Delhi District Court
Console Shipping India Private Limited vs M/S Mansi Freight Systems on 27 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. VRINDA KUMARI:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-03,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS (COMM) No. : 291/2023
In the matter of :
M/s Console Shipping Services India (Pvt.) Ltd.
Through It's A.R. Sh. Vijay Jalla
Office at : B-1/D-4, 1st Floor,
Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044
.....Plaintiff
VERSUS
M/s Mansi Freight Systems
Through Its Proprietor Sh. Dheeraj Kapoor
Office at: 4239, 2nd Floor, I.P. Extension Part-2,
Sainik Colony, NIT Faridabad,
Haryana- 121001
.....Defendant
Date of e-filing : 15.03.2023
Date of Institution : 27.03.2023
Date when final arguments concluded : 17.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 27.01.2026
CS (COMM) 291/23
M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 1/39
CS (COMM) 975/23
M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd
COUNTER CLAIM
CS (COMM) No. : 975/2023
In the matter of :
Mansi Freight Systems
Through Its Proprietor Sh. Dheeraj Kapoor
Office at: 4339, 2nd Floor, I.P. Extension Part-2,
Sainik Colony, NIT Faridabad,
Haryana- 121001 .... Counter-Claimant
VERSUS
(1) Console Shipping Services India (Pvt.) Ltd.
Office at : B-1/d-4, 1st Floor,
Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 ....Non-counter claimant no.1
(2) Sadhu Auto Parts Pvt Ltd.
Khasra no. 101/19, 22/1, 22/2, 22/3,
Village Prithla Palwal,
Faridabad, Haryana- 121102 ....Non-counter claimant no.2
Date of e-filing : 13.10.2023
Date of Institution : 14.10.2023
Date when final arguments concluded : 17.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 27.01.2026
CS (COMM) 291/23
M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 2/39
CS (COMM) 975/23
M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this common judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit of the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 14,39,360/- along with interest thereon and the counter claim of the defendant against the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 15,15,520/- alongwith interest.
Main suit bearing No. CS (COMM) 291/23 PLAINT
2. The case of the plaintiff is that it is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office in Cochin, Kerala and a branch office at Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi. Defendant is a proprietorship firm having office at Faridabad, Haryana and is engaged in the business of Clearing & Forwarding Agency.
3. It is submitted that defendant availed the freight forwarding service of the plaintiff on regular account basis. Plaintiff maintained proper books of accounts for the invoices raised and payments made. It is submitted that an amount of Rs. 14,39,360/- is outstanding against the defendant. Despite repeated requests and legal demand notice dated 22.04.2019, defendant did not make the payment of the above said amount.
CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 3/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd
4. Plaintiff also approached South East District Legal Services Authority, Saket Courts, New Delhi for Pre-litigation Mediation as required u/s 12 A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. However, none appeared on behalf of the defendant and a Non-Starter Report was issued by the South East DLSA on 12.04.2022. The plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,39,360/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% p.a.
5. It is noted that in the body of the plaint, the outstanding amount is mentioned as Rs. 14,39,360/- whereas in the prayer clause, this amount has been mentioned as Rs. 10,39,360/-. The issues have been framed on the basis of prayer clauses of the plaint.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
6. In its Written Statement, the defendant has denied the averments of the plaint. It is submitted that the plaintiff has suppressed vital and material facts from this Court. It is submitted that the shipment handled by the plaintiff was delayed by 17 days against a strict deadline of timely delivery of 45 days as was mandated by the exporter as a condition of the consignment. The importer slapped a penalty of US $ 25,000/- (equivalent to Rs. 17,00,000/- at that time) on the consignor Sadhu Autoparts. The consignee issued a debit note to the CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 4/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd defendant which was taken up with the plaintiff. The plaintiff had agreed to bear half of the amount. Accordingly, a debit note of Rs. 10,03,000/- was issued against the plaintiff which the plaintiff agreed in principle to pay. However, plaintiff turned dishonest and did not pay the requisite amount.
7. It is further submitted that the present suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party i.e. M/s Penashin Shipping whose services were engaged by the plaintiff for completion of the project undertaken by the defendant.
8. It is submitted that being in the business of providing freight services including providing services from India to the international market, defendant was initially approached by M/s Sadhu Autoparts (Consignor) requesting their quotations and estimated time in transit for the purpose of consignments to Toronto, Canada. The defendant provided the consignor the quotation i.e. the tarrif chargeable for the shipment and also communicated the transit time for shipment to reach the port of Toronto as 60 to 75 days. However, after several rounds of negotiations, on specific request of Sadhu Autoparts, defendant conceded to the transit time being limited to 45 to 50 days from the date of cargo receipt till Toronto Sea Port. However, on account of pressure of the consignor, the defendant had to re- negotiate the transit time to 45 days.
CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 5/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd
9. Having come to a consensus to transit time of 45 days and charges applicable, defendant addressed an email dated 12.03.2018 to the plaintiff for handling the shipment at hand. It was specifically informed that the transit time agreed was 45 to 50 days.
10. Simultaneous with the acceptance of the terms and conditions of the project at hand, the plaintiff entered into similar negotiation with M/s Penashin Shipping at Singapore. It is submitted that the plaintiff identifies this shipping company as their Export Consol Team and is an agent of the plaintiff.
11. It is submitted that the three shipments to Toronto took more than 60 days to reach from Singapore. The cargo was released to the consignee on 16.07.2018 after a delay of 17 to 20 days. The Consignee issued a debit note of US $ 25,000/- (then equivalent to Rs. 17,00,000/-) on account of cancellation of order as the shipments had reached the consignee beyond the agreed time.
