Delhi District Court
Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd vs Siby Mining And Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd on 28 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01,
NORTH WEST, ROHINI, NEW DELHI
"AMONGST 20 OLDEST CASES"
CS (COMM) No. 346/2022
OLD CS No.720/2018
CNR NO.DLNW010077692018
ASAHI ROPES PVT. LTD.
Having its Regd. Office at:
902, KLJ tower North
Netaji Subhash Place
Pitampura, Delhi-110034
...Plaintiff
Vs.
SIBY MINING & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
(Formerly known as SIBY MINING SERVICES PVT LTD.)
Through its Director
Mr. Siby M. Lukose
104, Siri Sampada Hitech
Kavuri Hills, Madhapur
Hitech City, Hyderabad-81
... Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 6,11,629/- (RUPEES SIX
LAKHS ELEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY
NINE ONLY) ALONGWITH PENDENTELITE AND FUTURE
INTEREST @ 18 % P.A. FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF
THE SUIT TILL ITS REALISATION.
Date of institution of Suit : 18.07.2018
Date of Assignment to this court : 19.07.2018
Date of hearing of final argument : 12.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 28.08.2025
CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 1/70
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, I shall conscientiously adjudicate upon the Suit of plaintiff for Recovery of Rs.6,11,629/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum pendentlite and future, from the date of filing of the suit till its realization alongwith costs of the Suit.
2. As derived from the pleadings, the concise facts of the plaint are being summarised hereunder.
2.1 Plaintiff is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its office at 902, KLJ Tower North Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 and is engaged in the business of wire rope with strong reputation in the field. Mr.Prabhat Kumar Singh, Marketing Manager of the plaintiff company, has been duly authorized by way of resolution dated 28 th March 2018 to sign, verify, institute the present suit and to do other ancillary acts, which are necessary and proper for effective adjudication of the case, on behalf of the plaintiff. He is also well acquainted with the facts of the present case. 2.2 Plaintiff supplied the goods to the defendant, as per orders placed by the defendant, from time to time and raised/issued corresponding invoices/bills for the same, which were received by the defendant to its entire satisfaction and also made part payments. A running account was maintained by the plaintiff in the name of the defendant and as per statement of account, a sum of Rs.4,90,317/-
Digitally CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. PREETI signed by 2/70 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 was due and outstanding against the defendant, as on 01.04.2017. 2.3 The Defendant, previously known as M/s. Siby Mining Services Pvt. Ltd., intimated the plaintiff in July 2017, of its name change to M/s Siby Mining and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. The defendant placed an Order No.SMIPL/PO/17-18/001 dated 21.07.2017 for Wire Rope Black worth Rs.1,71,312/- and issued a cheque No.003193 dated 27.07.2017, drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd., Nagpur, for Rs.1,71,312/- with a request to present the same after delivery/supplying the ordered goods. Additionally, the Defendant issued two more cheques bearing Nos.003190 dated 24.07.2017 and 003192 dated 25.08.2017 of Rs.50,000/- each, both drawn on HDFC Bank, Nagpur, as part payment, with the assurances that they same would be honoured/encashed upon presentation. The cheque No.003190 dated 24.07.2017 for Rs.50,000/- was duly encashed on presentation.
2.4 As per order dated 21.07.2017 placed by the defendant, the plaintiff supplied the wire rope black to the defendant vide Invoice No.ARR/17-18/0049 dated 10.08.2017 for Rs.1,71,312/-, which was received by the defendant (on 18.08.2017) to its entire satisfaction. After receiving the goods, the defendant requested the plaintiff not to present cheque No.003193 for Rs.1,71,312/- and instead, promised to pay via/through RTGS/NEFT. However, the defendant requested the plaintiff to present the cheque dated 25.08.2017 of Rs.50,000/-.
2.5 Plaintiff presented the cheque No.003192 dated 25.08.2017 for Rs.50,000/-, which was dishonoured with the remarks 'Funds Insufficient' vide/as per cheque returning memo dated CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 3/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 11.09.2017. After the cheque was dishonoured, the plaintiff informed the defendant and requested to make the due payment. The defendant apologized, asked for more time, and assured/promised to pay via RTGS/NEFT. Despite repeated follow-up calls, defendant failed to make the payment.
2.6 With no other option, plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 05.06.2018 via Speed Post through its counsel, demanding the outstanding amount with interest. However, the defendant neither responded to legal notice nor made the payment. 2.7 It is claimed that defendant is liable to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.6,11,629/- (comprising Rs.4,40,317/- towards previous outstanding and Rs.1,71,312/- for goods supplied on 18.08.2017) along with pendente-lite and future interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the Suit till its realization. 2.8 The cause of action for filing this suit is claimed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant when the plaintiff supplied goods and the defendant made only partial payments. It further arose when defendant placed order dated 21.07.2017 and issued three cheques, one of which was encashed. Cause of action arose when defendant promised to pay via RTGS/NEFT and asked the plaintiff to present a cheque dated 25.08.2017, which was later dishonoured. The cause of action continued with the issuance of a legal notice on 05.06.2018, to which defendant failed to respond. The cause of action is still subsisting and continuing one. It is claimed that the suit of the plaintiff is within limitation. 2.9 The plaintiff conducts its business in Delhi, supplied the goods from Delhi, and used transporters based in Delhi, claiming that the CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 4/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 cause of action arose in Delhi. Citing relevant legal precedents, including 'Chemrow India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Lakhani Footcare Pvt. Ltd.' and 'Ashok Parshad vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.', CS (OS) No.2542/1997 decided on 13.09.2013, the plaintiff asserts that the Delhi courts have territorial jurisdiction, as part payments were made and goods dispatched from Delhi. Thus, forming the contract and cause of action within Delhi's jurisdiction under Section 39 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
3. The crystalised facts in defence and contest by defendants, as averred in the Written Statement, are as under.
3.1 As per the averments in the Written Statement, the suit of the plaintiff has been outrightly denied. There are several legal objections raised by the defendant, interalia being non- maintainability of the Suit as filed without any valid cause of action; suit being time-barred; alleged claim in the plaint based on false and forged documents; plaintiff approaching this Court with unclean hands; concealment of material facts; suit being gross misuse of the process of law.
3.2 It is submitted that the defendant had made the entire payment towards the goods demanded. The defendant denied the claims of the plaintiff regarding delivery, asserting that the alleged deliveries and invoices are based on false claims and bogus bills, created solely to fabricate a claim against the defendant. The defendant also denied placing orders, receiving goods, or being satisfied with any such transactions, as alleged by the plaintiff.
CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 5/70 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 3.3 The defendant specifically denied that the plaintiff maintained a running account in their name or that Rs.4,90,317/- was outstanding as on 01.04.2017. It is stated that all entries made in Statement of Account are false and fabricated, solely to file the present suit with the intention of extorting money from the defendant. 3.4 It is denied that in July 2017, defendant informed the plaintiff about any change of name to M/s Siby Mining and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. It is vehemently denied that defendant placed any Order No. SMIPl/17-18/0001 Dt.21.07.2017 for Rs.1,71,312/- or issued two cheques for Rs.50,000 each, as part payment of any liability. However, it is not specifically denied that chequee no.003190 dated 24.07.2017 for Rs.50,000/- was duly encashed on presentation.
3.5 It is stated that the claims of the plaintiff are contradictory and false. It is asserted that the cheques mentioned, were given blank after duly signed, without filling any other contents, by the defendant. Placing any order on 21.07.2017 or receiving goods worth Rs.1,71,312/- as per Invoice No. ARR/17-18/0049 dt.10.08.2017 is vehemently denied. It is stated that there are inconsistencies in the statement of account filed by the plaintiff, which contradicts plaintiff's assertion that they deposited the cheques, allegedly issued by defendant, into the account of plaintiff, whereas the Statement of account shows that the defendant directly deposited the cheques into the Bank account of plaintiff. Receiving any alleged goods to the satisfaction of defendant, is also denied. 3.6 The defendant strongly denied ever requesting the plaintiff not to present cheque No. 003193 for Rs.1,71,312/- or to CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 6/70 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 make payment via RTGS/NEFT or requesting the plaintiff to present the cheque of Rs.50,000/- or that after getting instructions, plaintiff presented the cheque no.0031192 dated 25.08.2017 for Rs.50,000/-. 3.7 All claims related to post-cheque dishonour communication or that the plaintiff contacted them, that they apologized or promised payment via RTGS/NEFT, or that they ignored repeated requests or that they received any legal notice dated 05.06.2018, are vehemently denied, maintaining that defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff.
3.8 The defendant explicitly denied that Rs.4,40,317/- in previous dues and Rs.1,71,312/- for goods supplied, are outstanding against them. Defendant also denied the supply of goods as per the invoice dated 10.08.2017 and rejected the total claim of Rs.6,11,629/- including any liability to pay interest at 18% per annum or any amount, to the plaintiff. It is denied that plaintiff has any cause of action in their favour and against the defendant, praying for dismissal of the Suit of the plaintiff, with exemplary costs.
4. Replication was neither filed nor sought to be filed, on behalf of plaintiff, despite opportunity.
5. On completion of pleadings, following issues were arrived at, to be adjudicated upon by the Court:
1. Whether the Suit is barred by Limitation ? OPD.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the Suit amount ? OPP.
CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 7/70 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest on the suit amount? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
4. Relief.
6. Issue no.1 was treated as preliminary issue. However, vide orders dated 01.04.2019, it was observed as under:
"...Today, matter is listed for arguments on preliminary issue (issue no.1) i.e. Whether the suit is barred by limitation.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that suit having been filed on 18.07.2018 is within time when calculated from date of cheque i.e. 25.08.2017.
Defendant has raised preliminary objection that suit is barred by limitation but in the written statement no specific plea has been taken as to from which date cause of action commenced so as to say that suit is barred by limitation.
Even otherwise such like matter requires evidence in support of respective averments, and the issue on the point of limitation cannot be decided without evidence. Therefore, on this point, this issue no.1 cannot be decided of at this stage without giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.
As a result, suit is adjourned to 19.08.2019 at 11.00 a.m. for evidence of plaintiff..."
7. Present Suit was initially filed as a Civil Suit before the Court of Ld. ADJ-02 (North-West) Rohini Courts, Delhi. However, since the matter involved 'Commercial dispute', vide orders dated 30.01.2020, passed Ld. District & Sessions Judge, North West District, Rohini, present suit was withdrawn from that Court and assigned/transferred to the Ld. Predecessor Court.
Digitally CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. PREETI signed by 8/70 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025
8. Vide orders dated 29.09.2021, application U/O VII Rule 11 CPC filed on behalf of defendant, was disposed of, with following observations:
"...Arguments on issue no.1 regarding period of limitation are heard. In the present case the cheques issued by defendant to plaintiff are dated 25.08.2017 and 27.07.2017. The suit was filed on 19.07.2018. Therefore, suit is within limitation period. However, the question of bills barred by limitation will be considered at the stage of final arguments.
Ld. Counsel for defendant has pressed his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and submits that compliance of Section 12A of The Commercial Courts Act was not complied with. However, this objection cannot be entertained at this stage when case has come up for plaintiff evidence. Further more, the suit was filed on 19.07.2018, whereas the operatus of pre institution mediation was put in place w.e.f. 27.11.2018 when the amended standard operating procedure was put in place by DLSA vide Letter No.18/DSLSA/LAW/Pre Institution Mediation/2018/12817 dated 27.11.2018. Therefore, when the suit was filed the facility of pre-institution mediation was not available to the plaintiff. Therefore, suit cannot be dismissed for want of non compliance of Section 12A of The Commercial Courts Act. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
Ld. Counsel for defendant further submits that suit needs to be amended to comply with the provision of Commercial Courts Act. I am of the opinion that all the objections were required to be taken up at the first instance. When the suit has progressed substantially and stage of completion of pleadings is over, these objections have no meaning. Accordingly, objections of Ld Counsel for defendant are rejected..."
