Delhi District Court
Reshma Collection vs Nysaa Retail Venture Pvt Ltd on 8 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)
NORTH EAST: KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CS (Comm.) 25/2025
CNR No.DLNE01-000443-2025
M/s Reshma Collection
Through its proprietor Mohd. Fahim
Having its address at:-
A-23/1, Khasra No.247, Gali no.1,
Shri Ram Colony, Raj Nagar,
North-East, Delhi-110094. ...Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s Nysaa Retail Venture Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director/CEO
Having its Regd. Office at:-
Khasra No.556, Kapashera, Delhi-110037.
2. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh
Director of M/s Nysaa Retail Venture Pvt. Ltd.
At Khasra No.556, Kapashera, Delhi-110037. ....Defendants
Date of Institution : 12.02.2025
Date of Arguments : 19.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 08.09.2025
JUDGMENT
1. It is pertinent to note over here that final arguments of the present suit were heard on 19.08.2025 while undersigned was posted as District Judge (Commercial Court), North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and matter was fixed for pronouncement of judgment for today i.e. 08.09.2025. In compliance of order no.30/D-3/Gaz.IA/ DHC/2025 dated 20.08.2025 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, undersigned has joined as CS (Comm.)25/2025 M/s Reshma Collection vs. M/s Nysaa Retail Venture Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Page 1 of 12 District Judge (Commercial Court)-08, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
2. This is a commercial suit for recovery of Rs.3,28,027/- (Rupees Three Lac Twenty Eight Thousand and Twenty Seven Only), as filed on behalf of plaintiff against the defendants.
3. In brief, facts of the case as made out in the plaint are that plaintiff is a manufacturer and supplier of readymade garments i.e. Blazers, Men Suits, Coat etc. since year 2019 and defendant no.1 is a private limited company, which runs its garment showroom in the name of '1 India Family Mart' and the defendant no.2 is the authorized signatory of defendant no.1, who is responsible for day to day affairs of the defendant no.1.
4. It is case of the plaintiff that defendants approached the plaintiff in the month of October, 2022 and started purchasing various readymade garments i.e. Blazers, Men suits, Waist Coat etc. It is stated that the defendants purchased readymade garments amounting to Rs.10,30,414/- from the plaintiff against tax invoices dated 20.10.2023, 28.11.2023 and 02.02.2024 raised by the plaintiff. It is stated that as per books of account/ledger, there was balance outstanding of Rs.10,30,414/- against the defendant and in order to clear their dues, the defendants issued five cheques i.e. cheque no.011037 dated 26.04.2024 for Rs.2,00,000/-, cheque no.011055 dated 29.04.2024 for Rs.2,28,087/-, cheque no.011272 dated 21.05.2024 for Rs.2,00,000/-, cheque no.011273 dated 22.05.2024 for Rs.2,00,000/- and cheque no.011274 CS (Comm.)25/2025 M/s Reshma Collection vs. M/s Nysaa Retail Venture Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Page 2 of 12 dated 21.05.2024 for Rs.1,95,282/-, in total Rs.10,23,369/-, all drawn HDFC Bank Ltd., Opposite Police Station, Kapashera, New Delhi-110037 in favour of plaintiff.
5. It is further case of the plaintiff that upon instruction of defendants, plaintiff presented three cheques bearing no.011037, 011055 and 011272 with his banker i.e. ICICI Bank, Bhajanpura, Delhi, but the same were dishonoured on 29.04.2024, 01.05.2024 and 22.05.2024 with remarks "Payment stopped by drawer'. The plaintiff persuaded the defendants asking for payment of outstanding amount and after great persuasion, the defendants made part payment of Rs.1,00,000/- through RTGS on different dates i.e. 23.05.2024, 14.06.2024 and 15.06.2024 totaling Rs.3,00,000/- to the plaintiff and thereafter, there remains outstanding payment of Rs.7,23,369/- against the defendants, for which the defendants promised that the company would transfer the remaining payment through RTGS.
6. It is averred that plaintiff again presented cheque no.011037 but same was again dishonoured on 17.07.2024 with remarks "Payment stopped by drawer". It is stated that thereafter plaintiff presented cheque no.011272, 011273 and 011274 with his banker i.e. ICICI Bank, Bhajanpura, Delhi for encashment, but the said cheques were returned with remarks "Cheque is outdated" and "Payment stopped by drawer" vide return memos dated 22.08.2024 respectively.
7. It is averred that plaintiff filed a complaint u/s 138 NI Act against the defendants in respect of cheque no.011273 CS (Comm.)25/2025 M/s Reshma Collection vs. M/s Nysaa Retail Venture Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Page 3 of 12 and 011274, which is pending in the court of Ld. JMFC, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. It is stated that plaintiff got served a legal demand notice dated 11.11.2024 to the defendant demanding remaining outstanding amount to the extent of Rs.3,28,027/- arising out of cheque no.011055 dated 29.04.2024 for Rs.2,28,087/- and cheque no.011272 dated 21.05.2025 for Rs.1,00,000/-, but despite service of legal demand notice, defendant neither made the payment nor replied the legal demand notice.