12. It is submitted that for maintaining a cordial business relationship, it was mutually decided that the consignor M/s Sadhu Autoparts would bear the burden of Rs. 8,50,000/- and the rest will be borne by the plaintiff. Vide invoice dated 19.11.2018, the consignor raised a debit note on the defendant for a sum of Rs. 10,03,000/- (Rs. 8,50,000/- plus 18% GST) with the remaining sum being taken over by the defendant. The defendant CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 6/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd again forwarded this debit note to the plaintiff in form of debit note dated 03.12.2020 to settle the accounts.
13. It is submitted that vide various emails, M/s Penashin Shipping (Export Consol Team) took the stand that there were no delays at their end. However, AR of the plaintiff Sh. Prasun admitted the liability and vide email dated 19.11.2018 assured the defendant that the said debit note would be taken care of within a week.
14. Till date, the plaintiff has not made any payment against the said debit note.
15. It is submitted that defendant had no contractual relations either with M/s Penashin Shipping or with their forwarding agent M/s LCL Imports (Overseas Container Forwarding).
REPLICATION
16. In the replication, the plaintiff has denied the averments in the WS and has reiterated its stand in the plaint. It is submitted that plaintiff never agreed to bear any loss / expenses or take any burden of Rs. 8,50,000/- plus 18% GST. There is no acknowledgment of the receipts of the debit note dated 19.11.2018 and thereafter debit note dated 03.12.2020.
CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 7/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Counter Claim bearing No. CS (COMM) 975/23 COUNTER CLAIM
17. The counter claimant has reiterated its averments in the written statement in the main suit. It is submitted that vide email dated 12.03.2018, it had specifically informed non-counter claimant no. 1 Console Shipping Services India (Pvt) Ltd that the transit time agreed will be 45 days from the date of cargo receipt till the Toronto Sea Port. Defendant no. 1 readily agreed and handed over the shipments to their shipping line agent M/s Penashin Shipping (referred to as Export Consol Team in emails of the non-counter claimant no. 1).
18. It is submitted that, thereafter, non-counter claimant no. 1 kept on evading the queries of the counter-claimant regarding the status of arrival of shipment at the destination port. It was only on 02.08.2018 that non-counter claimant no. 1 responded vide email dated 02.08.2018.
19. It is submitted that vide email dated 18.07.2018, the representative of LCL Imports (Overseas Container Forwarding) confirmed that the cargo had arrived and was released to the consignee on 16.07.2018 after a delay of 17 to 20 days.
20. It is submitted that vide email dated 30.07.2018, the representative of non-counter claimant no. 1 communicated to their agent M/s Penashin Shipping, Export Consol Team that the CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 8/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd shipper had received a claim of US $ 25,000/- (then equivalent to Rs. 17,00,000/-) from the consignee for order cancellation on account of shipment reaching the consignee beyond the agreed time. The said claim was passed onto M/s Penashin Shipping, Export Consol Team. It was also clarified through this email that three shipments to Toronto through the same shipping line to the same consignee had taken more than 60 days to reach from Singapore.
21. It is submitted that for maintaining a cordial business relationship, it was mutually decided that non-counter claimant no. 2 Sadhu Autoparts Pvt Ltd would bear the burden of Rs. 8,50,000/- and rest would be borne by non-counter claimant no.
1. Vide invoice dated 30.07.2018, the non-counter claimant no. 2 raised a debit note on the counter claimant for a sum of Rs. 10,03,000/- (Rs. 8,50,000/- plus 18% GST). This was put to the knowledge of defendant vide email dated 19.11.2018 vide which non-counter claimant no. 1 admitted this debit note and assured that it would be taken care of within a week. Later, the counter- claimant forwarded this debit note to the non-counter claimant no. 1 in form of another debit note dated 03.12.2020.
22. It is submitted that even though the present counter-claim is only against the non-counter claimant no. 1, Sadhu Autopart Pvt Ltd has been arrayed as non-counter claimant no. 2 as proper party. Non-counter claimant no. 2 had raised the debit note of Rs.
CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 9/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd 10,03,000/- to the counter-claimant and deducted/ adjusted the same against the freight payable to the counter-claimant.
23. It is submitted that non-counter claimant no. 1 failed to set off the amount in their running accounts with the counter- claimant and the amount of Rs. 10,03,000/- remains unpaid. The counter-claimant has submitted that interest @ 18% p.a. is also payable on the said amount w.e.f. 03.12.2020 till filing of the present suit which comes out to Rs. 5,12,520/-. Accordingly, counter claimant has filed the present counter claim for recovery in sum of Rs. 15,15,520/- against non-counter claimant no. 1 along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% p.a. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF NON-COUNTER CLAIMANT No.1
24. In its written statement, non-counter claimant no. 1 has denied the allegations of the counter claimant. It is submitted that the counter claimant has concealed material facts from this Courts. It has reiterated its stand in its plaint filed in the main suit. It is submitted that it never agreed to bear any loss / expenses or to take any burden of Rs. 8,50,000/- plus 18% GST at any point of time. It is further submitted that there is no acknowledgment of receipts of the debit notes dated 19.11.2018 and 03.12.2020. It is also the contention of the non-counter claimant no. 1 that the debit note dated 03.12.2020 was a CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 10/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd fabricated document. It is submitted that the 18% GST was never paid to the GST department. It is also submitted that raising the debit note after two years of lapse of dispute shows mala fide intention of the counter claimant.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF NON-COUNTER CLAIMANT No.2
25. It is submitted by the non-counter claimant no. 2 that it has been wrongly impleaded as a party to the present counter claim and, therefore, it is bad for misjoinder of party.
