Delhi District Court
Vdr Colours And Chemicalspvt Ltd ... vs M/S Jay Colour Company Through Its ... on 26 November, 2025
DLCT010076382023
IN THE COURT OF SH. M. K. NAGPAL,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-13,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
CS (COMM.) No. 897/2023
CNR No. DLCT-01007638-2023
M/s VDR Colours and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director Sh. Surender Kumar Jain,
Regd. Office At:
Building No. 2006, Ground Floor,
Kucha Chelan, Khari Baoli,
Delhi-110006.
....Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Jay Colour Company,
Through its Partner Shri Gaurav Bansal,
200/203, Gali Saras Wali,
Tilak Bazar, Delhi-110006.
Also At:
283, Block-C, ICF, Holambi Kalan,
Narela Phase-2, Delhi-110082.
....Defendant
Date of e-filing : 01.06.2023
Date of Institution : 02.06.2023
Judgment Reserved on : 22.11.2025
Date of Decision : 26.11.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is a commercial suit filed by plaintiff company seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,50,132/- from defendant firm, along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 12% pa.
CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 1 of 40
DLCT010076382023
CASE OF PLAINTIFF
2. It is the case of plaintiff that it is a private limited company incorporated under provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and defendant is a partnership firm and on recommendations of one Sh. Kishan Chand Sharma, the defendant had approached it for supply of colours and dyes and defendant had been purchasing colours and dyes from plaintiff for the last around 2-3 years. It has been averred by plaintiff company that it had supplied colours and dyes worth Rs. 9,84,356/- to defendant vide tax invoice no. VDR-395/20-21 dated 02.02.2021 and had also issued an e-way bill no. 791172145641 of even date for supply of the goods/material on above said invoice to defendant. It has been submitted by plaintiff company that as per the terms and conditions printed on above invoice, defendant was to make payment of the amount of said invoice within 15 days from the date of delivery of goods, but defendant failed to adhere to the said terms and conditions and to pay the amount of said invoice to plaintiff.
3. It is also the case of plaintiff company that it had made several requests to defendant firm to pay the above outstanding amount and to clear its liability towards the said invoice dated 02.02.2021 issued for a sum of Rs. 9,84,356/-, but all its efforts and requests fell in vain and the same did not yield any result. It CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 2 of 40 DLCT010076382023 has been averred by plaintiff that the defendant as well as the above mediator even stopped attending the calls of plaintiff and had been avoiding the plaintiff on one or the other pretext and their above conduct shows that defendant has no intention to pay the above said amount.
4. The plaintiff company claims that having no other alternative, it had then issued a legal demand notice dated 03.07.2022 and dispatched it to defendant on 05.07.2022 and though this notice was duly served upon defendant, but defendant firm had failed to pay the above outstanding amount till date and thus, it is now liable to pay the said amount with interest @ 12% pa, which comes to Rs. 2,65,776/- for the period w.e.f. 02.12.2021 to 30.04.2023. It is the submission of plaintiff that because of above reason, it has now claimed a total amount of Rs. 12,50,132/- from defendant firm in this suit, while claiming it to be the legally recoverable amount against the above said invoice.
5. It is also the specific case of plaintiff company that it has a cause of action to file the present suit against defendant and it arose on the date of issuance of above invoice and delivery of goods and it also arose on various other dates, as are found stated in para no. 9 of the plaint. It is also the case of plaintiff company that this court has the pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 3 of 40 DLCT010076382023 to try the present suit and the Pre-Institution Mediation resorted by it had failed and it resulted in issuance of a non-starter report dated 24.12.2022 as defendant did not appear in said proceedings despite receiving the notices.
CASE OF DEFENDANT
6. The defendant firm is found to have taken various general and vague legal objections regarding maintainability of the present suit filed by plaintiff company on grounds that the suit has been filed by plaintiff with malafide intentions; it is bad for lack of material facts and particulars; the plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands; the plaintiff has duped the defendant by issuing above invoice and also failed to deliver the goods of said invoice to defendant; the suit lacks a cause of action; the suit does not comply with mandatory requirements of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and it has not been properly signed, filed, verified and instituted. Besides these objections, the question of territorial jurisdiction of this court is also found to have been raised by defendant firm in its preliminary legal submissions.
7. However, on merits the defendant firm has not disputed that there had been business transactions between it and the plaintiff, though it is the case of defendant firm that it was the plaintiff company which had approached it through some one for CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 4 of 40 DLCT010076382023 sale of its goods and then the defendant firm then started buying goods from plaintiff and it used to make regular payments therefor. The defendant firm has even not denied issuance of above invoice dated 02.02.2021 by plaintiff in its name, but it is its specific case that it had not received any goods under the said invoice from plaintiff company till date and this fact was also communicated by them to plaintiff verbally over the telephonic calls on various occasions, when the defendant had asked for delivery of the said goods. It is also the case of defendant firm that plaintiff did not pay any heed to its requests for delivery of the said goods and has rather filed this false suit against it.
8. It is also the case of defendant that as a regular business practice, the above invoice dated 02.02.2021 issued by plaintiff got to be entered in its books of accounts even though no goods in respect to the said invoice were ever received by it from plaintiff and the said fact stood already communicated by it to plaintiff on various occasions. It is further the submission of defendant firm that it was when summons of the present suit were received by it from this court that it has come to know about the above fact upon checking of their stocks and hence, the present suit filed by plaintiff deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The defendant has also placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1 holding CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 5 of 40 DLCT010076382023 that if the case is based on false hood and a party has withheld vital documents and facts to gain advantage on the other side, then the said party is guilty of fraud and it can be summarily thrown out at any stage of litigation.
REPLICATION
9. The replication filed by plaintiff company contains its reiteration of the claims and averments made in plaint and denial to the contrary submissions made by defendant firm in its written statement.