9. Vide orders dated 17.11.2021, another application U/O VII Rule 11 CPC filed on behalf of defendant, was disposed of, with following observations:
"...One application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is filed submitting that plaintiff has not complied with the requirement of Statement of Truth. Further, the plaintiff has CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 9/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 not moved any application for change of AR. Moreover, the Board Resolution is also defective. I am of the opinion that all these are curable defects and the plaint cannot be rejected on these grounds. Application is accordingly dismissed."
10. Vide orders dated 02.12.2021, efforts were made for amicable settlement between the parties, in terms of Section 12A of CC Act, observing as under:-
"Plaintiff has filed an application praying for placing on record the Statement of Truth. Copy supplied. Heard. Application is allowed.
Another application has been moved by the plaintiff for substitution of AR. Heard. This application is also allowed.
I have discussed the matter with Ld.Counsels for parties and I feel that this is not a fit case for sending the parties for mediation..."
11. In exercise of power u/o. XV A Rule 6 (o) and (p) CPC, Court appointed Local Commissioner Mr. Chandra Bose, Ld. Retd. Additional District & Sessions Judge, who has been pleased to record the evidence in this matter.
12. Vide separate detailed order dated 29.05.2023, application U/O XI Rule 14 CPC filed on behalf of plaintiff was allowed, with following observations:
"...Vide separate detailed order of even date, the application moved on behalf of plaintiff u/o XI Rule 14 CPC seeking permission to file documents on record i.e. Certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act and one original C-Form of Sale Tax Department is allowed, subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by plaintiff to defendant. The C-Form and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act are taken on record..."
CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. PREETI Digitally signed by 10/70 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025
13. Vide orders dated 23.02.2024, application u/o XVI Rule 3 r/w Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of plaintiff seeking permission to lead another witness, was allowed with following observations:
"Upon the consideration of entirety of facts and circumstances, Court is of the considered view that the list of witnesses filed on behalf of the plaintiff finds recording and mention vide order of my ld. Predecessor dated 24.03.2023. Even, the copy was supplied to the defendant. Even otherwise, on request of ld. Counsel for the defendant, copy of the list of witnesses has already been supplied today. Perusal of the list of witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff makes it clear that the proposed additional witnesses of the plaintiff beyond the list of witnesses, is to cure the objection of lack of authority taken by the defendant while, the testimony of PW-1 was recorded before the ld. Local Commissioner. However, the interest of justice requires opportunity to the plaintiff to prove its case on merits and the mere technical objection of lack of authority of one of the witnesses, if proved otherwise, through Company resolution, ought to be allowed. The case of the plaintiff in hand is merely for want of curable defects by way of making the endeavour to prove the authority of witnesses who has been examined as PW-1. Accordingly, request to add one witness to produce the original minutes as prayed is allowed.
The application needs no further orders as copy of list of witnesses has been taken on record. The application is accordingly disposed of as allowed with nominal conditional cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with DLSA(NW), Delhi, as per the request of ld. Counsel for defendant.
The Court has examined list of witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff and after hearing parties, the proposed witness no.4 is deleted as the status of the registration of the plaintiff Company is not a subject matter of dispute as per the issues of the matter framed vide orders dated 31.01.2019.
As regards the proposed witness no.3, on behalf of CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 11/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 the plaintiff as per the list of witnesses dated 24.03.2023, ld. Counsel for the defendant undertakes to examine the defence of the defendants, if any, necessary for the defence, may concede to the documents sought to be examined through proposed witness no.3 of the plaintiff. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for defendant that even if the defendant furnishes no objection to the documents sought to the examined by the witness no.3 of the plaintiff, opportunity be kept open for the defendant to put its relevant defence in regard of the documents that may not be disputed, through proposed witness no.3. ...During hearing today, ld. Counsel for the defendant has submitted that he wishes to examine only witnesses. As per the detailed orders of this Court today, plaintiff has been allowed to examine one witness to prove the authority of PW-1 and proposed witnesses no.2 to 5 as per the list of witnesses dated 24.03.2023. The proposed witness at Sl.No.3 as per the said list of witnesses is subject to the submission of ld. Counsel for the defendant who may concede to the documents sought to be produced/proved through proposed witnesses no.3 of the plaintiff. The Competent Officers/AR, in the array of witnesses, shall be bound to appear before the Ld. LC as per law... .
14. Plaintiff in support of its case got examined Sh. Mukesh Kumar Gupta (AR/one of the Directors of plaintiff company) as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at Point A and Point B. By way of affidavit of chief- examination, the plaintiff witness has deposed as per the averments in the plaint and has relied upon documents, detailed as under:-
SL NO. DOCUMENT(S) EXHIBITED AS
1. Resolution Dated 17.12.2019 EX.PW1/1
2. Office copies of invoices EX.PW1/2
(Colly)
3. Goods receipts Ex.PW-1/3
(Colly)
4. C-Form issued by the defendant Ex.PW-1/4
CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 12/70
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025
5. Ledger Account of unit no.l running into two Ex.PW-
pages 1/5(Colly)
6. Ledger Account of unit no.2 Ex.PW-1/6
7. Original Cheques issued by defendant in favour Ex.PW-1/7 & of the plaintiff. EX.PW-1/8
8. Original Cheque returning memo in respect of Ex.PW-1/9 cheque no.003192.
9. Office copy of legal notice. Ex.PW-/10 (Colly)
10. Postal receipt and its tracking report Ex.PW-1/11 & Ex.PW-1/12 11 Board resolution dated 28.03.2018. Ex.PW-1/13
12. Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.PW-1/14
13. The office copy of notice U/o 12 Rule 8 CPC Ex.PW-1/15
14. Postal Receipt thereof and tracking report Ex.PW-1/16 & Ex.PW-1/17
15. At the stage of chief-examination/examination-in-chief, ld. Counsel for the defendant raised an objection about Exhibiting the documents Ex.PW-1/1 & Ex.PW-1/13 as the original minutes book of the plaintiff company were not produced. He also raised an objection about exhibiting the documents Ex.PW-1/2 (Colly), Ex.PW-1/5, Ex.PW-1/6 & Ex.PW-1/14, as original were not produced and Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act was not filed in accordance with law. He also objected about Ex.PW-1/9 which did not bear the stamp of the Bank. He also objected about Ex.PW-1/12 & Ex.PW-1/17 as the same were not enclosed alongwith certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. He also objected documents Ex.PW-
1/15, Ex.PW-1/16 & Ex.PW-1/17 as they were filed on the same day and could not have been taken on record, without due permission of the Hon'ble Court. The above objections were left open for CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 13/70 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 consideration before Ld. Trial Court, in due course.
16. The plaintiff witness PW1 namely Sh. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, has been cross-examined by ld. Counsel for the defendant, at length. During cross-examination, PW1 admitted that except Board Resolution, he did not have any document to show from the file, that he or Sh. Ashwani Gupta, are the Director(s) of M/s Asahi Ropes Pvt Ltd. He further admitted that there was no common seal of the company affixed on Ex.PW1/1 & Ex.PW1/13. PW1 denied the suggestion that Board Resolution (Ex.PW1/1) authorises him, only to pursue proposed and future litigation against the defendant and claimed that he is duly authorised to appear and pursue the present case by way of Board Resolution. He further admitted that he has not placed any documents on record to show that the plaintiff company is registered under Companies Act, 1956. He further deposed that no purchase orders were placed on record and volunteered that no purchase order in writing was given by the defendant and that the orders were received verbally.
17. On further cross-examination, PW1 deposed that payment terms between the plaintiff and defendant, were against deliveries or as early as possible, but for the last supply, defendant had issued PDC alongwith the three cheques for earlier outstanding. PW1 denied that payment to be made by the defendant to the plaintiff, on bill to bill basis. As regards second bill, defendant had made part payment and issued three cheques towards part payment and further deposed that it was a running account. PW1 admited that CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 14/70 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 first bill dated 05.05.2012 (Rs.6,99,979/-) was paid in full, on 12.06.2012. PW1 admitted that there were no business transactions between 31.12.2012 to 19.09.2016 in the form of any sale of goods, explaining that the plaintiff was not receiving any outstanding payment, hence no further supply was made. PW1 further deposed that there were follow-ups for dues and defendant had issued a cheque of Rs.50,000/- bearing no.1325, which was deposited on 25.02.2015 but returned unpaid. PW1 admitted not placing the said cheque or cheque return memo, on the judicial record.
18. PW1 failed to recollect the date of receiving Form-C (Ex.PW-1/4), stating that it was filed by the plaintiff with the sale tax authority for Financial Year 2012-13. PW-1 denied knowing about defendant's name change from Siby Mining Service Pvt Ltd to M/s Siby Mining Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd in 2012-13. He was confronted with Form-C showing new name of the defendant, whereby PW1 admitted the noting of the name of defendant thereupon, though denying knowledge of the same. PW-1 admitted Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 lack defendant's acknowledgment, explaining that due to distance (1000+ km) goods were sent via transport with GR. Iinvoices/GRs are posted to the defendant for material collection and confirmation from transport can be obtained if needed. PW-1 denied the suggestion that vide Ex.PW-1/5 outstanding of Rs.4,40,000/- is barred by limitation. He further denied the suggestion that since the goods were not supplied vide Ex.PW-1/2 invoice dated l0.08.2017, therefore, the said PDC cheque of Rs.1,71,312/- was not presented by the plaintiff and volunteered that it was not presented at request of CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 15/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 the defendant that he is going through financial crisis, hence the cheque deposition may be done later. Further, in lieu of outstanding, he issued three cheques of Rs.50,000/- each, so this cheque was put on hold and was not presented. PW1 denied the suggestion that the cheque of Rs.1,71,312/- was put on hold as the defendant had issued three cheques of Rs.50,000/- each. He denied the suggestion that the defendant has not received goods vide Ex.PW-1/2 Invoice dated 10.08.2017. He denied that that the account was bill to bill payment. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff forced the defendant to make a part payment of Rs.1,00,000/- against the time barred debt of Rs.5,40,000/-. PW1 further denied the suggestion that the plaintiff neither supplied the goods vide invoice dated 10.08.2017, but also retained the cheque of Rs.1,71,312/- and filed the present false suit against the defendant.
19. Plaintiff further got examined summoned witness Sh.Baldeep Singh, Authorised Agent/Representative of VRL LOGISTICS Ltd. as PW2, who brought the summoned record i.e. the record of goods consigned from Delhi to Hyderabad vide concerned/relevant G.R., and tendered following documents:
SL NO. DOCUMENT(S) EXHIBITED AS
1. Aadhar Card of PW2. Ex.PW2/1
2. Authority letter in favour of PW2. Ex.PW2/2
3. The consignee's copy of G.R. No. no. Ex. PW2/3
1013773765 dated 10.08.2017 bearing signature and stamp of M/s Siby Mining and infrastructure as a proof of delivery to them on 18.08.2017
4. Delivery cash receipt dated 18.08.2017 bearing Ex.PW2/4 CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 16/70 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 CR no.33061635 towards the GR for a sum of Rs.14,897/- paid by the consignee Siby Mining and infrastructure towards the transport charges.
20. The plaintiff witness PW2 namely Sh. Baldeep Singh, has been cross-examined by ld. Counsel for the defendant, at length. During cross-examination, deposed that he has not brought the original summons, but have a copy on WhatsApp. He deposed that he is not an employee of VRL Logistics, but a franchisee. He further deposed that he has not brought his franchise contract, but have the authority letter Ex. PW2/2 issued by Sh. Ravinder Singh, HRD, VRL Logistics. PW2 denied the suggestion that Sh. Ravinder Singh is neither working with VRL Logistics nor is competent/authorized to issue Ex. PW2/2. He further deposed that he has brought only two documents i.e. Ex. PW2/3 and Ex. PW2/4. PW2 further testified that at the time of booking, two GR copies are issued i.e. consignor copy and consignee copy. He further testified that they do not keep the physical goods receipt of consignor's copy but the same is available in soft copy in their digital records. He further admitted that Ex. PW2/3 and Ex. PW2/4 were given to him by VRL Logistics Delhi Head Office. He further deposed that he issued GR Ex. PW2/3, without his signature, owing to being computer-generated. He deposed that he knows the plaintiff's representative, due to regular business with them. PW2 further deposed that he was not present at the time of delivery of goods at Hyderabad, but booking was done by him in Delhi, and delivery updates reflect in their system, which is the general procedure/protocol followed by the company. PW2 denied the suggestions that he is deposing at plaintiff's instance or CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 17/70 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 that Ex. PW2/3 is fabricated or that he has brought the incomplete records or that he has no personal knowledge of the transactions.