26. It is submitted that it had approached the counter-claimant for delivery of consignment to Toronto, Canada. Counter claimant informed that the consignment would take 60 to 75 days to reach the destination. However, the non-counter claimant no. 2 was in utter urgency and its client wanted the consignment to be delivered within 45 days. Vide email dated 06.03.2018, the counter-claimant agreed to this condition. Vide email dated 12.03.2018, non-counter-claimant no. 1 also assured that the delivery of the consignment would be made in 45 days to its destination. Non-counter claimant no. 1, however, failed to do so in time.
27. It is alleged that as per the facts mentioned in the counter claim, there was major negligence on the part of non-counter CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 11/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd claimant no. 1 regarding delivering the consignment to its destination well in time. It is submitted that the consignment had got delayed and it took 80 to 85 days to reach its destination from its origin.
28. It is further submitted that the non-counter claimant no. 2 had made it clear that half of the claim shall be borne by non- counter claimant no. 1. In this regard, the non-counter claimant no. 2 raised a debit note vide Invoice dated 30.07.2018 on the counter-claimant in sum of Rs. 10,03,000/- (Rs. 8,50,000/- plus 18% GST). Vide email dated 19.11.2018, non-counter claimant no. 1 admitted the claim and assured the counter-claimant that the said claim would be borne by it and will be fulfilled within a week. It is submitted that the amount sought by the counter- claimant is payable by non-counter claimant no. 1 alone.
ISSUES
29. On completion of pleadings, vide Order dated 09.09.2024, following issues were framed in the main suit bearing CS (COMM) 291/23 by my Ld. Predecessor:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs. 10,39,360/- against the defendant, as prayed for? OPP CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 12/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest. If yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP
3. Whether the suit is bad for not joining necessary party? OPD
4. Relief."
30. On completion of pleadings, vide Order dated 09.09.2024, following issues were framed in counter claim bearing CS (COMM) 975/23 by my Ld. Predecessor:-
"1. Whether the counter claimant is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs. 15,15,520/- against the defendant, as prayed for? OPCC
2. Whether the counter claimant is entitled to interest. If yes, at what rate and for which period? OPCC
3. Whether the counter claim is barred by limitation ? OPCD
4. Relief."
31. Consolidated evidence was led by plaintiff/ non-counter claimant no. 1 and defendant /counter-claimant in respect of the main suit as well as the counter claim and is annexed in the main suit file.
CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 13/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
32. Plaintiff led PE in its favour and examined Sh. Vijay Jalla, AR of the plaintiff as PW1. His affidavit in evidence is Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon various documents. Copy of certificate of Incorporation is Mark A. Copy of the Board Resolution is Ex.PW1/1 (OSR). Statement of Accounts (Ledger M0111) from 01.04.2018 to 18.04.2019 is Ex.PW1/2. Statement of Accounts (Ledger M0111) from 01.04.2019 to 16.12.2020 is Ex.PW1/3. Statement of Accounts (Ledger M0111) from 01.04.2020 to 16.12.2020 is Ex.PW1/4. Statement of Accounts (Ledger M0263) from 01.04.2018 to 18.04.2019 is Ex.PW1/5. Statement of Accounts (Ledger M0012) from 01.04.2018 to 18.04.2019 is Ex.PW1/6. Demand Notice dated 22.04.2019 is Ex.PW1/7. Postal Receipts dated 23.04.2019 is Ex.PW1/8 (OSR) (Colly). Non Starter Report dated 12.04.2019 is Ex.PW1/9. His additional affidavit in evidence is Ex.PW1/B. His affidavit u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW1/10.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
33. Defendants led DE in its favour and examined Sh. Dheeraj Kapoor, Proprietor of the defendant company as DW1. His affidavit in evidence is Ex.DW1/A. He relied upon various documents. Copy of email chains dated 02.08.2018 is Ex.DW1/1. Copy of email chains dated 08.02.2018 is Ex.DW1/2. Copy of the CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 14/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd email dated 19.11.2018 is Ex.DW1/3. Debit note dated 30.07.2018 is Ex.DW1/4. Debit note issued by counter-claimant dated 03.12.2020 to defendant no. 1 is Ex. DW1/5. Copy of Ledger Account of defendant no. 1 is Ex. DW1/6. Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is Ex.DW1/7.
34. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff / non-counter claimant no.1 preferred not to address oral arguments. He filed written submissions which are annexed in the case file of the main suit. I have heard the detailed final arguments on behalf of defendant /non counter claimant no. 1 and non counter claimant no.2 and have perused the record carefully including the written submissions filed by the parties. The parties did not rely upon any case law.
DISCUSSION
35. My issue wise findings are as follows:
Main Suit CS (COMM) 291/23 ISSUE No.1 "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs. 10,39,360/-
against the defendant, as prayed for?
OPP"
36. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 15/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd
37. I shall first consider the contention of the defendant that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff through an AR who has no authority in his favour. It is submitted that Ex.PW1/1 (OSR) talks of authorising Sh. Vijay Jalla to represent the plaintiff in pending cases.
