K Shukla has been authorised to institute the suit and that the letter of authority issued by Sh. Raj K Shukla was nothing but a scrap of paper, because no resolution was passed by board of directors delegating its power to Shri Raj K Shukla to authorize another person to file the suit. Thus, the judgement of trial court dismissing the suit was upheld.
35. However, this judgement is not applicable in the facts of the present case, as in the said case issue was whether the person who has authorised was not having power to do so and thus, it was held that the suit was not instituted by an authorised person. However, in the present case, it has been proved vide Ex.PW1/D that Mohd. Taushif is one of the director of the plaintiff company and further his acts have been ratified vide board resolution dated 01.04.2024 Ex.PW1/A. b. M/s Schmenger GMBH and Company vs M/s Saddler Shoes Private Limited: In the said case, the issue before Hon'ble HC was whether the suit instituted by the liaison officer, on behalf of the plaintiff, was properly instituted. In this regard, it was observed by Hon'ble HC that the since the plaintiff has neither filed any board resolution or any memorandum/ articles of association to show that he was conferred with the power to institute a suit, therefore, the Hon'ble HC held that the suit was not properly instituted. However, this case is not applicable in the facts of the present case as in the present case, a board of resolution authorising Mohd. Taushif is already filed. Therefore, this case is not applicable in the facts of the present case.
CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 25 of 44KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:01:51 +0530 c. Nibro Ltd vs National Insurance Co. Ltd: In this case, the main issue was whether the suit was instituted by duly authorised person. In the said case, the plaint was signed and verified by G. Jhajharia. However, the plaintiff examined Ashok Kumar Jhajaria and not G. Jhajharia. In such facts, the Hon'ble HC has observed that plaintiff has not placed on record any board resolution passed by the company authorising G. Jhajharia to institute the suit. Moreover, he did not come up to make a statement that he was in position to depose the case. Thus, in absence of any evidence to prove that G. Jhajharia was authorised to institute the suit, the Hon'ble HC held that the suit was not properly instituted. However, this case is also not applicable in the facts of the present case.
36. Importantly, the Hon'ble Delhi HC also observed that no resolution was placed on record, even after instituting the suit, to ratify his actions. Thus, a company could ratify the act of instituting of the suit by passing a board resolution subsequent to the institution of the suit. In the present case also the plaintiff company had passed a board resolution subsequent to the institution of the suit, thereby, ratifying the act of institution of the suit. Thus, the reliance of ld. counsel for the defendant on this case to support the contention that suit is not properly instituted is misplaced and does not help his case.
d. M/s New Shelter Enterprises Thr Prop vs Smt. Meenakshi : In the said case, the suit was filed by the director in his own name and not in the name of the company and also that there was no authority on behalf of the company to institute the suit. Thus, Hon'ble HC has held that the suit can not be instituted without any board resolution authorising a person to institute a suit on behalf of the company, which is a separate legal entity. Therefore, the plaint was rejected. However, the facts of the present suit are different than that relied CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 26 of 44 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:01:56 +0530 by the counsel for the defendant as in the present suit the company has issued a board resolution authorising Mohd. Taushif on behalf of the company.
In the case titled as "United Bank of India vs. Shri Naresh Kumar", it was held that ratification can be express or implied. In the present case also, the case has been pursued by Mohd. Taushif for a number of years i.e. since 2018 onwards. He had also authorized further Raj Kumar Rana to pursue the case on behalf of plaintiff company and thereafter, when Raj Kumar Rana was not in a position to pursue the case on behalf of plaintiff company, the plaintiff company had passed a board resolution and had authorized Mohd. Taushif to pursue the case on behalf of plaintiff company and these had expressly ratified and authorized the acts of Mohd. Taushif which he had done on behalf of plaintiff company. It is thus, held that the suit has been instituted by a duly authorized person.
Issue no. 2 is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. III: WHETHER THE PRESENT COURT DOES NOT HAVE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION TO TRY AND DECIDE THE PRESENT CASE? OPD.
37. The onus to prove the issue is upon the defendant. Counsel for defendant has argued that the present Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit as the defendant at the time of re-filing of the plaint in the present Court in the year 2023 was no more working within the jurisdiction of the present Court and was working in Gurgaon.