8. It is further case of the plaintiff that original cheque no.011055 of Rs.2,28,087/- as well as its returning memo dated 01.05.2024 have been lost by the plaintiff somewhere in Patiala House Court and the plaintiff lodged a lost report vide LR No.2531683/2025 dated 27.1.2025.
9. Plaintiff also filed an application for pre-institution litigation under section 12A of Commercial Courts Act before DLSA, North-East and a Non Starter Report was issued on 08.01.2025.
10. The plaintiff prays that a decree for a sum of Rs.3,28,087/- alongwith interest @ 18 % per annum from the date of invoices i.e. 02.02.2024 till realization may be passed in its favour and against the defendants along with costs of the suit. Hence, the present suit.
11. Defendant contested the present suit by filing written statement while taking preliminary objections that there is no cause of action arose in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant; that present suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties as the defendant no.2 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present suit; that no legal demand CS (Comm.)25/2025 M/s Reshma Collection vs. M/s Nysaa Retail Venture Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Page 4 of 12 notice was served upon the defendant; that plaintiff has already received payment in respect of cheque no.011055 of Rs.2,28,087/- in cash; that due to malafide intention, plaintiff started supplying inferior quality of cloths but the defendant requested the plaintiff to take away its supplies, which the plaintiff did not take back; that debit note for a sum of Rs.1 lac was issued by the defendant to the plaintiff for its bad supplies; that this court has no jurisdiction as the cause of action arose at Gurgaon.
12. On merits, the contents of plaint have been denied as wrong. It is submitted that cheques were blank when the same were given to the plaintiff by the defendant. Thus, it is submitted that the plaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
13. Replication to the written statement of defendants was filed on behalf of plaintiff, wherein plaintiff denied the facts as mentioned in written statement while re- affirming the facts as mentioned in the plaint.
14. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed vide order dated 30.05.2025:-
1. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit ? OPD
2. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPD
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree for a sum of Rs.3,28,087/-? OPP
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for any interest, if yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP
5. Relief.CS (Comm.)25/2025 M/s Reshma Collection vs. M/s Nysaa Retail Venture Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Page 5 of 12
15. In support of its case, plaintiff examined Mohd.
Fahim, Proprietor as PW1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
1. Photocopy of invoices no.RC/44/23-24 dated 20.10.2023, RC/88/23-24, RC/89/23-24, RC/90/23-
24, RC/91/23-24, RC/92/23-24, RC/93/23-24, RC/94/23-24, RC/95/23-24, RC/96/23-24 dated 28.11.2023 and RC/122/23-24, RC/123/23-24, RC/124-23-24, RC/125/23-24 dated 02.02.2024 i.e. Ex.PW1/1 (colly).
2. Computerized print out of ledger account maintained by the plaintiff i.e. Ex.PW1/2.
3. Photocopy of cheque no.011055 dated 29.04.2024 of Rs.2,28,087/- drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. RZ-2, Opp. Police Station, Kapashera, New Delhi vide A/c No.59209015372191 i.e. Ex.PW1/3.
4. Original cheque no.011272 dated 21.5.2024 of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. RZ-2, Opp. Police Station, Kapashera, New Delhi vide A/c No.59209015372191 i.e. Ex.PW1/4.
5. Photocopy of return memo dated 01.05.2024 of cheque no.011055 i.e. Mark A.
6. Original return memo dated 22.05.2024 and 22.08.2024 of cheque no.011272 i.e. Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6.
7. Legal Notice dated 11.11.2024 i.e. Ex.PW1/7.
CS (Comm.)25/2025 M/s Reshma Collection vs. M/s Nysaa Retail Venture Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Page 6 of 128. Original postal receipts and delivery reports of the legal notice i.e. Ex.PW1/8 and Ex.PW1/9.
9. Non-Starter Report dated 08.01.2025 Ex.PW1/10.
10. Computer generated police report vide LR No.2531683/2025 dated 27.01.2025 regarding cheque no.011055 and its returning memo dated 01.05.2024 i.e. Ex.PW1/11.
16. Plaintiff also examined Sh. Abhinash, Relationship Manager, ICICI Bank, Bhajanpura, Delhi as PW-2, who proved the photocopies of account opening form as well as statement of account of plaintiff bearing account no.136005001077 w.e.f. 01.05.2024 to 31.08.2024 as Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B. PW-2 also proved the returning memo dated 01.05.2024 of cheque no.011055 dated 29.04.2024 of Rs.2,28,087/- as Ex.PW2/C.
17. Perusal of record shows that an application under Order VIII Rule 1 r/w Section 151 CPC, filed on behalf of defendant for condonation of delay of 64 days in filing written statement was allowed vide order dated 15.05.2025 subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff, but the same has not been paid to the plaintiff. Perusal of record further shows that on 09.07.2025, PW-1 tendered his evidence affidavit and thereafter, proxy counsel for defendants prays for an opportunity to cross examine the PW-1, which was granted to the defendants subject to further cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff, but the same has also not been paid by the defendants. Thereafter, due to non-payment of CS (Comm.)25/2025 M/s Reshma Collection vs. M/s Nysaa Retail Venture Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Page 7 of 12 previous cost of Rs.30,000/- despite opportunities, defence of defendants was struck off vide order dated 01.08.2025.