38. Ex.PW1/1 authorizes Sh. Vijay Jalla to do all or any of the following in connection with case pending before court:
"1. To sign, verify affidavits, counter statements, written statement, reply, rejoinder, replication and any connected applications.
2. To appoint advocates, sign Vakalatnama for the said purpose and to represent/defend the company in any legal proceedings.
3.To sign all the documents in this behalf.
4. To swear an oath, state on affidavit, adduce evidence and cause discovery/inspection of documents.
5. To sue, withdraw or settle the case in the interest of the company
6. To modify, amend or withdraw any statement, pleadings, applications, petitions etc.
7. To appear and represent the Company for settlement, compromise and mediate in the above matter.
8. To do all other lawful acts which are necessary or incidental for the proper conduct of the cases."
39. No doubt the phrase 'in connection with case pending before court' has been used in Ex.PW1/1, however, this document should be read as a whole and not in parts. This CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 16/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd document clearly authorizes Sh. Vijay Jalla to represent the plaintiff company in any legal proceedings, adduce evidence and to sue, withdraw or settle the case in interest of the plaintiff company. The Court is convinced that by virtue of Ex.PW1/1, Sh. Vijay Jalla was authorized to file the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff and also appear as a witness.
40. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff on the basis of ledger accounts (Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/6).
41. I shall first consider the above said ledger accounts.
42. Ex.PW1/2 is the sub-ledger for the period 01.04.2018 to 18.04.2019. It is in respect of transaction with Mansi Freight Exp. It mentions that it pertains to Sundry Debtors Domestic (Exports) Ledger M0111. It shows an opening debit balance in sum of Rs. 33,60,979.91. It further shows that as on 25.03.2019, the balance outstanding against the defendant was Rs. 20,09,176.85.
43. Ex.PW1/3 is the sub-ledger for the period 01.04.2019 to 16.12.2020. It is in respect of transaction with Mansi Freight Exp. It mentions that it pertains to Sundry Debtors Domestic (Exports) Ledger M0111. It shows an opening debit balance amount in sum of Rs. 20,09,176.85. It further shows that as on 13.02.2020, the balance outstanding against the defendant was Rs. 15,09,176.17.
44. Ex.PW1/4 is the sub-ledger for the period 01.04.2020 to 16.12.2020. It is in respect of transaction with Mansi Freight Exp.
CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 17/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd It mentions that it pertains to Sundry Debtors Domestic (Exports) Ledger M0111. It shows an opening debit balance amount in sum of Rs. 15,09,176.17. It further shows that as on 27.11.2020, the balance outstanding against the defendant was Rs. 14,09,176.17.
45. Ex.PW1/5 is the sub-ledger for the period 01.04.2018 to (date is not clear) 2019. It is in respect of transaction with Mansi Freight Imp. It mentions that it pertains to Sundry Debtors Domestic (Imports) Ledger M0263. It shows an opening debit balance amount in sum of Rs. 0.01. It further shows that as on 04.08.2018, the balance outstanding against the defendant was Rs. 15,739.33.
46. Ex.PW1/6 is the sub-ledger for the period 01.04.2018 to 18.04.2019. It is in respect of transaction with Mansi Freight Imp. It mentions that it pertains to Sundry Debtors Domestic (Exports) Ledger M0012. It shows an opening credit balance amount in sum of Rs. 0.04. It further shows that as on 28.12.2018, the balance outstanding against the defendant was Rs. 14,444/-.
47. Thus, Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4 are all ledger M0111 and pertain to exports. The outstanding balance under this ledger as on 27.11.2020 is Rs.14,09,176.17. Ex. PW1/6 is in respect of ledger M0012 and also pertains to export. The outstanding balance under this ledger as on 28.12.2018 is Rs. 14,444.76. Ex. PW1/5 is in respect of ledger M0263 and pertains to imports. The outstanding balance under this ledger as on CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 18/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd 04.08.2018 is 15,739.33. The total outstanding amount as per these ledgers is Rs. 14,39,360.26. However, in the plaint, the plaintiff has prayed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 10,39,360/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% p.a.
48. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the above said amount has been mentioned erroneously in the prayer clause. Rather in his cross examination dated 25.10.2024, PW1 has deposed as follows:
"I am working in the capacity of Senior Accounts Executive in the plaintiff/counter defendant no. 1 company for the last about 12 years. The present suit has been filed by my counsel under my specific instructions. I have sworn the affidavit and statement of truth annexed with the plaint. I am very well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. The prayer clause at page no. 7 of the plaint in CS (COMM) 291/2023 have been prayed as per my instructions."
49. Thus, the claim of the plaintiff is limited to recovery of an amount of Rs. 10,39,360/- along with pendente lite and future interest.
50. The next contention of the defendant is that the suit of the plaintiff is based only on ledger accounts and since no invoices have been produced to prove these ledger accounts, claim of the plaintiff must fail.
51. Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides as follows:
CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 19/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd "34. [Entries in books of accounts including those maintained in an electronic form] when relevant. -
[Entries in books of accounts, including those maintained in an electronic form], regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability."
52. In Judgment dated 07.01.2022 of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Regular First Appeal No. 5228 of 2019 titled as Jay Ambe Industries Proprietor Shri Dineshkumar Bajranglal Somani versus Garnet Specialty Paper Ltd, it has been held as follows:
"20) The proposition laid down in the above referred authorities about the admissibility of ledger without the corroborative evidence being led in support of the entries in the ledger cannot be disputed. It is well settled that a ledger, though an account book, has no evidenciary value unless the entries made therein are proved by independent evidence which, in other words, would mean that there must be corroboration of entries which corroboration can be supplied by proving the transaction or by proving the entries in the Daily cash book or Roznama. Without corroboration, entries in the ledger cannot be brought within the purview of Section 34 of the Evidence Act. In the instant case, it is, therefore, to be seen, whether apart from the entries in the ledger, there was corroborative evidence in support of the entries in the ledger. This matter would largely depend on the facts of each case.