38. The suit was filed in the year 2018 and the plaintiff had stated that the present Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 27 of 44 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:02:01 +0530 suit as the parties work for gain within the jurisdiction of the present Court. However, the address of the defendant in the initial plaint was of Kapashera and the address of the plaintiff was of Gandhi Nagar. In the memo of parties filed along with plaint at the time of refiling on 07.01.2023, two addresses of the defendant have been given, one of Kapashera and other of Udyog Vihar, Gurugram and therefore, the earlier address of the defendant was also not within the jurisdiction of the present Court and it is immaterial that the defendant had shifted its office to Gurgaon at the time of re-filing of the plaint.
39. Perusal of the ledger account filed by the plaintiff Ex.PW1/E reveals that part-payment of Rs.2,50,000/- was made by the defendant in the account of the plaintiff. PW-2 is the witness from Bank who also proved the payment of Rs.2,50,000/- on 16.10.2017 in the account of the plaintiff as per Ex.PW2/C. The payment against the cheque Ex.PW1/G, (also Ex.PW2/A) which was also proved by PW-2, was stopped by the drawer. The cheque returning memo is Ex.PW2/B. Thus, from the testimony of the PW-2, it is clear that the account of the plaintiff is in PNB Bank situated at Gandhi Nagar Branch in which the defendant has made part payment of Rs.2,50,000/- on 16.10.2017 and the cheque deposited by the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.2 lacs had returned back dishonoured due to 'stop payment'.
40. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Satyapal Vs. Slick Auto Accessories Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2014 SCC Online Del 998 has held that:
"Since the trial court has written, in my opinion, a very thorough and an excellent judgment, I would like to reproduce the relevant paras of the judgment of the trial court instead of using my words. The relevant paras of the trial court are 19 to CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 28 of 44 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:02:06 +0530 25 and the same read as under:
"ISSUE NO. 1:
"19. The question to be answered is as to whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant.
20. The defendants have contended that the office/factory of the defendants is situated in Bhiwadi, District-Alwar, Rajasthan and the delivery of the goods was also made at Bhawadi, District-Alwar, Rajasthan at the office/factory of the defendants and therefore no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court. DW1 has deposed on these lines.
21. There is no doubt the material was supplied by the plaintiff to the defendants at Bhiwadi, District-Alwar, Rajasthan. The same is clear from the invoices Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B. However even if the material was delivered at Bhiwadi, District-Alwar, Rajasthan it is clear that the material was supplied from the office/factory of the plaintiff situated at Jwala Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 which falls within the jurisdiction of this court.
22. It is a well established principle of law that where, under a contract no place of payment is specified, the debtor must seek his creditor and therefore a suit for recovery is maintainable at the place where the creditor resides or works for gain, because a part of the cause of action arises at that place also with the contemplation of section 20 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as "State of Punjab V. A. K. Raha" reported CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 29 of 44 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.01.23 16:02:11 +0530 as AIR 1964 CALCUTTA 418 (DB), "Jose Paul v. Jose"
reported as AIR 2002 KERALA 397 (DB), "Rajasthan State Electricity Board V. M/s Dayal Wood Works" reported as AIR 1998 ANDHRA PRADESH 381, "Munnisa Begum V. Noore Mohd." Reported as AIR 1965 ANDHRA PRADESH 231 and "State of U.P.v. Raja Ram" reported as AIR 1966 AllAHABAD 159.
23. In the judgment titled as "State of Punjab v. A. K. Raha"
reported as AIR 1964 CALCUTTA 418 (DB) it was clearly held:
"...........The general rule is that where no place of payment is specified in the contract either expressly or impliedly, the debtor must seek the creditor, see The Eider (1893) P 119 at p. 136, Drexel v. Drexel. (1916) 1 Ch 251 at p. 261, North Bengal, Das Brothers Zemindary Co. Ltd V. Surendera Nath Das, ILR (1957) 2 Cal 8. The obligation to pay the debt involves the obligation to find the creditor and to pay him at the place where he is when the money is payable. The application of the general rule is not excluded because the amount of debt is disputed...."
24. In the judgment titled as Sreenivasa Pulvarising vs Jal Glass & Chemicals pvt. Ltd. reported as AIR 1985 Cal 74 it was also held:
"......In a contract of the nature now under consideration performance of the contract consists not only of delivery of the goods but also of payment of the price. Therefore, cause of action for a suit on breach of such a contract would arise not only where the goods were to be delivered but also where CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 30 of 44 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:02:16 +0530 the price would be payable on such delivery....."