21. Plaintiff further examined another summoned witness namely Sh, Sachin Kanaujia, Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Chawri Bazar Branch Delhi 110006, as PW3, who produced/relied and tendered following documents:-
SL NO. DOCUMENT(S) EXHIBITED AS
1. Copy of Identity Card Ex.PW3/1
(OSR)
2. Statement of account no. 3072050101311001 in Ex.PW3/2
the name of M/S Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. for the (Colly. 8 pages) period 01.02.2015 to 28.02.2015
3. Electronic image of dishonored cheque no. 1325 Ex. PW3/3 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- deposited for encashment in the abovesaid bank account on 25.02.2015 and received back dishonored for the reason "insufficient funds".
4. Certificate U/s 63 of BSA Ex.PW3/4
5. Copy of Memorandum dated 16.04.2024 in Mark-A respect of transfer of witness from Mangalore HR-employee relations to Chief Manager New Delhi.
22. The plaintiff witness PW3 namely Sh, Sachin Kanaujia, has been cross-examined by ld. Counsel for the defendant, at length. During cross-examination, PW3 deposed that he is working in the concerned Branch Since 23.04.2024. He admitted that he has not brought the general power of attorney issued by Bank in his favour but has the copy of memorandum dated 16.04.2024 in respect of his transfer from Mangalore HR-employee relations to Chief CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 18/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 Manager New Delhi (Mark "A"). He deposed that he does not have any personal knowledge of above-said dishonored cheque Ex PW3/3 and the statement EX PW3/2. He denied the suggestion that Ex PW3/4 is defective and not as per law or that he is deposing at the instance of plaintiff.
23. Plaintiff further examined Sh. Sachin Kumar, working as accountant with the plaintiff company, as PW4, who relied and tendered following documents:-
SL NO. DOCUMENT(S) EXHIBITED AS
1. Copy of Identity card issued by the plaintiff Ex.PW4/1 (OSR)
2. Copy of Adhar Card Ex. PW4/2
(OSR)
3. Abstracts of resolution dated 05.09.2024, passed Ex.PW4/3
by the Board of Directors authorizing PW4 to produce original minutes books of the Board of Directors for the financial year 2017-18, 2019-20 and 2024-25
4. Board Resolution dated 28.03.2018 already Ex PW1/13
5. Board Resolution dated 17.12.2019 already Ex. PW1/1
24. The plaintiff witness PW4 namely Sh, Sachin Kanaujia, has been cross-examined by ld. Counsel for the defendant. During cross-examination, PW4 denied the suggestion thatthat the minute books produced by him, are forged and fabricated and prepared currently or that he is deposing falsely.
The Plaintiff did not examine any other witness and the plaintiff's evidence was closed.
CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 19/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025
25. In defence evidence, defendant did not examine any witness, despite opportunity and vide separate statement, defendant evidence closed.
26. Arguments on behalf of the parties have been heard at length and the entire record including the pleadings have been perused. The applicable law has been duly considered. The entire evidence, both oral and documentary, have been appreciated. Issue- wise findings are being discussed hereunder:-
ISSUE NO.1:
1. Whether the Suit is barred by Limitation ? OPD.
27. It is case of the defendant that suit of the plaintiff is time-barred. It is contended that a bare perusal of the plaint, invoices Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) and ledger account Ex. PW-1/5 (Colly) of Unit no. 1 and Ex. PW-1/6 of Unit No. 2, reveals that there are only three invoices being raised by the plaintiff i.e. Invoice no. 104 dated 05.05.2012 of Rs. 6,99,979/-, Invoice no. 324 dated 21.07.2012 of Rs. 9,40,317/- and last Invoice No. ARR/17-18/0049 dated 10.08.2017 of Rs.1,71,312/-. It is strongly argued that the plaintiff itself has mentioned the invoices of the year as well as the payments made against the said invoices in Ex. PW-1/5 (colly) and PW-1/6, separately and distinctively, which shows that the last invoice dated 10.08.2017 was a separate and distinct transaction.
CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 20/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025
28. In order to support the legal objection under consideration by the defendant, it is further contended that a bare perusal of the ledger relied upon by the plaintiff vide Ex. PW-1/5 (colly) shows that against the first Invoice no.104, dated 05.05.2012, the entire payment was made by the defendant to the plaintiff as on 12.06.2012. Further, against the second Invoice no.324 dated 21.07.2012 a part payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- was made by defendant on 31.12.2012 and thereafter, no payment whatsoever was made by the defendant to the plaintiff till 20.09.2016. It is submitted that the entire amount of Rs. 5,40,317/- as stated in the ledger account Ex. PW-1/5 (Colly) was barred by time and the limitation to file the suit for the recovery of the said amount of Rs. 5,40,317/- stood lapsed. It is further contended on behalf of defendant that the defendant made various payments to the plaintiff as per Ex. PW-1/5 (Colly) for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each, on 20.09.2016 and 26.07.2017, which were made after expiration of the limitation period when computed from 31.12.2012 till 31.12.2015, in respect of the claimed outstanding amount of Rs. 5,40,317/-. It is prayed that part claim of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 4,40,317/-, being hopelessly time barred, is liable to be outrightly dismissed.
29. During further arguments on behalf of defendant, attention of the Court has been sought upon cross-examination of PW1, who was one of the Directors of the plaintiff company, wherein PW1 admitted that as per understanding between the parties, payments were to be made against delivery, as early as possible, though denying the suggestion that the payments were stipulated on CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. PREETI Digitally signed by 21/70 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 bill to bill basis. PW1 admitted that the entire payment against the first invoice dated 05.05.2012 was cleared by the defendant, explaining that same was done voluntarily, as start of a business relations between the parties. PW1 also admitted that part payment of Rs.4 Lakh was received against the second invoice dated 21.07.2012 by the plaintiff, in the same year i.e. on 31.12.2012 itself. On being asked about the missing period of business transactions between the plaintiff and defendant from the date of second invoice till that of the 3rd invoice dated 10.08.2017, PW1 deposed that certain payments by way of cheques were issued by the defendant, owing to financial constraints of the defendant, as against the second invoices. On the basis of said cross-examination, it is case of the defendant that Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was applicable for computation of limitation against the delivery of goods and that the requisite time period available to the plaintiff, for making a claim of outstanding amount against second invoice dated 21.07.2012, had lapsed by limitation.
30. In the last leg of arguments on behalf of the defendant in the issue under consideration, reliance has been placed on statutory provisions U/S 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, stating that defendant did not make any acknowledgment during the period of three years from the date of last payment against the second invoice i.e. within the period of three years from 31.12.2012, hence, praying for dismissal of the suit qua the second invoice on the legal objection based on expiration of the period of limitation.
CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 22/70 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025
31. Now the Court shall advent to consider the contentions of the plaintiff on the issue of Limitation whereby, it is the case contended on behalf of plaintiff that the goods were supplied by the plaintiff on 21.07.2012, part payment of Rs.4,00,000/- was made by the defendant on 31.12.2012. During the period of 3 years from the sale on 21.07.2012 and payment on 31.12.2012, the defendant on 25.02.2015 deposited cheque No.1325 in the account of the plaintiff, which was returned dishonored. It is contended that the limitation got revived on 25.02.2015 and was again revived afresh on 26.07.2017 and 11.09.2017 when the payments were made by the defendant. It is submitted that the limitation started running from 12.09.2017 and the suit was filed well within limitation on 18.07.2018. It is further submitted that the receipt of the goods is not specifically denied by the defendant thereby admitting the same, further the defendant chose not to reply the legal demand notice thereby admitting the claim of the plaintiff.
32. It is further contended on behalf of plaintiff that the Hon'ble High Court in the case titled as "Kaluram Vs. Sitaram:
Rajdhani Law Reporter 1980 Delhi (Note 44), wherein it has been held that if plaintiff before filing suit makes serious assertions in a notice to deft then deft must not remain silent by ignoring to reply. If he does so then adverse inference may be raised against him. Reliance has been placed on another judgment i.e., "TAS Engineering Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. V/s. G & T Resources World Wide", RFA No.90/2002 Delhi High Court, decided on 26.7.2011, wherein the case of Kalu Ram Vs. Sita Ram (Supra) has been followed. It is CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. PREETIDigitally 23/70 signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 further contended on behalf of plaintiff that on the aspect of revival of the limitation period due to issuance and dishonor of cheque bearing No.001325 on 25.02.2015 towards the part payment of the amount due, the plaintiff got examined Sh. Sachin Kanaujia, chief manager, Union Bank of India, Chawri Bazar Branch, Delhi as PW-3 and produced summoned record i.e. Statement of Account No.3072050101311001 in the name of plaintiff for the period 01.02.2015 to 28.02.2015 relied upon as Ex.PW3/2 (Colly 8 pages) to prove the factum of deposit and dishonor of cheque No.1325 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 25.02.2015. It is contended that the case of the plaintiff is duly proved to show that the defendant was making frivolous legal objections when the very issuance of cheque no.1325 by the defendant on 23.02.2015, was towards acknowledgment of his outstanding liability, in favour of the plaintiff. During arguments, reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case tiled as 'M/s Krishna Life Styles Technologies Limited Vs. Mr. Kawaljeet Singh' : (2017) 239 DLT 525, to submit that even if the cheque given by the debtor in discharge of his liability, is not encashed presentation, nevertheless, plaintiff would get advantage of extension of limitation U/s 18 of limitation Act, 1963.
33. It is submitted on behalf of plaintiff that the entire claim in suit of the plaintiff is well within the period of limitation.
THE LEGAL POSITION APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON THE ISSUE OF LIMITATION:
RUNNING AND MUTUAL ACCOUNT CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 24/70 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025
34. It shall be first appropriate to consider whether the suit of the plaintiff that is based on two ledger accounts Ex.PW1/5 (Colly) and Ex.PW1/6 qualifies as a 'running account' between the parties as contemplated under Article 1 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. The statutory foundation for running accounts is to be found in Article 1 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a limitation period of three years "for the balance due on a mutual, open and current account, where there have been reciprocal demands between the parties." The time begins to run from the close of the year in which the last item admitted or proved is entered in the account. The expression "mutual, open and current" is therefore not satisfied by every commercial dealing, but only in cases where reciprocal obligations arise, creating debts and credits on both sides.
35. The test for determining what constitutes a mutual account has been consistently applied by the courts. In 'Hindustan Forest Company v. Lal Chand' ; AIR 1959 SC 1349, the Hon'ble Supreme Court approved the dictum of Rankin, C.J. in 'Tea Financing Syndicate Ltd. v. Chandrakamal Bezbaruah'; 1930 ILR 58 Cal 649, where it was observed that reciprocal demands require "transactions on each side creating independent obligations on the other and not merely transactions which create obligations on one side, those on the other being merely complete or partial discharges of such obligations." Thus, if payments are made only to discharge CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 25/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 liability of one side, without any counter-liability created on the other, the account ceases to be mutual.
36. This principle was further appreciated in 'Kesharichand Jaisukhlal v. Shillong Banking Corporation'; AIR 1965 SC 1711, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a banking relationship involving both overdrafts and deposits, it was held that since loans advanced by the bank created liability on the client, while deposits created liability on the bank, there existed reciprocal demands, and therefore the account was treated as mutual. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that for Article 1 of Limitation Act to apply, there must be a dual contractual relationship in which both parties are, at different times, creditors and debtors of each other.
