Delhi District Court
Times Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs Bakshi Enterprise on 24 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01,
NORTH WEST, ROHINI, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) No. 739/2022
CNR NO.DLNW010093672022
Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Having Address at:
Shop No. 03, First Floor,
Pocket C8/1, Sector - 7,
Rohini, Delhi - 110085
Through its Director / Authorised Representative,
Sh. Virender,
S/o Late Shish Ram,
R/o 603, Swarn Apartments,
Madhuban Chowk, Pitampura,
Delhi - 110034
...Plaintiff
Versus
1. Bakshi Enterprises,
Having its address at:
Bakshi Petrol Pump,
Sector - 1, Rohini, Delhi
Through its partners namely
2. Ms. Piya,
R/o 262, Sector - 37,
Noida, Uttar Pradesh,
Mob: 9810588873
3. Ms. Rashmi,
Bakshi Enterprises,
Having Address at:
Bakshi Petrol Pump,
Sector - 1, Rohini, Delhi ...Defendants
CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise
1/41
Digitally signed
by DEVENDER
DEVENDER KUMAR
KUMAR JANGALA
JANGALA Date:
2025.12.24
15:57:29 +0530
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.50,00,000/- ALONGWITH
PENDENTELITE & FUTURE INTEREST @ 18% P.A. TILL ITS
REALISATION.
Date of institution of Suit : 15.09.2022
Date of Assignment to this court : 16.09.2022
Date of hearing of final argument : 11.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 18.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, I shall adjudicate upon the Suit of the plaintiff for recovery of ₹50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) along with interest @ 18% per annum, pendente lite and future, from the date of filing of the suit till its realisation, along with costs of the suit.
BRIEF FACTS 2.1 The facts of the case in brief as per plaint are that the plaintiff, Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., is a company, (hereinafter being referred to as the 'Plaintiff Company') duly incorporated under the Companies Act and has instituted the present suit through its Director and authorized representative, Sh. Virender.
2.2 It is stated that during business dealings, the plaintiff's Director had come into contact with one Raj Kumar Sharma, manager of Bakshi Petrol Pump, Mangolpuri. The plaintiff was introduced to defendant no. 2, Piya Bakshi, and defendant no. 3, Rashmi Bakshi, along with their mother, late Ms. Usha Bakshi through said Raj Kumar Sharma. They represented themselves as owners/partners of defendant no. 1. The CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 2/41 Defendant Company claimed ownership of three petrol pumps at Rohini- Mangolpuri (Sector-01), Wazirpur and Laxmi Nagar.
2.3 It is stated that the defendants no. 2 and 3, along with late Ms. Usha Bakshi, visited the residence of the plaintiff's Director at 603, Swarn Apartments, Madhuban Chowk, Pitampura, Delhi-110034, and offered to sell 50% share in the Rohini-Mangolpuri petrol pump. That initially, the plaintiff was not inclined to invest, but upon persistent proposals from defendant no. 2, the plaintiff agreed to purchase 50% stake for a total consideration of ₹50,00,000/-.
2.4 It is stated that in November 2019, the plaintiff transferred the full consideration to the account of defendant no. 1 in the following manner:
Bank Account No. Transaction ID Amount (in Rs.) Date Name RTGS/SK/ 919020078033741 UTIBR5201911 25,00,000 29.11.2019 Axis Bank 2900361117 RTGS/SK/ 912020024339568 UTIBR5201911 15,00,000 29.11.2019 Axis Bank 2900361081 RTGS/ Union 163611100005312 ANDBR520191 10,00,000 30.11.2019 Bank 13000209203 CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 3/41 2.5 It is stated that as per the understanding, defendants no. 2 and 3 further assured that the plaintiff would be inducted as partner in two other petrol pumps at Wazirpur and Laxmi Nagar on the same investment terms, after observing the returns from the first venture. That despite receipt of the entire consideration, the defendants have failed to induct the plaintiff as a partner or execute a partnership deed. They attributed delays from April 2020 onwards due to the COVID-19 pandemic and alleged requirement of prior sanctions from the Petroleum Department/Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and also citing the ill-health of Ms. Usha Bakshi.
2.6 It is stated that the plaintiff demanded them to either transfer of 50% stake or refund of the amount with interest. That in September/October 2021, to reassure the plaintiff, defendants no. 2 and 3 handed over two undated cheques having no. 000654 and 000656 of ₹25,00,000/- each, drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, purportedly signed by late Ms. Usha Bakshi, in the presence of one Rajesh Solanki in favour of the Plaintiff Company. The defendants stated the cheques would be honoured if the partnership was not formalised.
2.7 It is stated that having invested a substantial amount, the plaintiff refrained from initiating legal proceedings at that stage, relying on these assurances. However, despite repeated requests, the defendants neither inducted the plaintiff as partner nor returned the amount. That in April 2022, when the plaintiff's Director visited the petrol pump to seek updates, he found other persons claiming purchase of stake in the same petrol pump. It is stated that on enquiry, the plaintiff learnt that Ms. Usha CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 4/41 Bakshi had expired in May 2021, prior to the alleged issuance of the cheques, rendering them invalid.