It was further held:
".......9. Therefore, the law continues to remain the same and in a suit arising out of a contract, a part of the cause of action arises at the place where in performance of the contract any money to which the suit relates in payable...."
Adverting to the facts of the present case office/factory of the Plaintiff is situated at Jwala nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32. No place of payment has been specified in the contract/bills/invoices. The defendants are liable to make the payment for the goods supplied to them. No application was made by the defendants to the plaintiffs for fixing a place of payment and Sec. 49 of the Indian Contract Act cannot apply to the facts of the case. Therefore, the payment was to be made at the office of the plaintiff. Further the purchase order was placed at Jwala Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 and the goods were supplied from Jwala nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 Therefore a part of th cause of action definitely arises at Jawala Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32. Hence the present suit for recovery of the sale price can be filed before this court as the office of the plaintiff is situated within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the court.
25. I therefore hold that this court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. This issue is therefore decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants."
CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 31 of 44KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 16:02:20 +0530 Date: 2026.01.23 (underlining added)
6. I completely agree with the conclusion of the trial court because it is settled law that the debtor has to seek the creditor and since no place of payment was agreed upon, payment would have been made to the seller/appellant who is residing and working for gain at New Delhi. Trial court has also rightly relied upon Section 49 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 that it was upon the respondent no.1/defendant no. 1 to fix the place of payment and which has not been done, and therefore payment would have been made by the debtor to the creditor at the place of the creditor/plaintiff/appellant."
41. There is nothing on record to establish that any particular place of payment was fixed between the parties. Part-payment has been received by the plaintiff in his account situated at Gandhi Nagar Branch. The remaining payment was also required to be made by the defendant in the said account. The registered office/principal place of business of the plaintiff is also at Gandhi Nagar as per the GST registration certificate Ex.PW1/D. Thus, on the basis of the principle of 'debtor seeks creditor', the present court has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit.
Accordingly, issue no. 3 is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. IV: WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED FOR MONEY DECREE? IF SO, TO WHAT AMOUNT? OPP.
42. Onus of the issue was upon the plaintiff. The suit is commercial in nature and squarely falls within the purview of Section 2(1)(C) of CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 32 of 44 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:02:26 +0530 Commercial Courts Act and plaintiff has also duly complied with mandatory provision of Pre-Institution Mediation and Conciliation as provided in Section 12 A of Commercial Courts Act as per non-starter report Ex.PW1/L.
43. Plaintiffs have proved their case on oath and the main defence of the defendant was that the transactions which have been started have not completed and fulfilled on behalf of plaintiff and the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant were not of the same specifications. It is stated that as the goods supplied were not of the same specifications, the whole lot was rejected by the defendant's client and the defendant's client raised a debit note which was accordingly sent to the plaintiff towards rejection of goods and the defendant had also informed plaintiff about rejection of goods on email dated 29.11.2017.
44. Relevant cross of Sh. Mohd. Taushif PW-1 in this regard is reproduced herein below:
".....We had done job work for the defendant and after stitching had supplied trousers to the defendant. The material of the trousers was supplied to us after cutting by the defendant and the we had returned the same after stitching. It is correct that no garments was purchased by the defendant from the plaintiff and it was only the job work done by us.
Q. Is it correct that you have not stated in your suit as well as affidavit that you were also carrying out the work of stitching for the other companies including defendant company ?
A. Question disallowed as it pertains to the contents.CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 33 of 44 Digitally signed
KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:02:30 +0530 Defendant's counsel may refer to the contents of the suit at the time of final arguments.
It is wrong to suggest that I do not have personal knowledge with regard to the transaction with the defendant.
.....
Q. Whether you have filed any documents i.e. agreement executed between parties to the suit in respect of the terms ?
A. No such written agreement was executed.
My stitching plant is in Noida Sector-63. My shop and corporate office is in Gandhi Nagar.
.....
Ques. Have you filed any order placed by the
defendant for doing their job to you?
Ans. We received copy of challans from the
defendant company for job work and on the basis of said challan, we perform the job and generate invoice and returned the goods i.e. the clothes after sticthing.
.....
The cheque filed in the present case is related to the transaction as stated in the present case. The cheque was related to part payment and was not full and final payment. The defendant has not stated in writing that the present cheque is a part payment cheque and the rest of the payment will be given later on. (Vol. Defendant had verbally stated that he was having some financial issues CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 34 of 44 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:02:35 +0530 and had requested that we should accept the part payment and he would make the remaining payment later on). It is wrong to suggest that I have not supplied the complete consignment to the defendant and that is why the complete amount was not given to me. It is wrong to suggest that the present cheque is not related to the transaction in the present suit or is related to some other previous transaction....."