37. Further considering the legal position, as determined by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, a guiding principal has been laid down in 'Bharath Skins Corporation v. Taneja Skins Co. Pvt. Ltd.'; 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5523, wherein this principal has been distilled by holding that for an account to be mutual, there must be intention of the parties, express or implied, to create reciprocal dealings. Where the relationship is only that of a seller and buyer, the demand is always in favor of one party, and therefore no mutual account can be said to exist. A unilateral ledger maintained by the seller cannot, by itself, establish mutuality.
Digitally CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. PREETI signed by 26/70 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025
38. Similarly, in 'Era Constructions (India) Ltd. v. D.K. Sharma'; 2008 (100) DRJ 712, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court emphasized that a running account is distinct from a stated account. A running account is one which is open, unsettled, and consists of mutual accounts and reciprocal demands, whereas a stated account is one where the balance has been crystallized. The Hon'ble Court relied on Black's Law Dictionary and was pleased to consider as under:-
"5. Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, defines a running account in the following manner:
Running account. An open unsettled account, as distinguished from a stated and liquidated account. Running accounts mean mutual accounts and reciprocal demands between the parties, which accounts and demands remain open and unsettled.
In other words, a running account is one which is unsettled and is open. It is distinct and different from a stated and/or liquidated account where the amount stands crystalised. In this context, it would be fruitful to refer to Article 1 and Article 26 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. Article 1 relates to suits in respect of balance due on a mutual open and current account, where there have been reciprocal demands between the parties. The period of limitation prescribed is three years from the close of the year in which the last item admitted or proved is entered in the account and such year is to be computed as in the account. If the statement of account between the parties is to be regarded as a mutual open and current account, then the period of limitation of three years would begin from the close of the year in which the last item admitted or proved is entered in the account. It was contended on behalf of the claimant that the last admitted item in the account between the parties was the payment made by the petitioner to the respondent on 03.04.1999 and, therefore, the start of the period would be the close of the year in which this payment was made. He submitted that the financial year ending of 31st March was taken as the accounting year and, CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 27/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 therefore, in point of fact, the period of limitation would begin not from 03.04.1999, but from 31.03.2000 which is the close of the year in which the last payment (i.e., on 03.04.1999) was made. This would be the position if Article 1 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 were to apply.
6. Article 26 of the said Schedule refers to suits for money payable to the plaintiff for money found to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff on accounts stated between them.
The period of limitation that is prescribed under this Article is of three years and the time from which it begins to run is when the accounts are stated in writing signed by the defendant or his agent duly authorised in this behalf, unless where the debt is, by a simultaneous agreement in writing signed as aforesaid, made payable at a future time, when that time arrives. This is certainly not the case here."
39. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in latest pronouncement in 'Amazing Research Laboratories Ltd. vs Krishna Pharma' ; 2023/DHC/001786, decided on 13th March, 2023, has been pleased to reaffirm the long standing legal position, wherein it was held as under:-
46. The Ledger account maintained by the petitioner was a "running and non-mutual account" as has been explained in the case of Renganathan vs Saravana Store 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 5897. In case of a running and non mutual account between the buyer and seller, when goods are delivered by the seller to the buyer, the value of the goods is debited in the debit column and when amounts are paid by the buyer to the seller, they are entered in the credit column. The difference is continuously struck in the column for balance. In such a case, when the buyer defaults to make balance payment, the seller's action is not for the price of goods sold and delivered, but for the balance due at the foot of an account. The account is running as the amounts received are credited and the amounts still due is reflected as debit. Essentially, it is non mutual because the amounts being adjusted are those payable by one party.
Mutual account implies that the credit - debit account is of both the parties.
CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. PREETI Digitally signed by 28/70 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025
40. Now, applying the well settled legal position to the facts of the present case, suit of the plaintiff is based upon the assertions that a running account was maintained in respect of business dealings with the defendant. By way of the testimonies of plaintiff witnesses, Ledger account of unit no.1 running into two pages Ex.PW1/5(Colly.) and Ledger account of unit no.2 Ex.PW1/6 has been relied upon. The appreciation of Ex.PW1/5, is as such, not disputed in respect of entries therein on behalf of defendant, either in pleadings or by way of evidence recorded in the court, pertaining to the entries in respect of the first invoice dated 05.05.2012 and the second invoice dated 21.07.2012 raised by the plaintiff and placed on record as part of Ex.PW1/2 (Colly.) against supplies made by plaintiff in favour of the defendant against the first and the second invoice afore-detailed. Interestingly, plaintiff has placed reliance upon its second ledger Ex.PW1/6 in respect of the third invoice dated 10.08.2017 by which, sales has been made in favour of defendant for which, the entire invoice is stated to be overdue and outstanding against the defendant. By way of present Suit all the three invoices vide Ex.PW1/2(Colly.) have been collated and relied upon alleging that there was a running and mutual account between the parties in respect of the business dealings and supplies made by the plaintiff over to the defendant.
41. The plaintiff has tried to justify the separation to two ledgers on the basis of its claim that the plaintiff was informed about the change of name of the defendant firm from 'M/s. Siby Mining Services Pvt. Ltd.', to 'M/s Siby Mining and Infrastructure Pvt CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 29/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 Ltd.' in July 2017. This assertion of the plaintiff is strongly disputed by the defendant as contradictory and false. It is the case of the defendant that the defendant had made entire payments towards the goods supplied to it and that all entries made in the statement of account were manipulated. Defendant has also denied any liability against the cheques relied upon by the plaintiff, vide its ledger Ex.PW1/5 and that there were material inconsistencies in statement of account relied upon by the plaintiff, while also, baldly denying receipt of the alleged goods against the supplies in respect of three invoice as non-satisfactory, thereby not denying the delivery of goods as such, against all the three invoices Ex.PW1/2. It may be further relevant to consider cross-examination of PW1 on behalf of the defendant, on the aspect of non-filing of the cheque bearing no.1325 dated 23.02.2015 for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, which was shown as a dishonoured cheque vide ledger Ex.PW1/5 as on 25.02.2015. The defendant explicitly denied any outstanding recoverable dues against second invoice dated 21.07.2012, being time barred debt.
42. The meticulous scrutiny of both the ledgers relied upon by the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6, clearly shows that the logic explained in maintaining separate ledger pertaining to business transactions between the plaintiff and defendant, is sought to be explained by the alleged knowledge of change of name of the constitution of defendant from 'M/s. Siby Mining Services Pvt. Ltd.', to 'M/s Siby Mining and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.' at the time of supply against the third invoice dated 10.08.2017. However, there are three entries dated 26.07.2017, 11.09.2017 and 12.09.2017 in the CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 30/70 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 ledger relied upon by the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/5, which are maintained under the ledger account of 'M/s. Siby Mining Services Pvt. Ltd.', despite the own case of plaintiff about acquired knowledge of change of constitution / name of the defendant w.e.f. July 2017. There is no justifiable explanation as to why the entries dated 11.09.2017 and 12.09.2017 in the ledger account Ex.PW.1/5 are post dated from the entries in Ex.PW1/6, relied upon by the plaintiff with only one entry against third invoice dated 10.08.2017. The very fact that the plaintiff itself maintained two separate accounts for the first two invoices and a separate account, for the third invoice dated 10.08.2017, raises serious questions on the claim of the plaintiff about maintaining a running and mutual account between the parties, for the purpose ascertaining the applicable law of limitation.
It may also be relevant to consider that there are three cheques issued by the defendant for a sum of Rs.50,000/- during the course of business which are dated, after the supply made by second invoice dated 21.07.2012 for a sum of Rs.9,40,317/-. It is an admitted case between the parties that the defendant directly deposited a sum of Rs.4 Lakh in the account of the plaintiff as on 31.12.2012, against the supply made vide second invoice dated 21.07.2012. It is further an undisputed fact between the parties that the payment against the first invoice dated 05.05.2012 for a sum of Rs.6,99,979/- was made by the defendant, soon after the delivery of goods i.e. within the period of two months from the date of invoice.
43. On further scrutiny of Ex.PW1/5, heavily relied upon by Digitally CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. PREETIsigned by 31/70 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 he plaintiff in support of its case, a cheque of Rs.50,000/- bearing No.1325 dated 23.02.2015, was presented in the accounts of the plaintiff on 25.02.2015 and returned 'dishonored'. The cheque or dishonourment memo in respect of cheque no.1325 has not been placed on record by the plaintiff at the first instance, but came on record after the plaintiff witnesses were cross-examined and PW3, as bank witness, was introduced and summoned by the plaintiff, with leave of the Court, to prove the issuance of cheque no.1325 and the dishonourment thereof, to support the entries in the ledger Ex.PW1/5. It is further reflected on perusal of Ex.PW1/5 that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was deposited on behalf of the defendant in the account of plaintiff, as on 20.09.2016. Thereafter, there are two entries pertaining to cheque no.003190 dated 24.07.2017, for a sum of Rs.50,000/- duly credited and accounted for and another cheque bearing no.003192 dated 25.08.2017 for the like amount, which got presented in the plaintiff's account on 11.09.2017 but returned uncleared on 12.09.2017.
44. From the entirety of entries relied upon by the plaintiff vide Ex.PW1/5, though strongly under challenge by the defendant, it is clear that as against invoice dated 21.07.2012, the last payment was made during the surviving period of limitation, if computed at 3 years, by way of presentation of cheque bearing no.1325, presented and dishonoured on 25.02.2015, within the period of three years from the date of second invoice which is dated 21.07.2012.
45. After carefully considering all the entries relied upon by the plaintiff vide Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6, there is no transaction CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 32/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 between the parties to show any shifting debit and credit entries between the parties. Throughout the dealings between the parties against all the three invoices in question relied upon as Ex.PW1/2(Colly), plaintiff remains the supplier and defendant is the recipient of goods, as per statement of account unilaterally maintained by the plaintiff and outrightly denied by the defendant as to its authenticity and sanctity. There is not one single occasion in any entry vide Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6, wherein the credit debit balance has shifted. There has always been a claimed outstanding recoverable balance in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, for the alleged supplies made by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant, against orders placed by defendant and supplies received by defendant. As per law, duly appreciated by the court, the nature of business relationship between the parties reveal that each invoice created an independent transaction by way of supply by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant and liability of the defendant to make the payment in discharge of its liability towards the said supplies made by the plaintiff. This is not the case before the Court, where there are any reciprocal demands to be made by the plaintiff in favour of defendant. After considering the long standing legal position on this aspect, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to further uphold and reaffirm the legal position in its latest pronouncement in Amazing Research Laboratories Ltd. case (Supra), which is entirely applicable to the facts of the present case. As per well laid down legal position, the account maintained by the plaintiff as amounts received and credited and the amounts still due reflected, as debit, would make the statement of account essentially a CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 33/70 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 non-mutual account and cannot qualify as a "running and mutual account". Accordingly, the benefit envisaged by way of Article 1 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, for computation of limitation of three years from the entry or last item admitted or proved in the statement of account, cannot be availed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case to rely upon the claim based on a running and mutual account vide Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6 fails to be supported by well established legal position in this regard.
46. It shall be appropriate now to dissect the claim of the plaintiff into two heads, based on each invoice for the purpose of ascertaining the entitlement of the plaintiff to support its suit in accordance with the law of limitation. It is an admitted case between the parties as regards raising of the first invoice dated 05.05.2012 for a sum of Rs.6,99,979/- on 05.05.2012, delivery of goods and thereupon full and final payment against the full amount of the invoice by the defendant in the bank account of the plaintiff as on 12.06.2012.
LIMITATION IN RESPECT OF INVOICE DATED 21.07.2012.