.
.
.
24. After scrutinising the law on the point, it is to be held :
i) that ledger by itself may not be the proof of transaction and no liability can be fastened on the basis of an entry in the ledger alone unless it is corroborated by some other evidence;
CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 20/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd
ii) ledger can be taken into consideration and would become relevant u/s 34 of the Evidence Act only when there is corroborative evidence on record in support of the entries made therein or in support of the transaction between the parties;
iii) that what form of evidence is to be led to corroborate the entries in the ledger would largely depend on the facts of each case. If the entries in the ledger are not denied by the defendant, it may not require any corroboration. Therefore the nature of proof would vary from case to case."
53. As per the ledgers Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/6 of the plaintiff, an amount of Rs. 14,39,360.26 is outstanding against the defendant. The debit note raised by the defendant has not been reflected in these ledgers. On the other hand, the ledger of the defendant Ex.DW1/6 reflects that the outstanding balance to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff after setting off the debit note in sum of Rs. 10,03,000/- is Rs. 4,03,689/-. Thus, a major difference in the respective two ledger accounts of the parties is in respect of the debit note. Apart from the debit note, there is a difference of Rs. 32,671.26 in the balance amounts. It is also noted that ledger of the defendant only reflects the payments made by it to the plaintiff. These entries of payments include Bill numbers but do not reflect when these bills were raised upon them and what was the amount of these bills.
54. I shall return later to the issue whether or not ledgers of the plaintiff constitute sufficient evidence. At this stage, it is apt to CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 21/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd consider whether the plaintiff is guilty of suppression of vital and material facts from this Court.
55. Ledgers of the parties show that there have been continuous business transactions amongst them since at least year 2018. The contentious issue is in respect of the three shipments of consignment of consignor Sadhu Autoparts sent through Pensashin Shipping Line from Singapore to Toronto. In the replication, the plaintiff has baldly denied the averments of the defendant regarding these shipments and the delay caused in this assignment. It is the case of the defendant that the consignment was to reach Toronto through M/s Penashin Shipping, Export Console Team of the plaintiff within 45 days but it reached the destination after more than 60 days. Defendant has placed on record emails Ex.DW1/2 (Colly) which show that the transit time from cargo receipt at Singapore till the destination point Toronto sea port was 45 days. Because of late arrival of the consignment, the consignee at Toronto raised a debit note against the consignor Sadhu Autoparts on account of cancellation of order. The consignor in turn raised the debit note (Ex.DW1/4) in sum of Rs. 10,03,000/- against the defendant.
56. Ex.DW1/1 is a series of emails. Email dated 30.07.2018 at 5:24 pm was issued by Sh. Prasun Roy of the plaintiff company and is addressed to Penashin. In this email, it has been categorically mentioned that the shipper had received a claim of CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 22/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd USD 25,000/- (equivalent to Rs. 17,00,000/- at that time) from consignee for order cancellation which would be passed on to the plaintiff. This email was responded by Penashin who did not accept the claim and stated that transit time for Singapore to Toronto via Vancouver was 28 days excluding turn around time. Vide email dated 31.07.2018 at 10:21 am addressed by Sh. Prasun Roy of the plaintiff company and addressed to Penashin, it was brought to the notice of Penashin that the three consignments reached the destination in 65, 62 and 62 days respectively. This email was also forwarded by the plaintiff to the defendant vide email dated 02.08.2018.
57. In his evidence, PW1 admitted that plaintiff handled the shipments of Sadhu Autoparts in the year 2017 or 2018. He also admitted that M/s Penashin Shipping Line was plaintiff's shipping line agent. When the email dated 30.07.2018 was put to this witness, he did not deny the same but stated that he had no knowledge of the same as he belonged to the accounts department. Plaintiff did not produce any witness from such department as would have had the knowledge of these emails.
58. PW1 also admitted that Sh. Prasun Roy was General Manager Exports and was Head of his Department. He left the service in the month of May 2020. The witness also admitted that the plaintiff company's email ID was www.cssindiagroup.com. It CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 23/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd is noted that in the emails relied upon by the defendant, the above mentioned email address is mentioned.
59. Ex.DW1/3 are two emails dated 19.11.2018. Email dated 19.11.2018 at 1:23 PM was issued by the defendant and addressed to Sh. Prasun Roy which shows that the debit note received from Sadhu Autoparts was forwarded to the plaintiff in form of an attachment. It is noted that in the body of the e-mail 'Italy and miniapoles Shipments' is mentioned. As per Ld. counsel for defendant, it is a typographical error and this e-mail should be read alongwith the entire e-mail trail which pertains to Singapore-Toronto consignment of Sadhu Autoparts. Ld. counsel for plaintiff has not raised any objection in this regard. E-mail dated 19.11.2018 at 1:33 PM was sent by Sh. Prasun Roy, Export-North of the plaintiff company to the defendant wherein it was mentioned on behalf of the plaintiff that he (Sh. Prasun Roy) had already taken up the said debit note with Toronto office and would be taken care of by that week.