45. Cross of Sh. Sanjay Pathak, DW-1 SPA of defendant in this regard is reproduced herein below:
"....The defendant is a proprietorship firm and Mrs. Smriti Kathuria is the proprietor of the defendant firm. Both the addresses of the defendant firm are correctly mentioned in the memo of parties. Defendant firm used to deal with the business of manufacturing of various types of garments i.e. mens jacket, suits, trouser, bandi, etc. and supply it to Bluechip Company like Raymond, Blackberry, Hallmark, Adity Birla, Park Avenue, etc. Defendant firm started business with the plaintiff in the year 2017. Defendant firm used to take the services of job work i.e. cutting of fabric and stitching of trouser from the plaintiff. (Vol. The fabric was supplied by the defendant). It is correct that in the year 2017, defendant firm had given job work of stitching of trousers to the plaintiff. It is also correct that the plaintiff company has completed the job work and supplied the said trousers to the defendant (Vol. around 3500 pieces were supplied but the fabric was more. We have sent the said pieces further to HMK Apparells and we received a CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 35 of 44 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:02:40 +0530 complaint telephonically as well as through e-mail that the stitching was not proper).
I have not filed any documentary proof in court regarding the quantity of the fabric supplied to plaintiff. (Vol. As per the fabric supplied, around 8000 trousers were to be prepared). I have not filed any documentary proof regarding the number of trousers which were to be prepared. It is wrong to suggest that defendant firm used to supply the fabric after cutting and only stitching of trousers was to be done by the plaintiff. It is correct that against the said job work defendant firm has made a payment/transfer of Rs.2,50,000/- in the PNB, Delhi. (Vol. it was advance payment). It is correct that defendant firm has also issued a cheque bearing no.188572 dated 16.10.2017 in favour of plaintiff Company against the said job work. The signature on the cheque is of the proprietor.
We had not issued any legal notice informing the plaintiff about the complaint received in the stitching work. (Vol. we had informed him verbally and had also sent a e-mail regarding the quality of work and had stopped the payment of the cheque). The defendant had not informed in writing to the plaintiff regarding the fact that they intended to get the payment of the cheque stopped. (Vol. it was told verbally). We had not sent any reply to the legal notice. (Vol. We have not received any legal notice on behalf of plaintiff). The address as mentioned in the legal notice Ex.PW1/H is correct. Q. Whether you firm has returned the alleged defective trousers to the plaintiff for re-stitching or rectifying the error ? A. No. (Vol. We did not receive the defective trousers back from HMK and HMK just told us that they do not want to get work done from us and HMK also asked us to return the CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 36 of 44 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.01.23 16:02:45 +0530 fabric).
The fabric was supplied to us by HMK. We have not filed any proof regarding supply of fabric by HMK to us. It is wrong to suggest that the plaintiff had not supplied defective trousers. It is wrong to suggest that the debit note filed in the present suit has been forged and manufactured in connivance with HMK. I have not filed any documentary proof in the Court regarding the supplying of specification to the plaintiff in respect of stitching of trousers. (Vol. it was given to the plaintiff)......"
46. Though the plaintiff in his cross examination has stated that the fabric was more and 8000 trousers were to be prepared and only 3500 pieces were supplied, but no such fact has been mentioned by the defendant in their WS. The defence of the defendant however, is that the work of stitching was not proper and when they had sent pieces further to HMK apparels, they had received a complaint telephonically as well as through email that the stitching was not proper and HMK apparels had raised a debit note in this regard. The alleged debit note raised by the HMK apparels has not been proved by the defendant and the same was de-exhibited and marked as Mark-A. DW-1 has further admitted that they had not received the goods back from HMK and they had also not returned the alleged defective trousers to the plaintiff for stitching or rectifying the error. Further, though DW-1 has stated that they had received an email from HMK apparels that the stitching was not proper but the said email has not been filed on record nor proved during the evidence.