10. It is necessary to mention here that the defendant had also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC raising most of the above legal issues and seeking rejection of the plaint of this suit and though the objections raised by defendant regarding non-compliance of requirements of the above said Act; non-institution of the suit through a proper person and in a proper form or about defects in plaint etc. were dismissed by the court vide order dated 08.12.2023, but the issues like absence or lack of a cause of action, non-delivery of goods and territorial jurisdiction of the court were kept open to be decided at final stage with observations that the same were mixed questions of law and facts. It is also necessary to mention here that though the defendant had then filed a petition bearing No. CM(M) 2382/2024 against the above order of this court, but CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 6 of 40 DLCT010076382023 it was dismissed as not pressed by the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 22.04.2025, along with one petition No. CM(M) 2298/2024 filed in some other matter, on the basis of submissions made by Ld. Counsel for defendant.
ISSUES
11. On the basis of above pleadings of parties, the following issues are found to have been framed by this court for disposal of the suit vide its order dated 13.12.2023:-
(1) Whether the suit has been filed by the plaintiff with malafide intentions and same is bad for lack of material facts & particulars? OPD.
(2) Whether the plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts? OPD.
(3) Whether the plaintiff has duped the defendant by issuing invoice & failed to deliver the goods to the defendant? OPD.
(4) Whether the plaintiff has failed to disclose the cause of action against the defendant? OPD (5) Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try & entertain the present suit? OPD (6) Whether the present suit has been properly signed, filed, verified and instituted by the plaintiff? OPP (7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree in the sum of Rs.
12,50,132? OPP (8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the pendete-lite and future interest, if so at what rate and for what period? OPP CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 7 of 40 DLCT010076382023 (9) Relief.
EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF
12. In support of its case, the plaintiff company has examined on record total six witnesses. PW1 is Sh. Surender Kumar Jain, Managing Director of the plaintiff company and he had tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He also relied upon the following documents through the said affidavit and in support of his claim:-
1) The certificate of incorporation of plaintiff company as Ex.
PW1/1 (also found exhibited as Ex. PW2/D for the reason that PW2 being an official witness might have been examined first on the same date);
2) Board resolution of plaintiff company as Ex. PW1/2;
3) The tax invoice no. VDR-395/20-21 dated 02.02.2021 as Ex.
PW1/3;
4) The e-way bill No. 791172145641 dated 02.02.2021 as Ex.
PW1/4;
5) GST form of plaintiff as Ex. PW1/5;
6) Legal notice dated 03.07.2022 as Ex. PW1/6(OSR).
7) Postal receipts dated 06.07.2022 of the above legal notice as
Ex. PW1/7 & Ex.PW1/8(OSR);
8) Non-starter report dated 24.12.2022 as Ex. PW1/9.
13. PW2 Sh. Brij Belwar, examined as a witness by plaintiff is an official from the office of Registrar of Companies, NCT of CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 8 of 40 DLCT010076382023 Delhi & Haryana and he has brought in evidence an authority letter in his favour as Ex.PW2/A, the master data, signatory details and certificate of incorporation of plaintiff company as Ex.PW2/B to Ex.PW2/D respectively and also a certificate U/S 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 issued by him about authenticity of the computerized printouts of Ex.PW2/B to Ex.PW2/D as Ex.PW2/E.
14. It is necessary to mention here that PW2 was examined in this court on 10.01.2024 and on the same day, PW1 was also examined-in-chief, though his cross is found to have been deferred for the next date. Since the evidence affidavit of PW1 was already on record, it appears that before commencing his examination, PW2 being an official witness was examined first and this is how two different copies of the same certificate of incorporation of plaintiff came to be exhibited with different exhibit numbers.
15. PW3 Sh. Umesh Kumar, examined as a witness by plaintiff is the Public Relation Inspector (Post), Malka Ganj Post Office and he stated that the summoned record stood already weeded out as per the Post Office Rules. He has also brought on record one letter from the Senior Superintendent of North Division, Delhi as Ex.PW3/A (colly) to this effect. He is found to have CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 9 of 40 DLCT010076382023 been summoned for proving the dispatch of above legal demand notice given by plaintiff to defendant through speed post.
16. PW4 Sh. Devang Singh is the Inspector, Rang-8, CGST, Delhi and he has brought the GST registration details, partners/directors details, signatory details, GSTR-1 for the month of February, 2021 containing invoice No. VDR-395/20-21 dated 02.02.2021 and GSTR-3B for the month of February, 2021 pertaining to the plaintiff company and also a copy of the above e-way bill No. 791172145641 dated 02.02.2021 issued by plaintiff as Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/6 respectively. All the above documents were duly attested by him.
17. PW5 Sh. Deepak Kumar Mor is the Inspector Anti Evasion Branch, CGST, Delhi and he has brought the record pertaining to one inquiry No. IV(HQRS.PREV.) GST- N/12/VDR/1696/2020-21 conducted by their department regarding availing and passing on of fake input tax credit by Sh. Surender Kumar Jain, the managing director of plaintiff company, in respect to three firms namely M/s VDR Colours and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the plaintiff herein, M/s Surender Kumar Jain and M/s AV Metals Marketing Pvt. Ltd.. A copy of the above inquiry report was exhibited by him on record as Ex.PW5/A. CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 10 of 40 DLCT010076382023
18. PW6 Sh. Shashank Shekhar Singh is an Inspector from the office of GST Rang-8, Ward No. 27 and he has brought the record in form of GSTR-2A for the financial years 2019-20 & 2020-21 and also GSTR-1 for the same financial years in respect to defendant firm as Ex.PW6/1 and Ex.PW6/2 respectively (objected to on ground of mode of proof) and one authorization in his favour as Ex.PW6/3 during his part examination recorded on 15.07.2025 and his remaining examination-in-chief was deferred on that day for want of some other record.