47. Now considering the aspect of claim arising in respect of the second invoice dated 21.07.2012 for the supplies allegedly made by the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.9,40,317/-. It is further an admitted position that a sum of Rs.4 Lakh have been paid by the defendant in the account of the plaintiff against the second invoice as on 31.12.2012. At one point of time, during averments in the Written CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 34/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 Statement and even during cross-examination of plaintiff witnesses, an endeavour has been made by the defendant to deny the delivery of goods by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. However, only a bald averments on this aspect has been made by the defendant since the main defence put forth to deny the entitlement of the plaintiff in respect of the deliveries relied upon vide the second and even the third invoice in question, is on the ground that the defendant was not satisfied with the quality of goods delivered by the plaintiff. As such, the alleged delivery of goods vide second invoice dated 21.07.2012 for a sum of Rs.9,40,317/- has not been outrightly denied.
48. PW1 has been cross-examined and confronted with 'Form-C' (Ex.PW1/4) for the Financial Year 2012-13 to challenge the testimony of PW1 claiming the knowledge of change of name of the defendant firm in July 2017. This aspect needs no further consideration, as each invoice is being treated individually and independently to ascertain the sustainability of the claim of the plaintiff, as per law. Moreso, the change in the name of constitution of defendant firm does not form the core of defence raised by the defendant and the supply made by the plaintiff vide second invoice dated 21.07.2012 to the erstwhile defendant company, is not denied and challenged only on the aspect of limitation. It has been the case of the defendant that during the transactions, cheques were made over by the defendant in due discharge of its liabilities and that after making the entire payments, there was no outstanding due payable in the second invoice, though the material defence is based on the aspect that the present suit has been filed beyond the permitted period CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 35/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 of limitation qua the second invoice, showing an outstanding recoverable balance as per ledger Ex.PW1/5 for a sum of Rs.4,40,317/-.
49. Now, considering the evidence recorded during the trial relevant on the aspect of limitation qua the second invoice, objection was taken on behalf of the defendant during cross-examination of PW1 for want of production of originals and Certificate U/S 65B of Evidence Act, in respect of the exhibition of the invoices vide Ex.PW1/2(Colly.), Ex.PW1/5 which is the relevant ledger pertaining to the second invoice under consideration. PW1 has duly proved the delivery of goods vide Ex.PW1/3(Colly) and the C-Form issued by the defendant vide Ex.PW1/4. The cross-examination pertaining to the challenge of authority of the deposing witness may not be relevant under this issue and may be considered later. PW1 has evasively denied that the outstanding of Rs.4,40,317/- is barred by limitation as shown vide Ex.PW1/5.
50. The other witness examined in respect of proving the delivery of consignment through PW2, which may also not be material on the aspect under consideration. The Bank witness PW3 proved the Statement of Account of the plaintiff, as Ex.PW3/2 for the period 01.02.2015 to 28.02.2015. The plaintiff has summoned the witness in order to prove the dishonoured cheque bearing no.1325 for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, dishonoured on 25.02.2015 for its reason 'insufficient funds' proved as Ex.PW3/3, appended with the necessary certificate U/S 63 BSA as Ex.PW3/4. The only challenge CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 36/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 to the testimony of PW3 was on account of its authority, which may not be relevant as the official witness has duly supported the entry dated 25.02.2015 vide Ex.PW1/5 and it is proved on record by the plaintiff that the cheque no.1325 issued by the defendant for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, was presented in the account of the plaintiff on 25.02.2015 and returned unpaid on the same date, vide corresponding debit entry in ledger Ex.PW1/5. It may be considered that the supplies against the second invoice dated 21.07.2012 proved vide Ex.PW1/2 (Colly) reflects the payment of Rs.4 Lakhs on behalf of defendant, directly in the account of the plaintiff as on 31.12.2012.
51. As per Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a fresh period of limitation begin from the date of acknowledgment of liability by the debtor. As per well settled law held by Hon'ble Apex Court in 'M/s. Airen and Associates v. M/s. Sanmar Engineering Services Ltd.', Civil Appeal No. 654 of 2015, decided on 24 July 2025, the scope of this provision in the context of part acknowledgment of debt was duly considered. The Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that Section 18 of Limitation Act operates strictly "in respect of the property or right acknowledged." It has been held that where the debtor admits liability only for a smaller amount and denies the rest, limitation is extended only for the admitted portion and not the entire disputed claim.
52. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the statutory provision U/S 18 of the Limitation Act in respect of the entire suit CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 37/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 claim and held as under:-
"...Section 18 of the Act of 1963 reads as follows: -
"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.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,--
(a) an acknowledgment may be sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right, or avers that the time for payment, delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied by a refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy, or is coupled with a claim to set off, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the property or right,
(b) the word "signed" means signed either personally or by an agent duly authorised in this behalf, and
(c) an application for the execution of a decree or order shall not be deemed to be an application in respect of any property or right."
In terms of the aforestated provision, there must be an 'acknowledgment of liability in respect of the property or right in question' and even if such an acknowledgment is accompanied by refusal to pay, it would mean that the period of limitation would have to be computed from the time when such acknowledgment is signed.
In the case on hand, the respondent never acknowledged the sum claimed by the appellant in its notice dated 14.03.1992. On the other hand, the respondent clearly asserted that the contract value was much lesser, being just ₹1,55,223/- (Rupees one lakh fifty five thousand two hundred twenty three only), and went on to state that only a CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 38/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 sum of ₹27,874.10 (Rupees twenty seven thousand eight hundred seventy four and ten paisa only) was due and payable by it. In effect, there was never an acknowledgment of the total suit claim of ₹3,07,115.85 (Rupees three lakhs seven thousand one hundred fifteen and eighty five paisa only), whereby the appellant could avail the benefit of extended period of limitation for the entire amount claimed..."
53. The Hon'ble Apex Court also considered its own judgment in 'J.C. Budhraja Vs. Chairman, Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. & Anr.'; 2008 2 SCC 444, wherein it was held:-
"21. ... Again we may illustrate. If a house is constructed under the item rate contract and the amount due in regard to work executed is Rs. two lakhs and certain part-payments say aggregating to Rs.1,25,000/- have been made and the contractor demands payment of the balance of Rs.75,000/- due towards the bill and the employer acknowledges liability, that acknowledgement will be only in regard to the sum of Rs.75,000/- which is due. If the contractor files a suit for recovery of the said Rs.75,000/- due in regard to work done and also for recovery of Rs.50,000/- as damages for breach by the employer and the said suit is filed beyond three years from completion of work and submission of the bill but within three years from the date of acknowledgement, the suit will be saved from bar of limitation only in regard to the liability that was acknowledged, namely, Rs.75,000/- and not in regard to the fresh or additional claim of Rs.50,000/- which was not the subject-matter of acknowledgement. What can be acknowledged is a present subsisting liability. An acknowledgment made with reference to a liability, cannot extend limitation for a time-barred liability or a claim that was not made at the time of acknowledgment or some other liability relating to other transactions. Any admission of jural relationship in regard to the ascertained sum due or a pending claim, cannot be an acknowledgement for a new additional claim for damages."
CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. PREETI Digitally signed by 39/70 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 In the light of the aforestated settled legal position and given the fact that there was no acknowledgment of the full amount claimed by the appellant, in terms of the requirement prescribed in Section 18 of the Act of 1963, the question of extending the period of limitation for the entire suit claim of the appellant did not arise."
54. It is well established binding law that acknowledgment under Section 18 of Limitation Act, is not a tool to revive time-barred debts wholesale; rather, it revives limitation only to the extent of the liability that the debtor admits in writing. It cannot breathe life into the plaintiff's earlier, time-barred invoices from 2012, which stand independently outside the prescribed limitation period. In the facts of the present case, considering the invoice dated 21.07.2012, there was no acknowledgment of the full amount claimed by the plaintiff, in terms of the requirement prescribed in Section 18 of the Act of 1963 and therefore, the question of extending the period of limitation for the entire claim of the plaintiff qua invoice dated 21.07.2012 cannot be sustained, as barred by limitation beyond the acknowledged liability.
55. It may be now relevant to consider Section 19 of Limitation Act, 1963, which stipulates that "Where payment on account of a debt or.... is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or...., a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment is made." The proviso thereto specifically provides that such an acknowledgment of payment must be in the handwriting of or by the person, making the payment.
CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 40/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025
56. It may now be relevant to consider the contentions raised by the plaintiff placing reliance on the pronouncement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 'M/s Krishna Life Styles Technologies Limited Vs. Mr. Kawaljeet Singh' ; 2017 239 DLT 525, wherein it was held that:-
"..the captioned cheque issued by the respondent/defendant in favor of the appellant plaintiff will have to be treated as an acknowledgement of liability for payment, irrespective of the fact that on being presented, the same was dishonored and the limitation for instituting the suit would stand extended by computing the period from the date of issuance of such a cheque. That the cheque issued by the respondent/defendant had bounced, will not work to the disadvantage of the appellant/plaintiff since it was duly accepted and it remains an effective mode of payment for purpose of applying section 19 of the Limitation Act, observed that:-
"in partial discharge of his obligations, the respondent/defendant had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in favor of the appellant/plaintiff on 19.9.2005, which was duly received and banked by the appellant/plaintiff but was dishonoured on being presented....., that being the position, it is evident that the appellant/plaintiff would get the advantage of extension of the period of limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963."
57. After considering the documents and evidence on record, it is duly proved by corroborated testimony of the bank witness PW3 and the ledger relied upon by the plaintiff Ex.PW1/5 that the second tranche of delivery was made over by the plaintiff to the defendant against an independent order placed vide invoice dated 21.07.2012 for goods for a sum of Rs.9,40,317/-(including applicable Digitally CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. PREETIsigned by 41/70 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 GST) for which, a sum of Rs.4 Lakhs was partly paid by the defendant as on 31.12.2012. Thereafter, during the period of subsisting limitation of three years for claiming recovery against the unpaid invoice dated 21.07.2012, to be computed w.e.f. the last payment of Rs.4 Lakh as on 31.12.2012, it is proved on record that a cheque bearing no.1325 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- was issued by the defendant, presented by the plaintiff in its account on 25.02.2015 and remained unpaid due to 'insufficient funds'. The entry vide ledger Ex.PW1/5 in respect of the cheque of Rs.50,000/- presented on 25.02.2015 is well within limitation, when computed from the last admitted part payment against the invoice 21.07.2012. Accordingly, the period of limitation is to be computed w.e.f. 25.02.2015 in terms of Section 19 of the Limitation Act. However, as per well settled law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M/s Krishna Life Styles Technologies Limited case (Supra), relied upon on behalf of the plaintiff, the bouncing of the cheque on presentation shall be considered 'an acknowledgment' for the purposes of taking advantage of extension of period of limitation U/S 18 of Limitation Act, 1963.