47. The alleged debit note issued by HMK apparels has not been produced in original before the Court. Two emails have been exhibited as CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 37 of 44 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:02:50 +0530 Ex.DW1/C and Ex.DW1/D. The certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of the said emails is Ex.DW1/E and perusal of the said affidavit u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act reveals that the same has been issued by Advocate Rakesh Kakkar, who is the counsel for the defendant, in which it has been stated that the said record or email has ben stored in the laptop make Dell and the printout has been taken from HP model 1020. The certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act should have been given by the person who is the account holder of the said email account and not by the counsel for the defendant and therefore, even these emails Ex.DW1/C and Ex.DW1/D have not been duly proved, inasmuch as, the certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of these emails have not been given by the concerned person who is account holder of the said email account. The said emails however, were exhibited as Ex.D1 and D2, as the same were admitted by the plaintiff. Therefore, despite the fact that accompanying certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is not proper, the said emails can be taken into account to decide the real issues between the parties.
48. Perusal of the contents of these emails reveals that the plaintiff has clearly stated that they had done only stitching process and the cutting of the trousers was done from the factory of the defendant and so if there was any problem in the cutting by the defendant, then the plaintiff cannot be made liable for the same. Also, though, the emails between the palintiff and the defendant have been filed on record, the defendant has not filed the alleged emails which they had received from the hallmark/HMK regarding the quality issue of the trousers. Despite this fact being clearly stated by the plaintiff that that the cutting was done at the factory of the defendant, the defendant has not rebutted this fact in response to the said email and this also establishes that the cutting of the fabric was done in the factory of the CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 38 of 44 KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:02:56 +0530 defendant and not by the plaintiff and the plaintiff had only done the stitching work i.e. job work. The said consignment has also not been returned to the plaintiff for rectifying the error. The defendant has also admitted that the said consignment was not even returned by the hallmark to them.
49. The Hon'ble Delhi HC in the case of M/s United Electronics & Anr vs M/s Compuage Infocom Ltd & Anr RFA No. 401 of 2018 decided on 11.05.2018 has held as follows:
"7. To the aforesaid reasoning of the trial court, this Court would like to add further reasoning by reference to Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and which section provides that a buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods if intimation is not given to the seller that goods have been rejected. Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act reads as under:-
"Section 42. Acceptance.-The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them, or when the goods have been delivered to him and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller, or when, after the lapse of a reasonable time, he retain the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them."
8. On a query to the counsel for the appellants/defendant nos.1 and 3, it is conceded that neither in the leave to defend application nor in this Court documents have been filed showing CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 39 of 44 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:03:03 +0530 any intimation sent by the appellants/defendant nos.1 and 3 to the respondent no.1/plaintiff/seller, that the goods supplied under the subject invoices as stated in para 4 of the plaint, are defective.
Once that is so, the provision of Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act applies and hence it was not open to the appellants/defendant nos.1 and 3 to contend that payment could not be claimed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff on account of having supplied the defective goods."
50. Though the above case pertains to the buyer and seller, however, it would also apply to facts of the present suit which involves the job work given by the defendant and being done by the plaintiff as if the plaintiff had produced defective goods, then the defendant should have given an opportunity to plaintiff by sending back the defective goods for rectification. The defendant on the other hand, had passed those goods further. Thus, the fact of not returning the alleged defective parts for rectification and passing the alleged defective goods further would amount to deemed acceptance of those goods/services as per Section 42 of The Sale of Goods Act and the defendant can not take the plea of defective job work by plaintiff to evade his liability.
51. The ld. Counsel for the defendant has submitted that the plaintiff in the plaint has stated that it is engaged in the business of the manufacturing and trading of garments. However, in the replication, it is stated that the defendant used to give some stitching work to the plaintiff for pants. Thus, it is argued that the suit of the plaintiff is based on confused pleadings. To CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 40 of 44 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:03:09 +0530 support his contentions, ld. counsel for the defendant has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana HC in the case of Kulwinder Singh vs Paramjit Singh RSA 2557 of 2019 decided on 14.09.2023. In the said case, plaintiff/ appellant had filed the appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the dismissal of the suit. In the plaint, it was stated that the plaintiff is the owner in the possession of the suit property and it was his ancestral property which was being used for storing agricultural implements and upon being interfered by the defendant and getting apprehended, the plaintiff prayed for a decree of injunction. However, in the replication filed by the plaintiff, an U turn was taken and it was pleaded that property falls within Lal Lakir in village and is just on the borderline of lal lakir and bears a khasra number and thus, on the basis of the regular use since the time of his ancestors, plaintiff pleaded that he be treated as owner of the suit property.