19. He was examined again in this court on 19.08.2025 and during his this examination also, the attested record in form of GSTR-2A of defendant for the financial years 2019-20, 2020-21 and GSTR-1 for these two financial years has again been brought in evidence and exhibited as Ex.PW6/4 to Ex.PW6/7 respectively and besides the above documents, the GSTR-3B of defendant firm for the financial years 2019-20 and 2020-21 and a certificate U/S 63(4) (C) of the BSA, 2023 issued about their authenticity were also produced by him and exhibited as Ex.PW6/8, Ex.PW6/9 and Ex.PW6/10 respectively.
EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT
20. The defendant firm in order to prove its defence and to challenge the claim of petitioner in this suit has examined on record only one witness and Sh. Inder Kumar Gupta, the CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 11 of 40 DLCT010076382023 accountant of defendant firm, is found to have been examined on record as DW1. However, no document has been brought in evidence or got exhibited by defendant through his testimony, though during his cross-examination, a copy of the printout of ledger account statement of defendant firm in respect to its business transactions with plaintiff has been produced and exhibited as DW1/PX.
21. It is also necessary to mention here that though the evidence affidavits of other two witnesses namely Sh. Kumar Gaurav Bansal and Sh. Rahul Bansal were also filed by defendant firm on record, with an intent to examine them as witnesses in its defence, but for the reasons best known to defendant, these persons were not actually examined as witnesses and on basis of submissions made by Ld. Counsel representing the defendant firm, the evidence of defendant was closed by this court vide order dated 17.09.2025.
22. I have heard the arguments addressed by Sh. S. B. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Sh. Harshit Jain, Ld. Counsel for defendant, assisted by Sh. Arjun Drall, Advocate. I have also gone through the case record, including the written submissions filed on behalf of parties.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND ISSUE-WISE
FINDINGS
CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 12 of 40
DLCT010076382023
ISSUE NO. (1)
23. As already discussed, this issue was framed on the basis of a preliminary objection taken by defendant firm in its written statement and it is found submitted therein that this suit is bad for material facts and particulars and has been filed by plaintiff with a malafide intention as the plaintiff has failed to substantiate as to how a sum of Rs. 12,50,132/- was due from and payable by defendant and though the above invoice was issued by plaintiff, but no goods under the said invoice were supplied by plaintiff to defendant.
24. As also discussed above, the plaintiff company in its plaint has specifically stated that the goods supplied by it through the above invoice were of worth Rs. 9,84,356/- and the said amount was not paid by defendant within the prescribed period of 15 days as per the terms of invoice and hence, the defendant became liable to pay interest on above said amount @ 12% per annum. It is also found specifically stated therein by plaintiff that the amount of interest at above rate on the bill amount for the period w.e.f. 02.02.2021 upto 30.04.2023 comes to Rs. 2,65,776/- and thus, the total amount due and payable by defendant against the above goods and including the above principal amount of invoice and interest thereon comes to Rs. 12,50,132/-, which the plaintiff company is claiming in present suit. Hence, no material fact or CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 13 of 40 DLCT010076382023 particular is found to have been concealed by plaintiff company in plaint of this suit. During the course of final arguments, even Ld. Counsel for defendant has agreed to this preposition and it also appears to this court that this objection was taken by defendant firm in its written statement just in routine and in a vague and general manner and also without stating specifically as to what were the material facts, which the plaintiff had concealed in this suit from the court. Even otherwise, the onus to prove this issue was placed upon defendant firm and no evidence to discharge this onus is found to have been led by defendant. Thus, this part of the issue is being decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
25. However, the other or first part of this issue pertains to genuineness of above invoice and the question whether it was actually genuine or not and further as to whether or not any goods were supplied under the said invoice by plaintiff to defendant firm shall be decided by this court while considering the entitlement of plaintiff for the claimed amount of this suit and interest thereon and while deciding the issue Nos. (7) and (8) framed to this aspect, as well as issue No. (3) stated above, and thus, this part of the issue is kept pending to be decided while deciding the issue Nos. (3), (7) & (8).
CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 14 of 40 DLCT010076382023
This issue, thus, stands partly decided against defendant and in favour of plaintiff, as the first` part thereof has been kept pending to be discussed and decided lateron with other issues.
ISSUE NO. (2)
26. This issue was also framed on a specific preliminary objection taken by defendant firm in its written statement that plaintiff did not approach this court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts.
27. As already observed while deciding issue No. (1), no specific fact considered to be material and as concealed by plaintiff is found mentioned in the written statement of defendant and it could not even be pointed out by Ld. Counsel for defendant during the course of arguments. The written statement of defendant also fails to show as to how and in what manner the plaintiff can be said or considered to have approached this court with unclean hands, when he has based his claim for recovery of the above amount of Rs. 12,50,132/- on an unpaid invoice and hence, this preliminary objection also appears to have taken by defendant for name sake and in a routine and vague manner and an issue to this effect was framed by this court, though it could have been easily avoided. Thus, this issue is being decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 15 of 40
DLCT010076382023
ISSUE NO. (6)
28. This issue, likewise issue Nos. (1) and (2), was also framed on the basis of preliminary objections of defendant firm as contained in its written statement, but the onus of proof of this issue is found placed upon plaintiff as it is always for a plaintiff to prove that the suit has been signed, filed or verified etc. as per law and in a proper manner.
29. As already discussed, the plaintiff claimed itself to be a Private Limited Company registered or incorporated under provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and it has filed the present suit through Sh. Surender Kumar Jain, who has claimed himself to be its managing director and has also been examined on record by plaintiff company as PW1 to substantiate its claim for recovery of the above said amount. PW1 during his statement has, inter-alia, brought in evidence a copy of the certificate of incorporation of plaintiff company as Ex.PW1/1 and also a copy of the board resolution of plaintiff company authorizing him, inter-alia, to file or institute the present suit, to sign the documents required in connection therewith and even to appear as a witness before the court. Another copy of the certificate of incorporation of plaintiff company has also been brought in evidence by plaintiff through the testimony of PW2 as Ex.PW2/D and even a copy of the master data of plaintiff company was tendered by this witness in evidence as Ex.PW2/B, along with CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 16 of 40 DLCT010076382023 the signatory/directors details of plaintiff as Ex.PW2/C. It is observed that the name of PW1 appears in the list of directors of plaintiff company brought in evidence as Ex.PW2/C. The documents brought in evidence by PW2 are the attested copies of computer printouts and the authenticity of these documents stands also substantiated from the certificate Ex.PW2/A given by the witness.