60. Regarding the above said emails dated 19.11.2018, PW1 deposed that he was not aware of these emails. A specific suggestion was to PW1 which reads as follows:
"Q. I put to you that the defendant presented your company vide an email dated 19.11.2018 a debit note issued by counter defendant no. 2/M/s Sadhu Auto Parts, of Rs. 10,03,000/- towards settling the claim of order cancellation attributed to delay in delivery at your end. What CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 24/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd do you have to say? (at this stage, the witness has been shown page no. 21 of the Written Statement of the defendant in CS COMM no. 291/2023).
Ans. Maybe the plaintiff company had received this email but out Accounts Department never received the alleged debit note neither from the counter defendant no. 2 nor the defendant/counter claimer."
61. During his cross-examination by non-counter claimant no.2 (Sadhu Autoparts), PW1 deposed that he was not aware that the plaintiff company had informed its agent about non-counter claimant no.2's claim of USD 25,000/- for the delayed delivery. Email dated 30.07.2019 was also put to this witness. PW1 deposed that he was not aware as he was not an operational person.
62. The Court is convinced that the replies of PW1 in respect of emails dated 30.07.2018 and 19.11.2018 are evasive. The plaintiff did not produce any witness who had knowledge of the transactions in Export Department of which Sh. Prasun Roy was the head.
63. During the cross examination dated 25.10.2024, PW1 deposed that the debit notes were never received by plaintiff. This deposition is not in consonance with the above reproduced testimony wherein he had deposed that plaintiff may have received the email but the Accounts Department did not receive the debit note. PW1 was also asked as to in the affidavit of CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 25/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd admission/denial, on what basis were the emails relied upon by the defendant denied. PW1 deposed that he did not know.
64. It is noted that when PW1 was cross examined by Sadhu Autoparts Pvt. Ltd (non-counter-claimant no. 2), an objection was raised by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff /non-counter-claimant no. 1 on the ground that Sadhu Autoparts Pvt. Ltd was not a party in the main suit and in the counter claim, it was only a proforma defendant with no claim against it. This Court does not find any merit in this contention. Since the written statement of Sadhu Autoparts Pvt. Ltd is on record in the counter-claim and consolidated evidence is being recorded in the main suit and the counter claim where the issues are intertwined, non-counter claimant no. 2 had a right to cross examine PW1.
65. It is evident from the above discussion that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts from this Court regarding the transaction vide which consignment of Sadhu Autoparts was to be shipped to Toronto from Singapore within 45 days by the plaintiff through its shipping line agent Penashin but the consignment did not reach the destination in time. PW1 has also avoided to answer material questions related to the debit note. There is a complete suppression of facts related to above discussed transactions and debit note and no cogent explanation has come forth on this issue even when the defendant has placed on record emails that would confirm that the consignment of CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 26/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Sadhu Autoparts Pvt. Ltd reached Toronto Seaport late and a debit note was raised by the consignee on account of delay which prompted Sadhu Autoparts Pvt. Ltd to raise Debit Note against the defendant who in turn passed it on to the plaintiff.
66. Now I would revert to the issue whether the plaintiff's claim can succeed on the basis of ledger (Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/6) or not. As already discussed, there is a difference in the ledger of plaintiff and that of defendant on two counts : (i) Debit Note has not been reflected in plaintiff's ledger, (ii) even if the Debit Note is kept aside, there is a difference in sum of Rs. 32,671.26. In such circumstances, it can not be said that defendant has admitted the ledger of the plaintiff. There is also nothing to show that the parties had ever reconciled their ledgers and that the ledgers Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/6 of the plaintiff had been acknowledged to be correct by the defendant. Despite admitting that the plaintiff has handled the consignment of Sadhu Auto Parts Pvt Ltd., no attempt was made to show the relevant entries in the ledger regarding this transaction. The plaintiff also avoided to meet the contention that consignment sent through its shipping line reached the destination late. The plaintiff has clearly not approached the Court with clean hands. Thus, as mandated u/s 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the ledgers relied upon by the plaintiff do not constitute sufficient evidence to prove its claim. It is well settled that a ledger, though an CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 27/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd account book, has no evidenciary value unless the entries made therein are proved by independent evidence such as invoices, delivery challans etc.
67. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus.
68. However, in his evidence, DW1 has admitted that as per its own ledger account, an amount of Rs. 4,03,689.28 is outstanding against it as on 03.12.2020 and is liable to be paid to the plaintiff. The issue to the extent of Rs. 4,03,689/- is, therefore, decided in favour of the plaintiff.
69. Before parting with this issue, it would be apt to note that even though no issue has been framed on the point of limitation in the main suit, the defendant has taken this plea in para 8 of the parawise reply of WS that the present suit was barred by limitation. In the plaint, the plaintiff has submitted that cause of action first arose when the invoices were raised and payments were demanded by the plaintiff. The specific dates of this cause of action have not been given. It is further submitted that cause of action further arose on 22.04.2019 when demand notice dated 22.04.2019 was issued. Present suit has been filed on 27.03.2023. For the purpose of ascertaining the period of limitation, I shall refer to cross examination dated 28.11.2024 of DW1 wherein he admitted that an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid to the plaintiff in the year 2019-2020. DW1 also admitted that he had CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 28/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd also paid an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 27.11.2020 to the plaintiff company. The continuous business transactions between the parties from prior to 01.04.2018 has not been denied by the defendant and is in fact reflected from the ledger account (Ex.DW1/6) filed by the defendant. Since a part payment was made by the defendant to the plaintiff on 27.11.2020 as per Ex.DW1/6 and the present suit has been filed on 27.03.2023, it is within the period of limitation.