58. As already considered, by way of well settled and binding pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Airen and Associates case (Supra), the requirement prescribed U/S 18 of the Limitation Act 1963, contemplates the extension of period of limitation, only to the extent of 'acknowledgment of a present subsisting liability'. It is well settled law that an acknowledgment of a time barred liability cannot be deemed as legal acknowledgment for Digitally CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.PREETIsigned by 42/70 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 sustaining a recovery claim before the Court. Accordingly, the reliance placed by the plaintiff in respect of subsequent payment made by the defendant for a sum of Rs.50,000/- which was duly received in the account of the plaintiff on 20.09.2016 and another payment of the like amount made over by defendant to the plaintiff on 26.07.2017, vide cheque dated 24.07.2017, which was duly encashed in the account of the plaintiff, as per entries vide Ex.PW1/5, shall be the payments made by defendant against time-barred liability against the second invoice dated 21.07.2012, being beyond the period of three years from the date of part payment by the defendant on 31.12.2012 against invoice dated 21.07.2012. It may not be out of place to consider that any other interpretation of acknowledgment of liability by way of a cheque of Rs.50,000/- dishonoured on 25.02.2015 would have the meaning and purpose of extending the limitation for a period of three years for recovery of Rs.50,000/- w.e.f. 25.02.2015, in terms of the Limitation Act and well binding principles laid down by Hon'ble Superior Courts. It is not the case of the defendant at any point of time that the payment of Rs.50,000/- made on 20.09.2016 and for another sum of Rs.50,000/- made by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 26.07.2017 was on account of discharge of any liability that was extended vide dishonoured cheque dated 25.02.2015. If such was the defence, there was no explanation tendered to the payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- twice on 20.09.2016 and again 26.07.2017, in respect of the outstanding recoverable liability of Rs.50,000/- that stood acknowledged by way of cheque presented and bounced on 25.02.2015.(Reliance placed on M/s Krishna Life Styles Technologies Limited case (Supra)). It may not CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 43/70 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 be out of place to consider that the law does not preclude any debtor to make over payments of time barred liability, though, same does not have the effect of extending the limitation of a time barred liability (Reliance placed on J.C. Budhraja case (Supra)
59. Court shall now consider the relevance of two dishonoured cheques one by one. The first dishonoured cheque duly proved by corroborated bank witness PW3 and the proved ledger by the plaintiff vide Ex.PW1/5, shows the presentation of a cheque bearing no.1325, for a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 25.02.2015 and proved that the same got returned and bounced due to 'insufficient funds'. It has been considered that this extent of part liability of Rs.50,000/- shall be deemed as acknowledgment, in terms of Section 19 of the Limitation Act and shall have the effect of extension of limitation as per Section 18 of Limitation Act, to the tune of a sum of Rs.50,000/- only. The present suit has been filed before the Court on 18.07.2018, clearly beyond the period of available limitation of three years from the acknowledged liability, that is beyond the period of three years from 25.02.2015 and accordingly, suit of the plaintiff cannot be sustained and is barred by law of limitation, from the date of acknowledgment of liability of Rs.50,000/- towards part discharge of outstanding liability in respect of invoice dated 21.07.2012.
60. Now considering the second bounced cheque of sum of Rs.50,000/- vide cheque bearing no.003192 presented in the account of the plaintiff on 11.09.2017 and returned unpaid on 12.09.2017. In this respect, clearly the presentation of the cheque on 11.09.2017 by CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 44/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 the plaintiff in its account, is beyond the period of three years when computed from the last successful payment made by the defendant against the second invoice, for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs as on 31.12.2012 shown in Ex.PW1/5. There is no case before the court, even asserted on behalf of the plaintiff, that this cheque bearing no.003192 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- was issued by the defendant in lieu of the dishonoured cheque of like amount which was presented on 25.02.2015, to consider any extension of further limitation for the amount of Rs.50,000/-. This fact is further fortified from record as per the case of the plaintiff itself vide Ex.PW1/5, where two payments of Rs.50,000/- were already credited in his account against over standing dues by way of credit entries on 20.09.2016 and 26.07.2017.
61. In view of the facts, reasons and discussions herein- above, in respect of the consideration of the filing of the suit of the plaintiff qua invoice dated 21.07.2012, same is clearly barred by operation of law of limitation and cannot be sustained and allowed, in the eyes of law.
LIMITATION IN RESPECT OF THIRD INVOICE DATED 10.08.2017.
62. The aspect of Limitation is not the subject matter of contention in respect of the invoice dated 10.08.2017 for sum of Rs.1,71,312/- for which a separate ledger/statement of account of the plaintiff vide Ex.PW1/6 has been tendered and proved. The suit of the plaintiff is clearly within limitation for the purpose of the third CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 45/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 invoice dated 10.08.2017 and shall be considered on merits, herein- after.
63. Issue of Limitation is accordingly decided, partly in favour of the plaintiff for maintainability of the suit of the plaintiff, seeking recovery in respect of invoice dated 10.08.2017, by which the delivery of goods is alleged to have been delivered to the defendant against the invoice for a sum of Rs.1,71,312/-, which cause of action is within limitation. Issue no.1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant qua second invoice dated 21.07.2021. Issue no.1 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant qua third invoice dated 10.08.2017.
Accordingly, issue no.1 is partly decided in favour of each of the parties.
ISSUE NO.2
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the Suit amount ? OPP.
64. As per case of the plaintiff, stated to be a duly registered company, present suit has been filed against the defendant company seeking recovery of Rs.6,11,629/- towards goods supplied, along with interest and costs. The suit was initially filed through Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, stated to be authorized by board resolution dated 28.03.2018, and later pursued through Director Mr. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, stated to be authorized by resolution dated CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 46/70 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 17.12.2019.
65. It is further case of the plaintiff that the defendant, earlier registered as Siby Mining Services Pvt. Ltd., later changed its name to Siby Mining and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and informed the plaintiff in July 2017. The plaintiff supplied wire ropes under various invoices, maintaining a running account of transactions. Against Invoice No. 324 dated 21.07.2012 for Rs.9,40,317/-, the defendant paid Rs.4,00,000/- on 31.12.2012, and later made part payments of Rs.50,000/- each on 20.09.2016, and 26.07.2017, leaving an outstanding of Rs.4,40,317/-. Another cheque bearing no.3192 of Rs.50,000/- was presented in the account of the plaintiff but dishonoured on 12.09.2017. In its case, plaintiff has relied upon a separate ledger in the name of the subsequently changed constitution of the defendant, as arrayed in the memo of parties, under the name and style of Siby Mining and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., tendered through its witness PW1 as Ex.PW1/6, in order to support its averments vide invoice no.ARR/17-18/0049 dated 10.08.2017 for sum of Rs.1,71,312/-, further goods were supplied to the defendant. A claim of Rs.6,11,629/- has been prayed, as stated outstanding principal, due and recoverable from the defendant, hence, this suit.
66. It is further case of the plaintiff that despite repeated requests, reminders, and a legal notice dated 05.06.2018 (served on 12.06.2018), the defendant failed to clear dues and also did not clear its dues till filing of the suit.. It is not the case of the plaintiff that any reply to the legal notice was issued by the defendant. The present CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 47/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 suit has been filed before this court with the averments that the goods were supplied to the defendant from Delhi, despatched at Delhi, asserting that in view of the legal precedent in 'Chemrow India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Lakhani Footcare Pvt. Ltd.' and 'Ashok Parshad vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.', CS (OS) No.2542/1997, decided on 13.09.2013, cause of action arose before this Court, hence, the suit filed here. Further reliance has also been placed on Section 39 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 with the assertions that the place of arriving at the contract between the parties, shall also be the appropriate place of cause of action, within Delhi jurisdiction.
67. The suit of the plaintiff is outrightly denied with several legal objections raised by the defendant, primarily pressed on the point of limitation to the suit amount. The other main defence raised on behalf of defendant during trial is with the allegation that the present suit has not been filed by duly authorised representative on behalf of the plaintiff, as per law. On merits, defendant has claimed to have made the entire payment towards the goods demanded and denied the claim of the plaintiff regarding delivery . The defendant denied the claims of the plaintiff regarding delivery, asserting that the alleged deliveries and invoices are based on false claims and bogus bills. The defendant has also denied placing orders, receiving goods, or being satisfied with any such transactions, as claimed by the plaintiff.
68. The defendant specifically denied that the plaintiff maintained a running account in respect of the dealings with the CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 48/70 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 defendant, outrightly challenging the two statement of accounts relied upon by the plaintiff. It is also denied that in July 2017, defendant informed the plaintiff about any change of name to M/s Siby Mining and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. It is vehemently denied that defendant placed any Order No. SMIPl/17-18/0001 Dt.21.07.2017 for Rs.1,71,312/- or issued two cheques for Rs.50,000 each, as part payment of any liability. However, it is not specifically denied that chequee no.003190 dated 24.07.2017 for Rs.50,000/- was duly encashed on presentation.
69. All the averments of the plaintiff related to post-cheque dishonour communication or that the plaintiff contacted them or that they apologized or promised payment via RTGS/NEFT, or that they ignored repeated requests or that they received any legal notice dated 05.06.2018, are vehemently denied, maintaining that defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. It has been specifically denied that the defendant placed any order upon the plaintiff on 21.07.2012 or received goods worth Rs.1,71,312/- as per third invoice dated 10.08.2017. Defendant has denied that it made any request to the plaintiff not to present cheque no.003193 for a sum of Rs.1,71,312/- in its account. The defendant has outrightly denied any liability towards claimed outstanding of Rs.4,40,317/- or for payment of Rs.1,71,312/- for goods allegedly supplied by the plaintiff. It is denied that plaintiff has any cause of action in their favour and against the defendant, praying for dismissal of the Suit of the plaintiff, with exemplary costs.
CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 49/70 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 LEGAL OBJECTION PERTAINING TO THE AUTHORITY OF AR/DIRECTOR OF THE PLAINTIFF COMPANY TO INSTITUTE/REPRESENT THE PLAINTIFF IN THE SUIT.
70. The plaintiff has examined four witnesses towards the endeavour to prove the issue in its favour. The evidence by way of affidavit of PW1 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, who is one of the Directors in plaintiff company, has been tendered as Ex.PW1/A, and the same was objected to by the defendant, on the point of valid authority and the board resolution in favour of the deposing witness, during his cross examination. During arguments on behalf of the defendant, it is contended that Ex. PW-1/A was not in accordance with order XIX Rule 3, 5 and 6 CPC as the same was reproduction of the averments made in the plaint as the same are not properly verified. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in 'Inder Pal Dua vs. M/s Yash Garg' 2002 (3) Civil Court Cases 437 with the submission that verification of affidavit when lacks essential requirements is valueless. It is argued that affidavit of evidence filed by PW1 as Ex.PW1/A does not carry any sanctity and cannot be accepted. Reliance also placed on 'Ranjit Construction Co. Ltd. vs. National Highway Authority of India' ; 107 (2003) DLT 249 and 'M/s Miraj Marketing Corporation vs. M/s Vishaka Engineering' ; 115 (2004) DLT 471.
71. On the same line of objection, it is the contention on behalf of defendant that the suit was initially filed by the plaintiff through its AR/ Sh. Prabhat Kumar Singh vide Board Resolution dated 28.03.2018 (Ex.PW-1/13) and subsequently, Sh. Mukesh Digitally CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI 50/70 GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 Kumar Gupta was substituted as AR of the plaintiff vide Board Resolution dated 17.12.2019 (Ex. PW-1/1). The Board Resolution was Exh.PW-1/1 and Exh. PW-1/13 were objected to by the defendant as the original minutes book were not produced. It is contended that Sh. Prabhat Kumar was neither authorized to institute the present suit nor authorized to sign, verify and file the present suit against the defendant herein, in accordance with provisions under Order III Rule 1, Order VI Rule 14 and Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC. It is strongly contended that neither Sh. Prabhat Kumar nor Sh. Mukesh kumar Gupta were duly authorized on behalf of plaintiff, as per law and hence, the present suit is liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on (1) 'NIBRO Limited Vs. National Insurance Company Limited', decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and (2) 'State Bank of Travancore Vs Kingston Computers India Pvt. Ltd.' decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
72. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has strongly opposed the objections raised by defendant on the aspect of the authorisation of the deposing witnesses or the AR of the plaintiff company, on the ground that frivolous and baseless contentions have been raised on behalf of defendant, in order to deflect the main issue in the suit, whereby the defendant has outstanding liability in favour of the plaintiff as per duly proved statement of account Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6, tendered and proved through its competent witness PW1 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, being Director of the plaintiff company. It is further contended that such objections have been raised by defendant to thwart the trial in the suit which is reflected by repeated CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 51/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 filing of frivolous applications U/O VII Rule 11 CPC, in order to make an effort to avoid the legal liability of the defendant towards the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has prayed for reference to the orders passed by this Court during the pendency of the suit vide orders dated 17.11.2021 by which, this court was pleased to dispose of another application U/O VII Rule 11 CPC filed on behalf of defendant, with specific observations that all the defects relied upon by defendant, are curable defects and the plaint cannot be rejected on these grounds. The application was dismissed and has attained finality since no revision was filed by defendant against the said orders of the court.