30. Hence, in terms of the specific depositions made by PW1 on above aspects and the documentary evidence led through these two witnesses in the form of documents Ex.PW1/1 (also Ex.PW2/D), Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW2/C, it is being held that PW1 was duly authorized on behalf of plaintiff company to file and institute the present suit, to sign pleadings and other documents and also to depose in court as a witness. Moreover, this issue appears to have been framed by the court inadvertently because the objection taken by defendant firm to this effect in its application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC stood already rejected by the court, as already discussed. Therefore, this issue is also decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. (5)
31. The onus of proving this issue is found to have been placed upon defendant as this issue was also framed on the basis of a preliminary submission made by defendant firm in its written CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 17 of 40 DLCT010076382023 statement. It is found submitted by defendant in para 23 of its preliminary submissions contained in written statement that in terms of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), a suit can be filed by plaintiff at a place within the local limits of which the defendant voluntarily resides or carries on his business or is gainfully employed or the cause of action arose there, wholly or in part. It has also been submitted by defendant in his written statement that as per the above invoice and e-way bill filed on record by plaintiff, the place of delivery of goods was at Narela and hence, no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court at Delhi because the contract between parties stood completed at Narela.
32. On appreciation of evidence led on record by parties, it has been observed that the invoice Ex.PW1/3, which is in dispute in this case, has been issued by plaintiff with the Holambi Kalan, Narela, Delhi address of defendant firm and the goods of said invoice are also shown to have been transported or shipped by plaintiff to the said address of defendant at Narela. Even as per the e-way bill Ex.PW1/4, the place of delivery of goods by plaintiff to defendant was at Narela, Delhi, which admittedly does not fall within the jurisdiction of this court.
33. Further, though the address of plaintiff as given in the above invoice is of Khari Baoli, Delhi, but during his cross-
CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 18 of 40 DLCT010076382023
examination, PW1 is found to have specifically stated that the goods of above invoice, which were sold by them to defendant, were not supplied from their above office and the same were actually dispatched or supplied to defendant directly from the office of one Sankalp Traders in Kamruddin Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi as the said goods were purchased by them from Sankalp Traders on the basis of FOR (door to door service). Hence, the above Khari Baoli address of plaintiff mentioned in invoice and e-way bill cannot be taken as the place of dispatch or supply of the goods. Even otherwise, in terms of provisions of Section 20 CPC, it is the place of delivery of goods where a contract for sale and purchase of goods is completed and not the place of dispatch of goods. Thus, the given address of office of plaintiff company or its work place in Khari Baoli is immaterial for deciding the question of territorial jurisdiction in present case, unless it could have been shown from some reliable evidence that a part of cause of action also arose at that place.
34. However, on the pointing out of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, it has been observed by this court that besides the above address of Holambi Kalan, Narela, Delhi, one other address of defendant at Gali Saras Wali, Tilak Bazar, Delhi is also found stated in the title of this suit as well as memo of parties of suit and there is found to be no denial from the side of defendant that their above address of Tilak Bazar, Delhi is not their correct address or that CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 19 of 40 DLCT010076382023 the defendant firm was not carrying on any business activities from this address. It has also been observed by this court that in the evidence affidavit of Sh. Kumar Gaurav Bansal, the authorized partner of defendant firm, filed in support of the written statement of defendant, the same address of Tilak Bazar, Delhi of defendant firm is found stated and this address of defendant firm is even found stated in the copy of ledger account statement of defendant firm, which was brought in evidence during the course of cross-examination of DW1 as Ex.DW1/PX. The said copy of ledger account statement was produced during evidence by DW1 himself during his cross-examination, when he was questioned by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff about the maintenance of the ledger accounts of defendant firm in respect to its business transactions with plaintiff company. Though this document was not formally tendered in evidence of defendant during the chief examination of DW1, but it being a document produced and filed on record by or on behalf of defendant firm itself and duly brought in evidence during cross-examination of DW1, it can certainly be read as a part of the evidence.
35. Hence, in view of the above, this court holds that the defendant firm was also carrying on its business at the relevant time from its given address of Gali Saras Wali, Tilak Bazar, Delhi, which admittedly falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, and since the oral agreement between parties regarding CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 20 of 40 DLCT010076382023 the purchase and sale of above goods had matured at the said address, even going by the admitted case of defendant about the personal visit of plaintiff at said address, this court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and decide this suit even if the oral claim of plaintiff regarding the visit of defendant at his office is disbelieved.
ISSUE NOs (3), (4), (7) & (8)
36. Since the issue Nos. (3), (4), (7) & (8) are all interconnected and the same evidence is to be appreciated for deciding these issues, for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts these issues are being taken up for disposal together. Further, the first part of issue No. (1) kept pending for findings is also being taken up for disposal with these issues as the defendant firm has submitted in its written statement that the present suit has been filed by plaintiff with a malafide intention as no goods against the said invoice for Rs. 9,84,356/- were delivered to it and the plaintiff has failed to substantiate as to how a sum of Rs. 12,50,132/- was due from and payable by defendant against the said invoice. It was also submitted by defendant firm in its written statement that though the above invoice was issued by plaintiff, but no goods under the said invoice were supplied by plaintiff to defendant.
CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 21 of 40 DLCT010076382023
37. As already discussed, the managing director of plaintiff company Sh. Surender Kumar Jain has stepped into the witness box as PW1 and his examination-in-chief has been tendered on record through his affidavit Ex.PW1/A. It is observed that in his above affidavit, PW1 has almost deposed on lines of the plaint of this case and has supported their case as set out in the plaint. He has specifically deposed in said affidavit regarding sale of the above goods to defendant through the invoice dated 02.02.2021 worth Rs. 9,84,356/- and non-payment of the amount of above invoice by defendant firm within the agreed period of 15 days from the date of delivery of goods and further despite their repeated requests and service of the legal notice dated 03.07.2022, which is stated to have been dispatched to defendant through speed post at different addresses on 06.07.2022. He has also brought in evidence a copy of the above tax invoice as Ex.PW1/3, e-way bill issued in respect thereto as Ex.PW1/4 and the GST Form of plaintiff company as Ex.PW1/5 to corroborate and substantiate his claim about sale and delivery of the goods of above invoice to defendant. However, no copy of the ledger account statement of plaintiff company is found to be a part of the evidence led on record.
38. As already discussed, though the address of plaintiff given in present case is of Khari Baoli, Delhi, but it has come on record during cross-examination of PW1 that the goods to defendant CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 22 of 40 DLCT010076382023 were not shipped or supplied from this address and the same were dispatched actually to the given address of defendant firm at Holambi Kalan, Narela, Delhi by one Sankalp Traders having its office at Kamruddin Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi. It is so as according to PW1 the said goods were purchased by plaintiff from this firm or entity. During his cross-examination, PW1 was also specifically questioned by Ld. Counsel for defendant regarding the mode of transportation of said goods to the godown of defendant at Holambi Kalan, Delhi and on being asked as to whether the transporter had given or provided any bilty or other document to defendant firm in respect to receiving of the said goods from them, PW1 claimed that in local transactions through road transport, no bilty or other document was prepared and hence, it was not issued or provided to them. This claim or depositions of PW1 are not acceptable and hence, cannot be taken as true because a bilty or goods receipt was mandatorily required to be prepared by the transporter concerned at the time of acceptance of goods from plaintiff for their transportation or delivery to the defendant.
39. PW1 was then asked by Ld. Counsel for defendant as to whether the receiver of goods i.e. the defendant herein had provided them any receipt of goods through transporter and the reply of PW1 to this question was that it was not provided, though he also stated that Mr. Gaurav Bansal, partner of CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 23 of 40 DLCT010076382023 defendant no. 1 had telephonically acknowledged the receipt of goods. On being asked as to whether they had insisted for any such receipt from Mr. Gaurav Bansal, the reply of PW1 was that it was not insisted upon by them as they were transacting with defendant on good faith. PW1 was even asked about the name of transport concerned or the name of driver who had taken the said goods for delivery to defendant, but he was not able to tell the same while saying that the goods were not transported to defendant by plaintiff and the same were transported by Sankalp Traders. On being further asked about the actual existence of vehicle bearing no. HR67 6842, as mentioned in the e-way bill and claimed to have been used for transportation of the goods, the reply of PW1 was that the said number was written in the e- way bill generated by them as per details and information furnished by Sankalp Traders and he denied a suggestion given by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that no such vehicle actually existed.
40. Thus, on the basis of oral testimony of PW1 on record, as contained in his evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A and also his specific depositions made on above aspects during his cross- examination, it can be said that the plaintiff company has failed to prove the delivery of goods of above invoice to defendant as no further corroborative evidence in the form of any bilty or delivery receipt or acknowledgement etc. issued by the transporter or as given by defendant firm has been brought on CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 24 of 40 DLCT010076382023 record or in evidence of the plaintiff to substantiate their said claim. The oral testimony of PW1 to this effect is found to have also been duly countered or challenged in the evidence affidavit of DW1 tendered on the lines of written statement of defendant.
41. However, it is the vehement contention of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the claim of plaintiff company and the depositions made by PW1 about delivery of the goods of above invoice to defendant firm stands duly substantiated or proved by the documentary evidence led on record through the testimonies of PW4 and PW6, who are the officials from GST department and have brought in evidence certain documents regarding the GST status or registration details etc. of parties and also their GST returns in respect to the disputed transactions of above said invoice Ex.PW1/3.
42. As already discussed, PW4 Sh. Devang Singh has brought in evidence the GST registration details of plaintiff company, the details of its directors/partners, its signatory details, the GSTR-1 form for the month of February, 2021 containing invoice No. VDR-395/20-21 dated 02.02.2021, the GSTR-3B for the month of February, 2021 and the e-way bill No. 791172145641 dated 02.02.2021 pertaining to plaintiff company as Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/6 respectively. Similarly, PW6 Sh. Shashank Shekhar Singh has also brought in evidence GSTR-2A of the defendant CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 25 of 40 DLCT010076382023 firm for financial years 2019-20 & 2020-21 as Ex.PW6/4, Ex.PW6/5, GSTR-1 of the said firm for these two financial years as Ex. PW6/6 and Ex.PW6/7 and GSTR-3B of defendant for the financial years 2019-20 and 2020-21 as Ex.PW6/8, Ex.PW6/9 respectively and a copy of the certificate U/S 63(4) (C) of the BSA, 2023 issued regarding authenticity of above documents as Ex.PW6/10. The authenticity of these computerized printouts have not been challenged from the side of defendant during the course of arguments. It is necessary to mention here that copies of the GSTR-2A and GSTR-1 of defendant for above years were also initially exhibited on record by this witness as Ex.PW6/1 and Ex.PW6/2 during his part chief examination recorded on 15.07.2025, though the exhibition thereof was earlier objected by Ld. Counsel for defendant.