ISSUE No.2 "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest. If yes, at what rate and for which period?
OPP"
70. The onus to prove this issued was on plaintiff.
71. The issue no.1 has been decided in favour of the plaintiff to the extent to Rs. 4,03,689/-. Since the transactions involved between the parties are commercial in nature, interest @ 12% p.a w.e.f. 03.12.2020 till the filing of the present suit and pendente lite and future interest at the same rate till realization of the decretal amount of Rs. 04,03,689/- is granted in favour of the plaintiff.
CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 29/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Counter Claim CS (COMM) No. 975/2023 ISSUE No.1 "1. Whether the counter claimant is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs. 15,15,520/- against the defendant, as prayed for? OPCC"
72. The onus to prove this issue was on the counter-claimant.
73. The counter-claimant Mansi Freight has filed the present counter-claim for recovery of Rs. 15,15,520/- against the non- counter claimant no. 1 Console Shipping on the basis of the Debit Note dated 30.07.2018 issued by non-counter claimant no. 2/consignor Sadhu Auto Parts Pvt Ltd. on the counter-claimant who then forwarded it to the non-counter claimant no.1. On the basis of this debit notice, the counter-claimant issued Debit Note dated 03.12.2020 on the non-counter claimant no.1. The value of the Debit Notice is Rs. 10,03,00/- ie. Rs. 8,50,000/- plus 18% GST.
74. In this regard, I would refer to para 10 of the counter-
claim. It discloses that after the consignee at Toronto Seaport raised a claim/ Debit Note in sum of USD 25,000/- on the consignor Sadhu Autoparths for order cancellation on account of delay in transit, it was mutually decided that non-counter CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 30/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd claimant no.2/ consignor Sadhu Auto Parts Pvt Ltd. would bear the burden of Rs. 8,50,000/- and rest would be borne by non- counter claimant no.1. This arrangement was agreed upon to maintain cordial business relations between the parties.
75. In its WS, non-counter claimant no.1 has denied the above averments in toto.
76. In its WS, it has been contended by the non-counter claimant no. 2/ consignor Sadhu Auto Parts Pvt Ltd. that it had to bear the burden of half of the total claim without any fault. It is the case of Sadhu Autoparts that that it had made clear that remaining half of the claim shall be borne by the non-counter claimant no.1. Sadhu Auto Parts Pvt Ltd., thus, issued Debit Note in sum of Rs. 10,03,000/- dated 30.07.2018 on the counter- claimant.
77. The e-mails vide which the Debit Note dated 30.07.2018 issued by Sadhu Auto Parts Pvt Ltd. was forwarded by the counter-claimant to Sh. Prasun Roy, General Manager Exports in the non-counter claimant no.1 company and an assurance was given by Sh. Prasun Roy that the issue would be taken care of as also the e-mails of the non-counter claimant no.1 to its shipping line Penashin regarding delay in arrival of consignment at Toronto Sea Port have already been discussed under issue no.1 in the main suit.
CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 31/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd
78. I will now examine the Debit Note dt 30.07.2018 (Ex.DW1/4) issued by Sadhu Auto Parts Pvt Ltd. against the counter-claimant. This Debit Note was sent as an attachment with e-mail dated 19.11.2918 at 1:23 p.m (Ex.DW1/3) by counter-claimant to non-counter claimant no.1. Vide e-mail dated 19.11.2018 at 1:33 p.m., Sh. Prasun Roy reverted with the information that the said Debit Note had already been taken up with Toronto Office and would be taken care of by that week. No further communication or facts have been placed on record to show what transpired thereafter and what was the exact response of Console Shipping and the office at Toronto. The Debit Note (Ex.DW1/4) itself does not mention any detail as to regarding which transaction has it been raised. There is no mention of any Bill of Lading nor is there any reference to the Debit Note worth USD 25,000/- raised by the consignee at Toronto on Sadhu Autoparts.
79. It is also apt to note at this stage that though the counter-
claimant has referred to a mutual understanding that the loss would be borne in half by Sadhu Auto Parts Pvt Ltd. and half by Console Shipping, the non-counter claimant no. 2/ Sadhu Auto Parts Pvt Ltd. in its WS has fallen short of calling this arrangement a mutual understanding. It has been mentioned in its WS that it had been made clear that half of the claim shall be borne by non-counter claimant no.1 It has not been explained as CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 32/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd to whom was this arrangement made clear. The counter claimant has also not put forth any evidence in support of this mutual understanding.
80. Now I shall examine the Debit Note dated 03.12.2020 (Ex.DW1/5) raised by the counter claimant upon Console Shipping on the basis of Debit Note dated 30.07.2018 raised by Sadhu Auto Parts Pvt Ltd. It has been mentioned in the Debit Note that it pertains to the shipment of Sadhu Auto Parts Pvt Ltd. regarding consignment vide B/L No.: DEL/TOR/CSSI/139075 & 139078. DW1 produced the original of this document, however, it was observed by the Local Commissioner while recording the evidence that seal and signatures of the counter- claimant on this document at Point X1 were different. The original was not similar in the name portion of the counter- claimant at the top (at Point X2). Upon this, Ld. counsel for counter claimant clarified that Ex.DW1/5 was the computer generated copy sent as an attachment to Console Shipping vide e- mail dated 03.12.2020.