73. It is further contended by ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that in order to cure the frivolous objections taken by defendant, an application U/O XI Rule 14 CPC was filed on behalf of plaintiff which was duly dealt with by this court and was allowed. Vide orders dated 23.02.2024, granting permission to the plaintiff to lead another witness, for the purpose of curing the objections of lack of authority taken by defendant, while the testimony of PW1 was recorded. It is contended that this court, categorically observed that the interest of justice called for granting the opportunity to the plaintiff to prove its case on merits and ought to be granted adequate opportunity to cure a technical defects upon one of the plaintiff witness in regard to the authority through Company Resolution and accordingly, conditionally allowed the plaintiff to examine the witness to provide original minutes Books of the Board of Directors of the plaintiff company to ratify the board of resolution relied upon by the witness Digitally CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. PREETI signed by 52/70 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 PW1, during his testimony.
74. It is contended that pursuant to the permission granted by the Court plaintiff has examined Sh. Sachin Kumar as PW4 who has duly tendered the abstracts of board resolution dated 05.09.2024 and produced original minutes books of board of directors for the relevant financial years as Ex.PW4/3. It is further submitted for the plaintiff that the originals of board resolution dated 28.03.2018 already exhibited as Ex.PW1/13 through PW1 and another Board Resolution dated 17.12.2019, already exhibited by PW1 as Ex.PW1/1, were produced and tendered. It is submitted that the only cross-examination of PW4 was a bald suggestion that the board resolutions produced by PW4 were forged and fabricated without any material to support the bald suggestion and hence, the defects objected to during testimony of PW1, have been cured, as per law. It is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff for the claimed recovery, be considered on merits, as per law.
75. The Court has duly considered the objections recorded during the evidence on the aspect of authority and tendering the document pertaining to the Board Resolution, raised by the defendant. The legal position as submitted by the defendant has been appreciated. The Court has also given its considered view to the steps taken by plaintiff during the pendency of the suit to cure the technical defects raised by defendant and examination of its witness PW4, after seeking leave of the court, as per law.
Digitally CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. PREETI signed by 53/70 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025
76. It is well settled law that substantive justice emphasizes the real merits of a case over mere procedural formalities. Courts in India have consistently held that technical lapses or procedural defects should not deprive a party of its rights, especially when the defect is curable or does not prejudice the opposite party. It ensures that curable errors do not lead to dismissal of suits where the plaintiff's substantive rights are otherwise established. The Courts are duly empowered to examine whether the defect has caused actual prejudice and if the Court is of the finding that the defect is either curable or ignorable, the court should not take a hyper-technical view to uphold the interests of justice.
77. The Court has considered some judgments of the Hon'ble Superior courts to appreciate the guiding principles of law on this aspect. In 'Varun Pahwa vs Renu Chaudhary' ; decided on 1 March, 2019 ; (2019) 15 SCC 628. Hon'ble Apex Court held:-
8. The memo of parties is thus clearly inadvertent mistake on the part of the counsel who drafted the plaint. Such inadvertent mistake cannot be refused to be corrected when the mistake is apparent from the reading of the plaint. The rules of procedure are handmaid of justice and cannot defeat the substantive rights of the parties. It is well settled that amendment in the pleadings cannot be refused merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The court always gives leave to amend the pleadings even if a party is negligent or careless as the power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations.
Digitally CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. PREETI signed by 54/70 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025
78. This view of Hon'ble Apex Court fortifies the earlier legal position as laid down in 'Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh' ; (2006) 1 SCC 75, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that procedural defects and irregularities which are curable, should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice by any oppressive or punitive use. The Court held as under : -
"17. Non-compliance with any procedural requirement relating to a pleading, memorandum of appeal or application or petition for relief should not entail automatic dismissal or rejection, unless the relevant statute or rule so mandates. Procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure, a handmaiden to justice, should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive use. The well-recognised exceptions to this principle are:
(i) where the statute prescribing the procedure, also prescribes specifically the consequence of non-compliance;
(ii) where the procedural defect is not rectified, even after it is pointed out and due opportunity is given for rectifying it;(iii) where the non-compliance or violation is proved to be deliberate or mischievous;
(iv) where the rectification of defect would affect the case on merits or will affect the jurisdiction of the court;
(v) in case of memorandum of appeal, there is complete absence of authority and the appeal is presented without the knowledge, consent and authority of the appellant."
79. The long standing legal position affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore two judgments has withstood the test of time and it may be relevant to also refer to an earlier pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'United Bank of India v. Naresh CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 55/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 Kumar'; (1996) 6 SCC 660, wherein it was held : -
"9. In cases like the present where suits are instituted or defended on behalf of a public corporation, public interest should not be permitted to be defeated on a mere technicality. Procedural defects which do not go to the root of the matter should not be permitted to defeat a just cause. There is sufficient power in the Courts, under the Code of Civil Procedure, to ensure that injustice is not done to any party who has a just case. As far as possible a substantive right should not be allowed to be defeated on account of a procedural irregularity which is curable."
80. In the facts of the present case, the Court has already appreciated that during the progress of the trial, the legal objections taken during examination and cross-examination of PW1 as AR and one of the Directors of plaintiff company, in respect of his authority and resolution dated 17.12.2019 Ex.PW1/1, Board Resolution dated 28.03.2018 tendered as Ex.PW1/13, have been subsequently ratified and cured vide leading the testimony of PW4 Sh. Sachin Kumar, who has tendered all requisite documents pertaining to the authority in favour of the AR as well as Director of the plaintiff company and the testimony of PW4 remains unbreached. The Court has also considered the objection taken by the defendant upon the necessity of a particular format of verification in the affidavit and/as Statement of Truth has been raised as an afterthought and do not form part of the defence raised by the defendant during filing of its Written Statement. It is well settled principle of law that the rules of procedure are handmaids of justice and cannot defeat the substantive rights of the parties. Even otherwise, the objections pertaining to the production of Board of resolution supported by minutes of board Digitally CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.PREETI signed by 56/70 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 resolution, have been cured during the pendency of the trial by way of examination of PW4 and as such, all objections during cross- examination of PW1 on this aspect stand cured, as per law. There is no sustainable objection on this account raised by defendant that needs further consideration.
81. Now, for the purpose of addressing the objections raised on behalf of the defendant claiming defect in verification of the affidavit/Statement of Truth and the language of verification thereof, Court has considered the legal position under Civil litigation and also under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Section 15A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 reads as under:
"15A. Verification of pleadings in a commercial dispute.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 15, every pleading in a commercial dispute shall be verified by an affidavit in the manner and form prescribed in the Appendix to this Schedule.
(2) An affidavit under sub-rule (1) above shall be signed by the party or by one of the parties to the proceedings, or by any other person on behalf of such party or parties who is proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case and who is duly authorised by such party or parties.
(3) Where a pleading is amended, the amendments must be verified in the form and manner referred to in sub-rule (1) unless the Court orders otherwise.
(4) Where a pleading is not verified in the manner provided under sub-rule (1), the party shall not be permitted to rely on such pleading as evidence or any of the matters set out therein.
(5) The Court may strike out a pleading which is not verified by a Statement of Truth, namely, the affidavit set out in the Appendix to this Schedule."
Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. AGRAWAL PREETI 57/70 GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025
82. The statutory provision and strict non-compliance thereof has been duly considered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 'Raj Kumar Gupta Vs.Narang Constructions & Financiers Pvt. Ltd.'; 2023 SCC OnLine Del 40, wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to consider the legal position in this regard, as under:-
44. In the case of Kailash v. Nankhu, (2005) 4 SCC 480, the Supreme Court had observed that unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the provisions of CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in such a manner that would leave the Court helpless to meet the extraordinary situations in the ends of justice. Merely because a provision of law is couched in a negative language thereby giving it a mandatory character, the same would not become mandatory and that directions contained are only directory in nature and not mandatory, being procedural law.
45. This aspect came up for consideration in the case of Vidyawati Gupta v. Bhakti Hari Nayak, (2006) 2 SCC 777, wherein the Supreme Court after noting the celebrated decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2003) 1 SCC 49, the effect of the amendments introduced in the Code by the amending Act 46 of 1999 and 22 of 2002 were considered, reiterated the principle that rules or procedure are made to further the cause of justice and not to obstruct the same. It was held that a procedural enactment ought not to be considered in such a manner that it would prevent the Court from meeting the ends of justice in different situations. In regard to the amendments introduced by the Amendment Act 46 of 1999, it was observed that the intention of the legislature in bringing about the various amendments in the Code w.e.f. 01.07.2002 were aimed at eliminating the procedural delays in the disposal of civil matters. The amendments effected to Section 26, Order IV and Order VI Rule 15 have been geared to achieve such object, but being procedural in nature, they are directory in nature and non-compliance thereof would not automatically render the plaint non-est. To take such a stand would be too pedantic and would be contrary to the accepted principles involving interpretation of statues.
Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.AGRAWAL PREETI 58/70 GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025
49. The effect of non-attestation of the affidavit filed in respect of the plaint was considered in Alka Kasana v. Indian Institute of Technology, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11455, and it was held that Order VI CPC does not provide for or envisage any consequence for noncompliance of the provisions contained therein. The inevitable inference is that Order VI CPC is a provision that signifies the date on which a suit is deemed to have been instituted for purposes of limitation. The original side Rules of High Court of Delhi specifies the manner in which the plaint is required to be scrutinized and stipulates the timeline granted to the plaintiff to cure the defects/objections, if any, raised by the Registry at the time of scrutiny. The introduction of the Clause providing for an affidavit in respect of the pleadings by the Amendment Act of 1999 was only to hasten the process of disposal of a suit by fixing the responsibility on a party who initiates the suit. However, the said object and reason cannot be interpreted to hold that the plaint itself can be rejected mechanically without examining the merits of the case. It was thus, held that non- attestation of the accompanying affidavit was a mere irregularity that was capable of being cured and cannot be treated as fatal to the institution of the suit.
83. In the present case, the objections raised by defendant as to the technical language of the affidavit/Statement of Truth is considered in light of the well established principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Superior Courts in guiding this court that any defect in verification of Statement of Truth is for the sole intent and purpose for expediating the process of disposal of the suit by fixing the responsibility on a party, who initiates the suit. As per settled law, the object and reason for a structured pleading with appended affidavit is for purpose to streamlining the progress of trial and does not intend to lay down any consequence for non-compliance of the provision which are merely technical in nature. Any defect in the verification or the affidavit as such, is a mere irregularity, which cannot be treated as CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 59/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 fatal to the outcome of the suit or to make the plaintiff devoid of any relief, that may be deserving on merits of the case. Moreso, it is not the case before the court that the pleadings filed in the court are without the requisite Statement of Truth, as are necessitated by the mandate under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. A hyper technical interpretation of the language of verification of the affidavit, is beyond the intent of law, if the plaintiff is able to discharge the onus to prove its case, by cogent evidence.
84. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, the legal objections raised by the plaintiff upon improper verification or lack of authority of the representative of the plaintiff company, is devoid of merits and shall have no bearing on the outcome of merits of the case.
DETERMINATION OF ISSUE NO.2
85. The case of the plaintiff is based upon two Statement of Accounts which is ledger account Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6. As has been considered in determination of issue no.1, ledger Ex.PW1/5 is sated to be pertaining to transaction for first invoice dated 05.05.2012 and the second invoice dated 21.07.2012 in the name of the erstwhile defendant company namely M/s. Siby Mining Services Pvt. Ltd.. The Court has also considered the implications of law of limitation on the claim pertaining to second invoice dated 21.07.2012, wherein the part claim of the plaintiff to the extent of the claimed outstanding dues against the second invoice dated 21.07.2012, is time barred and thus, CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 60/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 cannot be claimed by the plaintiff, as per law, by way of present Suit.
86. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff supplied goods to the defendant, as per orders placed from time to time for which corresponding invoices Ex.PW1/2(Colly) were raised. On the basis of these invoices, two ledger accounts Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6, stated to be maintained by the plaintiff in regular course of business, have been relied upon through testimony of PW1. The defendant has strongly opposed to the authenticity of the invoices Ex.PW1/2 as well as denied outrightly any goods received pursuant to the said invoices. However, the defence raised on this aspect is weak as the denial of the defendant is also based on the assertions that the entire dues have been paid by the defendant for the goods supplied to the defendant by the plaintiff and also that the goods received by the defendant as per invoice dated 10.08.2017 for a sum of Rs.1,71,312/- were never received by the defendant, to the satisfaction of the defendant. The defendant has not explicitly placed any document during cross-examination of the plaintiff witnesses to show any protest or objection to the quality of the goods supplied by the plaintiff. It may not be out of place to consider that defendant did not avail its right to lead any evidence in defence to dislodge the case of the plaintiff and has contained its defence to the extent of cross- examination of the plaintiff witnesses.
87. PW1, as the prime plaintiff witness, has placed reliance upon goods receipts vide Ex.PW1/3 and C-Form issued by the defendant vide Ex.PW1/4. The original cheques issued by the CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 61/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 defendant in favour of plaintiff have been placed on record as Ex.PW1/7 and Ex.PW1/8 with return memo of cheque no.003192 as Ex.PW1/9. The other document tendered by PW1 pertaining to the issuance of legal notice, postal receipt and tracking report as office copy of notice U/O 12 Rule 8 CPC, which are objected during cross- examination. However, these are the documents which do not have material bearing on merits of the case which is largely based on the invoices and ledger account maintained by the plaintiff and denied by the defendant. During cross-examination, the suggestion came from defendant itself about the full and final payment against the first invoice/bill dated 05.05.2012. Interestingly, one confrontation in respect of cheque bearing no.1325 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- was confronted to PW1, which was not part of the pleadings of the plaintiff and PW1 categorically testified that the said cheque was returned unpaid on presentation. PW1 was further cross-examined regarding the change of nomenclature of the defendant in the year 2012-13 to which PW1 denied knowledge. A specific suggestion was put to PW1 regarding the claim of the plaintiff vide Ex.PW1/5 for outstanding amount of Rs.4,40,000/- as barred by limitation.
The defendant also tried to introduce the defence that three cheques of Rs.50,000/- each, were issued by defendant in lieu of the earlier cheque issued for Rs.1,71,312/-, which was never presented by the plaintiff in the bank account. PW1 denied that the same was not presented at request of the defendant or that the same was not presented owing to three alternative cheques of Rs.50,000/- given to the plaintiff. PW1 was also confronted with two successful CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 62/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 credits of Rs.50,000/- each, in the account of the plaintiff by way of a direct deposit dated 20.09.2016 and a duly encashed cheque on 26.07.2017 suggesting that the same was paid as part payment of Rs.1 Lakh against the time barred debt of Rs.5,40,000/-. After meticulous examination of the entire testimony of PW1, it has been duly proved that a second invoice dated 21.07.2012 and the third invoice dated 10.08.2017 was duly raised by the plaintiff and proved vide Ex.PW1/2 and also the ledger entries vide Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6 stand duly proved as per law. No entry in the entire ledger of Ex.PW1/5 and and Ex.PW1/6 that has been denied by the defendant or confronted to the witness PW1 as false and incorrect entry. On the contrary, attention of PW1 has been drawn to an additional entry of cheque no.1325 dated 25.02.2015 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- which was never averred in the Suit, though a supporting entry is found in the document filed alongwith the plaint vide ledger Ex.PW1/5. However, the cheque dated 25.02.2015 came during the defence cross-examination and has therefore, been duly considered in view of the admissions of the defendant that such a cheque was issued, while considering issue no.1, which has been separately adjudicated but not relevant for determination of this issue as it is the case of the plaintiff that sum of Rs.4,40,000/- remained outstanding and due from recoverable from the defendant as against the second invoice dated 21.07.2012. Vide determination upon the issue of limitation, the recovery pertaining to the second invoice dated 21.07.2012 has been held to be barred by limitation.
88. The Court has now considered ledger Ex.PW1/6, CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 63/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 wherein the invoice dated 10.08.2017 is duly proved as Ex.PW1/2 for an amount of Rs.1,71,312/- as unpaid outstanding and claimed against the defendant. During cross-examination of PW1, it is the case of defendant himself that a cheque of like amount was issued in favour of the plaintiff, though never presented with contradicting averments of each party regarding the non-presentation of the said cheque. Whereas the plaintiff submitted the non presentation of the cheque, at request of the defendant, the defence raised by the defendant is on account of payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- twice, in the account of the plaintiff as on 20.09.2016 and 26.07.2017 claiming that these payments were made against the invoice dated 10.08.2017 which is an imaginary and bald defence, as both the credits are well in advance as per Ex.PW1/5 and ante-dated from the invoice dated 10.08.2017. Moreover, as per the cross-examination conducted on behalf of defendant, the payments were stipulated from the defendant against each order placed and received by the defendant and there is nothing on record to show that the defendant made any advance payment for orders that were yet to be placed and received by defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff has successfully proved the invoice dated 10.08.2017 for a sum of Rs.1,71,312/-, as per purchase order, in favour of the defendant. The case of the plaintiff is duly fortified by the examination of PW2 who has been summoned as representative of the consignor/VRL LOGISTICS LTD. to prove the relevant GR as Ex.PW2/3 and Delivery cash receipt Ex.PW2/4 and the material cross-examination of this witness on the GR receipt as well as delivery cash receipt Ex.PW2/4 revolves around the authority and competence of the deposing witness and the two documents CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 64/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 tendered by the witness, are as such, not rebutted.
89. Third witness PW3 is a bank witness, in order to prove the statement of account of the plaintiff and the dishonoured cheque no.1325 deposited in the plaintiff's account on 25.02.2015 as Ex.PW3/2 (Colly) and Ex.PW3/3 respectively, with requisite certificate U/S 63 of BSA as Ex.PW3/4. The aspect of non- encashment of cheque of Rs.50,000/- deposited in the account of the plaintiff on 25.02.2015, which finds corresponding entry in Ex.PW1/5 and has been duly covered by defendant itself, during cross-examination of PW1 in regard to such issuance of cheque by the defendant. The date and amount of cheque has been considered as relevant to issue no.1.
90. The fourth and last witness PW4 namely Sh. Sachin Kumar, (accountant with plaintiff company) has been examined on record with leave of the court for curing the defect pertaining to authority and has already been discussed herein-above.
91. The plaintiff has been able to duly discharge this onus to prove the delivery of goods upon the defendant vide Ex.PW1/2. It has been duly proved on record, as per law that as regards the first invoice dated 05.05.2012 the payment was completely paid by the defendant as on 12.06.2012. As regards second invoice dated 21.07.2012, it is proved that defendant had an outstanding of Rs.5,40,000/- payable to the plaintiff after deposit of Rs.4 Lakh against the invoice as on 31.12.2012. Thereafter, two more payments CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Digitally 65/70 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 of Rs.50,000/- have been made over against the outstanding balance, on behalf of the defendant in favour of plaintiff, by way of bank deposit/credit on 20.09.2016 and 26.07.2017. It has been duly considered at length, while adjudicating issue no.1, which is not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity, whereby it has been considered that the law does not preclude a debtor to make payment against time barred liabilities and accordingly, it is established on record that a sum of Rs.4,40,000/- remained outstanding, due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff against second invoice dated 21.07.2012. However, as per the adjudication of Issue no.1, the claim of the plaintiff is time barred qua the outstanding recoverable sum of Rs.4,40,000/- against invoice dated 21.07.2012, which is proved on record. As per law, the plaintiff is not entitled to sustain the present Suit to press for recovery of time barred debt of Rs.4,40,000/- in its favour and against the defendant.
92. The Court has now taken up for consideration, ledger Ex.PW1/6 duly proved by plaintiff through its witness PW1 and the delivery of goods against the invoice duly proved by its witness PW2. It has been also successfully established on record, by way of cogent evidence led by plaintiff that a sum of Rs.1,71,312/- against invoice dated 10.08.2017 remained outstanding, payable and recoverable as against the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,71,312/- in its favour and against the defendant, as legally entitled recoverable right.
ISSUE NO.3.
Digitally CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. PREETI signed by 66/70 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest on the suit amount? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
93. The plaintiff has claimed a pendente-lite and future interest @ 18 % per annum from the date of filing of suit till its realization. The defendant has strongly contested any entitlement of interest of the plaintiff with the arguments that the ledger account relied upon by the plaintiff Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6 in itself sufficient to show that there was no accrued interest stipulated between the parties for any delay in payment by the defendant against orders supplied by the plaintiff. It is prayed that plaintiff is not entitled for grant of any interest, whatsoever, on the decretal amount, since filing of the Suit.
94. As per facts of the case and the adjudication on the former issues, plaintiff has been held entitled for recovery of outstanding principal against the third invoice dated 10.08.2017 for an amount of Rs.1,71,312/-. It is the case assailed on behalf of plaintiff that there was a stipulation of 18% interest p.a., if the bills are not paid within a period of 15 days. It is considered that the suit of the plaintiff has been found within limitation only qua invoice dated 10.08.2017 tendered on record as the third document in the collectively exhibited document Ex.PW1/2, which has been proved on record, as per law. Interestingly, the invoice dated 10.08.2017 does not stipulate any interest for the delayed payment with the specific noting of accrual of interest upon indefinite days by Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. AGRAWAL PREETI 67/70 GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 incorporating the condition "N/A days". However, as per the prevalent settled practice, in a suit for recovery, interest is generally rewarded pendentelite, if the entitlement of the plaintiff is duly proved. Considering that there was no agreement between the parties relating to grant of interest for delayed payment, in the absence of any agreement or contract, the provisions of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure dealing with 'interest' would come into play, and the same is extracted below, for ready reference:
"34. Interest.--(1) Where and insofar as a decree is for the payment of money, the court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent per annum as the court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the court thinks fit.
Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions.
(2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit therefor shall not lie."
95. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'I. K. Merchants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.' ; Civil Appeal No.4560-4563 of 2025, vide orders dated 01.04.2025, has been pleased to appreciate as to what would be the grant of Digitally CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. PREETI signed by68/70 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 appropriate rate of interest in Civil Suit and was pleased to hold as under:-
"16. Be it noted, while the discretion to award interest, whether pendente lite or post-decree, is well recognized, its exercise must be guided by equitable considerations. The rate and period of interest cannot be applied mechanically or at an unreasonably high rate without any rationale. Though it is not possible to arrive at the actual value of improvement or the inflation on the fair consideration, if paid at the relevant point of time, it is just and necessary that the rate of interest must be a reparation for the appellant. The Court must ensure that while the claimant is fairly compensated, the award does not become punitive or unduly burdensome on the Judgement Debtor. Therefore, the rate of interest should be determined in a manner that balances both fairness and financial impact, taking into account the "loss of use" principle and economic prudence, in the specific facts of each case."
96. In the facts of the present case, considering that a just and appropriate award of simple interest would be fair and proper to compensate the delay in paying the outstanding amount at the ends of the defendant, plaintiff is held entitled to recover an interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing the suit, till the date of its realisation.
The issue is adjudicated, accordingly.
ISSUE NO.4.
4. Relief.
97. Keeping in view the above findings, suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, for a sum of Rs.1,71,312/- alongwith interest @7% per annum, from the date of filing of the suit, till its realisation.
PREETI AGRAWAL CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. GUPTA 69/70 Digitally signed by PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025
98. The costs payable to the plaintiff are assessed @Rs.20,000/- lumpsum, payable by the defendant and the assessment shall form part of Decree.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room, after due completion.
Announced in the open Court today on this 28th day of August, 2025. PREETI Digitally signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025 CS (Comm.) No.346/2022/18 Asahi Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siby Mining & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 70/70 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
28.08.2025