52. Thus, the trial court held that due to confused and contradictory pleadings of the plaintiff, and as the plaintiff could not prove the location of the suit property and thus, the suit was dismissed. Thereafter, the first appeal was also dismissed by the appellate court and taking into consideration the pleadings of the plaintiff, the Hon'ble HC also dismissed the said appeal. However, the said case is not applicable in the facts of the present case being distinguishable on facts.
53. In the said case, the plaintiff could not even prove the location of the suit property. Counsel for defendant has argued that the plaintiff in this suit has stated that he has supplied garments to the defendant and no where he has admitted that he has done job work. However, it is to be seen whether the confusion is real or not and whether due to any alleged confused pleadings on behalf of plaintiff, defendant can be said to be confused or not CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 41 of 44 KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 16:03:16 +0530 Date: 2026.01.23 being able to led proper defence. The testimony of DW-1 clearly reveals that the defendants were under no confusion and the defendants were clearly aware that the plaintiff had done job work for them and after doing the job work had supplied trousers to them. The defence of the defendant was also regarding the quality issue of stitching and therefore, from the WS of the defendant and from the testimony of DW-1, it is clear that at no point of time defendant was confused due to pleadings of the plaintiff in the plaint.
The plaintiff has proved its case on oath. The fact that the pants were stitched and were supplied to the defendant by the plaintiff is also not disputed by the defendant. As far as issue regarding quality of the stitching is concerned, the defendant has failed to prove the same even to the extent of preponderance of probabilities. Due to non-filing of the alleged emails which they had received from their buyer HMK apparels, an adverse presumption is also liable to be drawn against the defendant. The defendants have not even given any opportunity to the plaintiff to rectify the alleged error in stitching and thus, would have deemed to have accepted the job work done by the plaintiff. The defendants cannot evade their liability by pleading quality issue. As the plaintiffs have proved their case through oral as well as documentary evidence, it is directed that the plaintiff is entitled to an amount of Rs.3,34,026.50ps/- as principal and the defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,34,026.50ps/- to the plaintiff.
Issue no. 4 is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. V: WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO ANY INTEREST? IF SO, AT WHAT RATE AND FOR WHICH PERIOD? OPP.
54. The plaintiff has claimed that the defendant is liable to pay interest @ 24% from the date of supply of garments till its actual realisation.
CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 42 of 44KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:03:23 +0530 The plaintiff has also claimed interest @24% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.3,34,026.50/-. In the amended plaint, the plaintiff is claiming an amount of Rs.4,07,640.45ps./- as interest. However, the plaintiff has not specified the period for which the interest is claimed. The plaintiff has not specifically specified as to what rate this interest amount has been calculated, though it seems that the plaintiff has calculated the interest amount @24% per annum. Further, plaintiff has failed to prove that 24% p.a. was the agreed rate between the parties.
55. In this regard, relevant cross of PW-1 is reproduced herein below:
".....Ques. Whether you have mentioned in your invoices or in any agreement that the interest on the pending dues, if any, shall be charged with interest @ 24% or with any other rate of interest.
Ans. The witness after going through the court file has stated that no such interest clause has been mentioned in the invoices and no such agreement to this respect was executed....."
56. Though the plaintiff is claiming an amount of Rs.4,07,640/- as interest but as already observed the plaintiff has not quantified the same as per Order VII Rule 2A CPC. Even otherwise, claim of the plaintiff for grant of interest @24% per annum is exorbitant. However, as the defendant has deprived the plaintiff of its legitimate due, the plaintiff is entitled to interest at reasonable rate of 9% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.3,34,026.50/- from 25.12.2017 (date of last invoice) till its actual realization.
CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 43 of 44KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:03:28 +0530 Issue no. 5 is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. VI/RELIEF:
57. In view of the findings on the above issues, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in his favour and against the defendant for a sum Rs.3,34,026.50/- as principal along with interest @9% per annum on the amount of Rs.3,34,026.50/- from 25.12.2017 till its realization. Plaintiff is awarded Rs.1,00,000/- on account of litigation expenses. Costs of the suit to the extent of court fees is also awarded to the plaintiff as per law.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
KIRAN Digitally signed by
KIRAN BANSAL
Announced in the open Court BANSAL Date: 2026.01.23
16:03:33 +0530
on 23rd day of January, 2026 (Kiran Bansal)
District Judge, Commercial Court-02,
Shahdara, Karkardooma, Delhi/23.01.2026.
CS (Comm) No. 14/2023 M/s QSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s VSNS Industries Page 44 of 44