81. During the cross-examination dated 28.11.2024, DW1 was asked to confirm if Ex.DW1/5 had any receiving/seal of the plaintiff. Upon this, DW1 deposed as follows:
"Ans. The said Ex.DW1/5 is a computer generated Debit Notice which was shared on attachment in the email. I have today brought the original Debit Note which was duly received and signed by the same person in the CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 33/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Accounts Department of Console Shipping. The same is taken on record and is now Ex.DW1/X."
82. Filing of Ex.DW1/X at the stage of cross-examination was opposed by Ld. counsel for non-counter claimant no.1. Though Ld. counsel has not pressed any of the objections in his written submissions but this objection must be addressed.
83. The document Ex.DW1/X is a new document in as much as it contains original signatures of the counter-claimant who issued this Debit Note and contains a hand written endorsement "Received. Approved subject to fact check and management approval'. This endorsement is dated 04.12.2020 and bears a signature. Leave of the Court u/O 11 rule 1 (10) CPC was not taken by the counter-claimant before placing it on record. This document has neither been proved by the counter-claimant for cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness, nor in answer to any case set up by the plaintiff subsequent to the filing of the plaint, nor was it handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. This document (Ex.DW1/X), therefore, can not be read in evidence.
84. Be that as it may, mere production of the Debit Notice either issued by Sadhu Auto Parts Pvt Ltd. or that issued by counter claimant on the basis of it is not sufficient. Evidence should have been led to show on what basis was the Debit Notice CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 34/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd of the specific amount of Rs. 8,50,000/- plus 18% GST was raised.
85. No evidence has been brought on record that the total value of the Bills of Lading in respect of the three consignments shipped through Penashin Shipping Line of the non-counter claimant no.1 was Rs. 17,00,000/-. No corressponding invoices have been placed on record. There is no document to show that a claim of US$ 25,000/- (then equivalent to Rs. 17,00,000/-) was received from the consignee.
86. In view of the above discussion, the Court is convinced that the evidence in support of the Debit Notice on the basis of which counter claimant has raised its claim is deficient. The counter-claimant has failed to discharge the onus on it. The issue is, therefore, decided against the counter claimant.
ISSUE No. 2.
"Whether the counter claimant is entitled to interest. If yes, at what rate and for which period? OPCC"
87. The onus to prove this issue was on the non-counter claimant.
88. Since issue no.1 has been decided against the counter claimant, issue no. 2 is also decided against it.
CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 35/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd ISSUE NO. 3 "Whether the counter claim is barred by limitation ? OPCD"
89. The onus to prove this issue was on the non-counter claimant no.1.
90. The cause of of action in favour of the counter-claimant first arose on 30.07.2018 when Sadhu Auto Parts Pvt Ltd. raised a Debit Notice in sum of Rs. 10,03,000/- upon the counter claimant. This Debit Notice (Ex.DW1/4) shows that it was received by the counter claimant on 02.08.2018. The three years limitation period for filing the counter claimant expired on 02.08.2021. Even if the e-mails dated 19.11.2018 vide which the Debit Notice dated 30.07.2018 was forwarded and in response Sh. Prasun Roy assured that the issue of Debit Notice would be taken care of within a week is considered, the limitation period would expire on 27.11.2021 by adding seven days assurance period.
91. Keeping in view the Covid-19 Pandemic raging across the country at that time, I shall place reliance upon the Order dated 10.01.2022 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Misc Application No. 21 of 2022 in Misc Application No. 665 of 2021 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 titled as Re:
Cognizance for Extension of Limitation wherein it has been held as follows:
CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 36/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd "5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with 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 purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasijudicial 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 Section 138 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."
92. The present case would fall under Clause III of the above mentioned directions. The present counter claim should have been filed within 90 days from 01.03.2022. The present counter CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 37/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd claim was filed on 21.10.2023. It is, therefore, barred by limitation.
93. Now I shall consider, if raising of Debit Note dated 03.12.2020 would extend the limitation period. Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides as follows:
"Section 18. Effect of acknowledgment in writing.
(1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed.
(2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was signed; but subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), oral evidence of its contents shall not be received.
94. In light of the above provision of law, issuing of Debit Notice dated 03.12.2020 by the counter claimant would not extend the limitation period. There is no acknowledgment of liability on behalf of the non-counter claimant no.1 within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
95. The present counter claim is, thus, barred by limitation.
This issue is decided in favour of non-counter claimant no.1 and against the counter claimant.
CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 38/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd RELIEF
(i) Main suit bearing no. CS (COMM) 291/23
96. In view of above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant Mansi Freight Systems in sum of Rs. 4,03,689 (Rupees Four Lacs Three Thousand Six Hundred Eight Nine Only) with interest @ 12% p.a w.e.f 03.12.2020 till filing of the present plaint and pendente lite and future interest at the same rate till realization of the decretal amount. Parties shall bear their own costs.
(ii)The Counter-claim bearing CS (COMM) 975/23
97. In view of the above discussion, the counter claim is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.
98. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
99. Files be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 th DAY OF JANUARY 2026 (VRINDA KUMARI) Digitally signed by VRINDA VRINDA KUMARI KUMARI Date:
2026.01.28 District Judge(Commercial Courts)-03, 15:53:00 +0530 SED/Saket Courts/Delhi (R) CS (COMM) 291/23 M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Mansi Freight Systems 27.01.2026 Page 39/39 CS (COMM) 975/23 M/S Mansi Freight Systems Vs. M/S Console Shipping India Pvt Ltd