18. Arguments have been advanced by Mr. Naeem Ahmed, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and by Mr. Ashish Kumar, Ld. Counsel for defendants. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by parties and also gone through the record as well as written submission, as filed on behalf of plaintiff. My issue wise findings are as under:-
Issue no.1:-
Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit ? OPD
19. Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant.
However, no evidence is led on behalf of defendants as its defence was struck off. PW-1 in his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A deposed that the defendant approached him in the month of October 2022 for purchasing ready made garments and part payments were made through RTGS in the bank account of plaintiff i.e. account no.136005001077, ICICI Bank, Bhajanpura Branch, Delhi. Plaintiff has also mentioned his bank account details on the invoices Ex.PW1/1 (colly).
20. It is settled law that where no place of payment is specified in the contract, either expressly or impliedly, the debtor must seek the creditor as 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. Reliance is placed upon the judgment titled as TKW CS (Comm.)25/2025 M/s Reshma Collection vs. M/s Nysaa Retail Venture Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Page 8 of 12 Management Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sherif Cargo & Anr., 2023/DHC/000745.
21. As the invoices Ex.PW1/1 (colly) were issued from the office of the plaintiff situated at Shriram Colony, North-East, Delhi and part payments were made in the bank account of plaintiff situated at Bhajanpura, Delhi, part cause of action also arose within the territorial jurisdiction of North-East District. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue no.2:-
Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPD
22. Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant.
Plaintiff has impleaded defendant no.2 being director of the defendant no.1 company. It is a settled law that directors of the company are agents, trustees or representative of the company and under Section 230 of Indian Contract Act, unless an agent personally binds himself, an agent is not personally liable for the contract entered by him on behalf of his principal. The personal liability of a director would only arise when he makes a false averment regarding the company and induces a third party to advance any loan to the company.
23. Order I Rule 9 CPC provides that no suit shall be defeated by the mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties and the court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interest of the CS (Comm.)25/2025 M/s Reshma Collection vs. M/s Nysaa Retail Venture Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Page 9 of 12 parties actually before it. Therefore, suit of the plaintiff cannot be dismissed for mis-joinder of party. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue no.3:-
Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree for a sum of Rs.3,28,087/-? OPP
24. Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. PW-1 in his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A deposed that the plaintiff supplied various ready made garments to the defendants through invoices Ex.PW1/1 (colly), which were duly acknowledged by the defendant and the defendant to clear their outstanding liability issued cheques, which were dishonoured on representation and after great persuasion the defendant made part payments and still a sum of Rs.3,28,087/- is outstanding against the defendant. The testimony of PW-1 has gone unrebutted and unchallenged and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the same. PW-1 proved the invoices Ex.PW1/1 (colly) through which they delivered the goods to the defendants as well as cheques Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4, issued by the defendant for the outstanding payment of Rs.3,28,087/-.
25. PW-2 Sh. Abhinash, Relationship Manager, ICICI Bank, Bhajanpura Branch, Delhi has also proved the account opening form as well as statement of account of plaintiff as Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B.
26. From the documents proved on record by PW-1, it is clear that the defendants approached the plaintiff and CS (Comm.)25/2025 M/s Reshma Collection vs. M/s Nysaa Retail Venture Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Page 10 of 12 purchased various ready made garments worth Rs.10,30,414/- through invoices Ex.PW1/1 (colly) and issued cheques Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4 for outstanding dues of Rs.3,28,087/-, which were dishonoured.
27. In view of controverted and unrebutted testimony of PW-1, it is held that plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount i.e. Rs.3,28,087/- from the defendants. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue no.4:-
Whether plaintiff is entitled for any interest, if yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP
28. Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
Plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18% per annum. However, there is no agreed rate of interest between the parties. Admittedly, the transaction between the parties is of commercial in nature, therefore, as per Section 34 CPC, plaintiff is entitled for interest at which moneys are lent by the nationalized bank i.e. @ 12 % per annum. Thus, it is held that plaintiff is entitled for interest @ 12% per annum on the suit amount i.e. Rs.3,28,087/- from the defendants. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Relief:-
29. In view of my findings on aforementioned issues, the suit of plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs.3,28,087/- (Rupees Three Lac Twenty Eight Thousand and Eighty Seven Only) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from CS (Comm.)25/2025 M/s Reshma Collection vs. M/s Nysaa Retail Venture Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Page 11 of 12 the date of filing of suit till its realization in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Cost of suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Digitally signed by SANJEEV SANJEEV KUMAR File be consigned to Record Room.
KUMAR MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date:
2025.09.08
16:18:07
+0530
Announced in the open court
on 08th September, 2025 (Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-08 Central District Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS (Comm.)25/2025 M/s Reshma Collection vs. M/s Nysaa Retail Venture Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Page 12 of 12