43. A perusal of the GSTR-1 of plaintiff firm Ex.PW4/4 and a copy of above e-way bill Ex.PW4/6 issued in respect to the above invoice, prima facie, substantiates the issuance or generation of said invoice exhibited by PW1 on record as Ex.PW1/3 and the e-way bill Ex.PW1/4 related thereto by the plaintiff in name of defendant firm and it also shows the amount of GST paid by plaintiff in respect to the sale of goods reflected therein. Further, even the GSTR-2A of defendant firm found exhibited on record as Ex.PW6/5 (also Ex.PW6/1) is found to contain an entry regarding the above invoice or the transactions CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 26 of 40 DLCT010076382023 of sale of goods mentioned therein as made by plaintiff to defendant and it even shows the claiming of input tax credit by defendant in respect to the said transaction. Again, PW6 was also specifically questioned on this aspect by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and he stated on record that as per the said documents, the above firm or entity of defendant had claimed the input tax credit in respect to its all transactions with the 3 firms/entities of Sh. Surender Kumar Jain.
44. However, the question which has been raised before this court is as to whether the above entries appearing in PW4/4 and Ex.PW6/5 showing deduction and payment of GST by plaintiff in respect to the above invoice and claiming input tax credit by defendant can be taken as the proof or conclusive proof of delivery of said goods to defendant or not.
45. As stated above, the plaintiff company itself has also summoned and examined on record one other witness from the office of GST and he is Sh. Deepak Kumar Mor, an Inspector of the Anti Evasion Branch, CGST, Delhi. He has brought in evidence a copy of the report of one inquiry conducted by their department regarding the availing or passing of fake input tax credit by the above Sh. Surender Kumar Jain in respect to his 3 entities/firms, as named by the witness and including the plaintiff company. An attested copy of the said report has also been placed CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 27 of 40 DLCT010076382023 on record by him as Ex.PW5/A and he has stated in his examination-in-chief itself that he was aware about the facts leading to above inquiry on the basis of records and as per the inquiry report, notices were issued to 36 persons/entities in the said inquiry. He has further volunteered that business premises of all 3 entities belonging to Sh. Surender Kumar Jain, as well as of the major beneficiaries of fake input tax credit, were inspected/raided by officials of their department. He also stated on record that the above inquiry process was initiated only after the arrest of Sh. Surender Kumar Jain and the addresses of his 3 entities were not fake and the same were found to be in existence during such raids. He further stated specifically that Sh. Surender Kumar Jain had claimed the input tax credit in respect to all transactions of his above 3 business firms/entities.
46. During his cross-examination, this witness is also found to have admitted it to be correct that as per the outcome of above inquiry, the input tax credit obtained by defendant herein in respect to all transactions with the above 3 firms or entities belonging to Sh. Surender Kumar Jain was found to have been wrongly obtained and it was a fake input tax credit obtained by the defendant as no business transactions between the parties actually took place. As already discussed, this is also the stand taken by defendant firm in its written statement that the above invoice was though issued by plaintiff company in its name, but CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 28 of 40 DLCT010076382023 no goods under the said invoice had actually passed or were delivered to them and the said invoice was a fake invoice issued fraudulently by plaintiff.
47. On a bare perusal of the above inquiry report Ex.PW5/A brought in evidence by plaintiff company itself, which is a detailed report given by the Assistant Commissioner, (Adjudication), CGST, Delhi, it is clear that the role of above 3 entities related to Sh. Surender Kumar Jain, including the plaintiff company, was inquired by the GST department in said inquiry and it was found that the 3 entities belonging to him including the plaintiff company, had obtained a fake input tax credit of Rs. 13,81,86,960/- in respect to transactions with various entities named therein and during the relevant period, they had also passed the input tax credit totaling to Rs. 18,17,98,876/- to 100 beneficiary firms and the invoices issued in respect to all the above transactions and related to payment or deduction of GST amounts thereof were not the genuine invoices and the same were fake invoices as no goods were actually sold or received through these invoices.
48. It is also found stated and stated in the said inquiry report that Sh. Surender Kumar Jain was arrested on 13.09.2021 for commission of offence punishable under Section 132 (1) (c) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the roles of 33 other entities and the CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 29 of 40 DLCT010076382023 above 3 entities belonging to Sh. Surender Kumar Jain in transactions, where the said entities of Sh. Surender Kumar Jain were shown as buyers or recipients of goods were specifically inquired and these 33 entities also included the defendant firm namely M/s Jay Colour Company. It is further found stated specifically in the said report that the defendant firm had claimed fake input tax credit for an amount of Rs. 26,13,772/- in respect to the supplies shown to have been made from the above 3 entities of Sh. Surender Kumar Jain. It is also found on perusal of this report that even the amount of above fake input tax credit availed by all these entities, including the 3 entities belonging to Sh. Surender Kumar Jain, was held recoverable from them as per provisions of the CGST/DGST Act and the Rule framed therein, along with interest and applicable penalties, and a penalty equivalent to the above said amount of Rs. 26,13,772/- was imposed upon defendant for taking the above fake input tax credit. It was also concluded specifically through this inquiry that all the above 36 recipient firms had wrongly availed and utilized the fraudulent amount of input tax credit, as mentioned against their respective names in the table given in para 5 of the said report, as it was found to have been obtained without actual receipt of goods by them and hence, these amounts of fake input tax credit were directed to be reversed. It is not the case of plaintiff company that invoice Ex.PW1/3 of this case and as CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 30 of 40 DLCT010076382023 issued by it in name of defendant firm was not the subject matter of above inquiry.
49. Thus, in view of the oral testimony of PW5 and the contents of above inquiry report, this court has no hesitation in concluding that going by the principle of preponderance of probabilities, the court cannot accept and allow the claim of plaintiff for recovery of the amount of above invoice Ex.PW1/3 from defendant. It is so because the above inquiry report Ex.PW5/A goes against the case of plaintiff and substantiate the defence or plea taken by defendant that no goods were actually sold by plaintiff company to defendant or had passed to defendant from plaintiff through or under the above said invoice. This report also suggests that the said invoice was issued by plaintiff company only in collusion with defendant and it was a fake invoice issued with in an intent to enable the defendant to claim fake input tax credit for the tax amount mentioned in said invoice. Further, it can also be inferred and held on the basis of above inquiry report that even if the defendant had passed on the said input tax credit to someone else and the above transactions are being reflected in the GST returns of parties filed for the relevant period, but the said report Ex.PW5/A renders the entries pertaining to these transactions as appearing in their GST returns to be fake entries, which cannot be accepted by this court for allowing the claim of plaintiff based on these fake documents in CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 31 of 40 DLCT010076382023 the form of invoice, e-way bill and GST returns etc. as the said invoice and e-way bill had already been held to be forged and fabricated by the department of GST and not only the amount of input tax credit obtained by defendant herein in respect to the above invoice has been directed to be reversed, but even a penalty equivalent to the amount of tax was imposed upon defendant.
50. Though it is the contention of Ld. Counsel for defendant that PW1 has admitted during his statement that no further notices to the other entities were issued by the inquiry officer, after issuance of some initial notices, and also that the given addresses of above entities belonging to Sh. Surender Kumar Jain were found to be in existence, but these depositions of witness are of no help to the case of plaintiff in view of the clear and detailed conclusions drawn by the inquiry authority on the basis of all relevant documents pertaining to the said transactions. The depositions made by DW1 are also found to be no help to the case of plaintiff company and the same are even not felt helpful in disposal of these issues as he was working as a part time accountant only of defendant firm and was not even aware about the disputed transaction and has deposed in this case only on the basis of record. Being only an accountant and not involved in the above disputed transactions between parties, he cannot be said to having any personal knowledge about the said transactions or a CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 32 of 40 DLCT010076382023 competent witness to depose on behalf of defendant. Again, the plaintiff company has also failed to bring on record any document to substantiate its claim regarding purchase of goods of the disputed invoice by it from the above Sankalp Traders and in the absence of that the case of plaintiff company or the oral depositions made by PW1 regarding the purchase of goods of above invoices by plaintiff from this entity on FoR basis and its direct dispatch or supply by the said entity to defendant firm have also remained unsubstantiated and unproved.
51. The next contention of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff company is that in view of provisions contained in Rule 138 (12) of the CGST Rules, 2017, there is a presumption that the goods mentioned in an e-way bill generated under the said Rule stood delivered by supplier to the recipient of said goods as mentioned in e-way bills, in case the receiver fails to convey his acceptance or rejection of the said goods within 72 hours of generation of said e-way bills. However, this contention of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff company is also not acceptable in view of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in case Mohinder Kumar Gandhi vs Praveen Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6374 being relied upon by Ld. Counsel for defendant. In this case, the question raised before the Hon'ble High Court in an appeal filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Court Act, 2015 was as to whether in such a case, where the goods have been sold by plaintiff to defendant CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 33 of 40 DLCT010076382023 through bills, invoices and even e-way bills issued in respect thereto and he has failed to produce in court any proof of actual delivery of said goods or even any other corroborative evidence to show the delivery, the court can presume the delivery of goods by plaintiff to defendant on the basis of presumption contained in Rule 138(12) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and can hold that the goods stood delivered to defendant and the plaintiff can be held entitled to recover the amounts thereof. While upholding the decision of trial Court dismissing the claim of plaintiff for recovery of amount of such bills, their lordships have made the following observations:
Analysis
22. Upon careful examination of the evidence and pleadings on record, the following can be inferred.
22.1. Firstly, at the outset, it is observed that appellant/plaintiff failed to establish the fundamental requirement of proof of delivery of goods to respondent/defendant..........
22.2. Secondly,....No material evidence has been furnished by appellant/plaintiff to show that delivery of the goods was made.
22.3. Thirdly,....The Trial Court, in paragraph 32 of the impugned judgment, rightly held that appellant/plaintiff failed to provide any evidence of a business transaction or material supply to respondent/defendant.
22.4. Fourthly, the Trial Court also correctly applied Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which provides that entries in books of accounts, though relevant, are not sufficient by themselves to fasten liability. Appellant/plaintiff did not produce any supporting roznama, vouchers, Income Tax returns, daily cash books, balance sheets, or account registers to vindicate the transactions in issue. In the absence of such documents, an adverse inference must be drawn in accordance with the CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 34 of 40 DLCT010076382023 principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v V.C. Shukla & Ors. (1998) 3 SCC 410, and Gopal Krishna Ketkar v Mohamed Haji Latif AIR 1968 SC 1413, as noted by the Trial Court.
22.5. Fifthly, Rule 138(12) of the CGST Rules, 2017 creates a statutory presumption of deemed acceptance if no rejection is communicated by the recipient within seventy-two hours.
However,such a statutory presumption is intended solely for the purpose of tax administration and compliance and does not discharge the civil burden of proof in a claim of delivery or performance of a contract.
22.6. Sixthly, reliance placed by appellant/plaintiff upon Sanjana Aggarwal v Namashivai Apparel Pvt. Ltd. 2024:DHC:9987, to infer that the Trial Court failed to draw adverse inference laid down in Rule 138(12) of the CGST Rules, 2017 is wholly misplaced, as none of additional supporting documents were substantiated in the present case, which deem to have been relied upon by the Division Bench to reach to the adverse inference....
22.7. Seventhly, appellant/plaintiff did not possess any documentary evidence or communication showing any demand for payment from respondent/defendant during the period between alleged delivery of goods and issuance of the legal notice.
22.8. Eighthly, no original delivery challans bearing the signature or acknowledgement of respondent/defendant were produced. Appellant/plaintiff's claim that goods were delivered remained wholly unsubstantiated, and no receipts or dispatch records were annexed to the pleadings or evidence. Delivery challans, which are material documents evidencing delivery, were also conspicuously absent from the record........
22.14. Ninthly, appellant/plaintiff did not produce the original purchase orders nor any communication, contemporaneous or otherwise, showing that respondent/defendant had placed orders for the goods. The contention that orders were given telephonically remained wholly unsupported by any call logs or records.
CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 35 of 40
DLCT010076382023
22.15. Lastly,.........
23. A close perusal of the evidence on record reveals that appellant/plaintiff utterly failed to adduce any evidence establishing the existence of a business transaction between the parties or supply of alleged goods to respondent/defendant, as rightly noted by the Trial Court.
24. In the absence of any cogent and independent evidence proving delivery of goods, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. The Trial Court has recorded a well-reasoned and unimpeachable finding that appellant/plaintiff has failed to discharge the primary onus of proof.
25. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
52. Thus, in view of the above and in absence of there being any document or acceptable evidence on record to show delivery of goods of the above invoice Ex.PW1/3 to defendant, the plaintiff cannot be held entitled to recover the amount of said invoice and that too, when vide the above inquiry report Ex.PW5/A conducted by office of the Principal Commissioner of Central GST, Delhi North, it has also been held that no goods had actually passed through the above disputed transaction between parties and, in fact, fake input tax credit in respect thereto was obtained by defendant herein for the said transactions in collusion with the plaintiff. Though the above inquiry report is stated to be under challenge before the Hon'ble High Court in WP (C) No. 14291/2025, but admittedly there is no stay against operation thereof and it stands as on date.
CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 36 of 40 DLCT010076382023
53. One other aspect which cannot be ignored in appreciating the evidence of parties in this case is the applicability of Doctrine of Ex Dolo Malo Non Oritur Action Or Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio being argued on behalf of defendant, which means that the right of action cannot arise out of fraud or out of transgression of law and the court cannot come to the aid of parties who are acting in fraud when the transaction in question is itself illegal and unlawful.
54. As already discussed, the inquiry report Ex.PW5/A holds that no goods in respect to the disputed transactions between plaintiff and defendant, and also various other entities, had passed and it means that the above invoice Ex.PW1/3 of this case, as well as invoices in respect to transactions made between plaintiff and the above other entities, was issued in collusion of both the parties and to claim fake input tax credit by defendant for the said fraudulent or illegal transaction. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that in light of the above and since the purported transaction of sale and purchase of goods being reflected through the said invoice was the out come of illegality and fraud and it was against the laws of this country or public policy, the court should refuse to come to the aid of the party which approaches it for claiming relief in respect to the said transaction. Ld. Counsel for defendant has rightly relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Narayanamma CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 37 of 40 DLCT010076382023 And Anr. Vs. Govindappa and Ors., (2019) 19 Supreme Court Cases 42, on this aspect, wherein their lordships, on request of a plaintiff, had refused to enforce the specific performance of an agreement for sale of a property which was given on grant by the government to defendant with a non-alienation clause of 15 years, even though the plaintiff had already paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 46,000/- to defendant through the said agreement and the agreement also contained a clause that at the time of execution thereof, even the possession of suit property was handed over to the plaintiff. The specific performance was refused by their lordships because the above agreement to sell was found contrary to the statutory bar and hence, void in law. The relevant observations made in the said case by their lordships are as under:
18. This Court held that, which principle is to be applied in the facts of the case would depend upon the question, as to which principle is more consistent with public interest. The Court finds that,when both the parties before the Court are confederates in the fraud, the Court will have to find out which approach would be less injurious to public interest. The Court observed that, which ever approach is adopted, one party would succeed and the other would fail and, therefore, it is necessary to enquire as to which party's success would be less injurious to public interest. The Court in the facts of the said case finds that if the decree was to be passed in favour of respondent No. 1 (who was the plaintiff), it would be actively assisting respondent No. 1 to give effect to the fraud to which he was a party and it has been held that in that sense the Court would be allowed to be used as an instrument of fraud and that is clearly and patently inconsistent with public interest.
19. It has further been held, that if both the parties are equally guilty and the fraud intended by them had been carried out, the CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 38 of 40 DLCT010076382023 position would be that, the party raising the defence is not asking the Court's assistance in any active manner. It has been held, that all the defence suggested is that a confederate in fraud shall not be permitted to obtain a decree from the Court because the documents of title, on which the claim is based really conveys no title at all. In the facts of the said case, it was held, that though the result thereof would be assisting the defence therein to retain their possession,for such an assistance would be purely of passive character and all that the Court would do in effect is that on the facts proved, it proposes to allow possession to rest where it lies. It has been held that,latter course appears to be less injurious to public interest than the former one. This court in the said judgment.................
20. It could thus be seen that, although illegality is not pleaded by the defendant nor is relied upon by him by way of defence, yet the court itself, upon the illegality appearing upon the evidence, will take notice of it, and will dismiss the action ex turpi causa non oritur actio. It has been held, that no polluted hand shall touch the pure fountain of justice. It has further been held, that where parties are concerned in illegal agreements or other transactions, courts of equity following the rule of law as to participators in common crime will not interpose to grant any relief, acting upon the maxim inpari delicto potior est conditio defendetis et possidentis.
55. The above prepositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also came to be reiterated by the Hon'ble Appex Court in GT Girish Vs. Y. Subba Raju (dead) By LRs and Anr., 2022 12 SCC 321. Hence, even in light of the above facts and decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this issue, no relief to plaintiff can be granted by this court.
56. Thus, these issues are accordingly being decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant.
CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 39 of 40
DLCT010076382023
ISSUE NO. (9)-RELIEF
57. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and as a result of the findings arrived at by this court on first part of issue No. (1) and the issues Nos. (3), (4), (7) & (8), the plaintiff cannot be held entitled to recover the claimed amount of Rs. 12,50,132/- from defendant on the basis of invoice Ex.PW1/3 and hence, the present suit filed by plaintiff seeking recovery of the above amount as well as interest thereon is being dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
58. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by M K MK NAGPAL
Announced in the open court NAGPAL Date:
2025.11.26
16:47:56 +0530
Dated: 26.11.2025
(M. K. Nagpal)
District Judge, Commercial Court-13
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi/26.11.2025(p)
CS (Comm.) No. 897/2023 Page No. 40 of 40