2.8 It is stated that the defendants never initiated any process to induct the plaintiff as partner, misappropriated the amount, and issued cheques knowing they bear the signatures of a deceased person.
2.9 It is stated that being aggrieved, the plaintiff lodged a written complaint on 29.04.2022 with Police Station Rani Bagh. That despite repeated attempts to contact them, the defendants evaded communication and refused to repay. The plaintiff asserts that from the inception, the defendants acted with intent to cheat, inducing the plaintiff to part with ₹50,00,000/- on false assurances, and are liable to repay the same with interest @ 18% p.a. from 01.12.2019 till realization.
2.10 It is stated that the cause of action arose upon transfer of funds in November 2019, upon each refusal to induct the plaintiff as partner or refund the amount, on issuance of the cheques in September/October 2021, on discovery of sale to third parties in April 2022, and upon filing of the police complaint on 29.04.2022, and continues to subsist.
2.11 It is stated that the parties reside and carry on business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The dispute is stated to be a "commercial dispute" under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The suit is valued at ₹50,00,000/- for the purposes of jurisdiction and court fee and is within limitation.
CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 5/41 2.12. Vide order dated 22.09.2022 the summons of the suit were issued to the defendants. The defendants on being served with the summons, put the appearance and filed written statement.
WRITTEN STATEMENT 3.1 In the written statement all the contentions raised in the suit of the plaintiff has been out-rightly denied on merits. The defendants have raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the suit. It is stated that the suit is false, frivolous, devoid of cause of action, filed with the intention to harass the defendants, and is liable to be dismissed. That the plaint is based on a concocted story and suppresses material facts, and therefore liable to be dismissed with costs. The defendants have also raised a specific preliminary objection that the suit is not maintainable under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as the dispute does not qualify as a "commercial dispute" under Section 2(1)(c)(i). That the plaintiff's claim is based only on an oral understanding regarding induction as a 50% partner in defendant no.1 firm, without execution of any mercantile document, written agreement, or partnership deed. Since no formal mercantile document exists, the alleged transaction falls outside the definition of a commercial dispute, and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. It is stated that the present suit suffers from misjoinder of parties as the defendant no.3 has been wrongly impleaded, as after the death of Late Ms. Usha Bakshi on 18.05.2021 and the subsequent retirement of defendant no.3 on 25.04.2022, the partnership firm M/s Bakshi Enterprises (defendant no.1) stood dissolved on 28.05.2022 by virtue of a registered Dissolution Deed (Registration No. 861, Book No. 4, Vol. No. 2,267, pages 113 to 118, Sub-Registrar-
CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 6/41 VI, Delhi). Upon such dissolution, M/s Bakshi Enterprises became the proprietorship concern of defendant no. 2 alone, and defendant no.3 has no connection with the firm or with the present dispute. That the suit, based on security cheques, is not maintainable. That the cheques were never presented during the lifetime of the drawer, Late Ms. Usha Bakshi, and became invalid upon her death. That the defendants are not the authors of the cheques, and liability, if any, can only arise against the signatory, not against her heirs. Further, there is nothing to show that the cheques were issued towards any payment for sale of 50% shares of Bakshi Petrol Pump.
3.2 It is asserted that the plaintiff has concocted a false and frivolous story regarding the alleged sale of 50% share of M/s Bakshi Enterprises after the death of Late Smt. Usha Bakshi, and no such transaction ever took place during her lifetime. The defendants emphasized that the entire case of the plaintiff is based on fabricated documents and imaginary facts, with the ulterior motive of creating pressure upon the defendants. It is further averred that the plaintiff has deliberately suppressed material facts, distorted the real business dealings, and has sought to misuse the legal process by instituting the present false suit.
3.3 It is stated that that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has concealed the true nature of the transaction. It is stated that in 1993, Brig. K.L. Bakshi was granted dealership by IOCL (Letter of Intent dated 17.08.1993) for running the petrol pump at Sector-1, Rohini, Mangolpuri, Delhi, as sole proprietor under the name CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 7/41 M/s Bakshi Enterprises. That IOCL is the actual owner/lessee of the land, structures, and equipment, and that the dealer has only a limited right under the dealership agreement to operate the pump for storing and selling IOCL products, without acquiring any ownership rights in the premises or outfit.
3.4 It is stated that initially Brig. K.L. Bakshi, finding it difficult to run the retail oil business alone, formed a partnership on 23.11.1994 with Mrs. Usha Bakshi, Mrs. Rashmi B. Nayar, and Ms. Piya Bakshi, and thereafter a fresh dealership agreement was executed on 12.12.1994 with IOCL. That after the death of Brig. K.L. Bakshi, the business continued under a fresh partnership deed dated 01.04.1999 between Mrs. Usha Bakshi (80% share), Mrs. Rashmi B. Nayar (10% share), and Ms. Piya Bakshi (10% share), and another dealership agreement was executed on 10.12.1998 with IOCL. Subsequently, upon the death of Mrs. Usha Bakshi on 18.05.2021 and retirement of defendant no.3 on 25.04.2022, the partnership firm M/s Bakshi Enterprises (defendant no.1) stood dissolved on 28.05.2022 vide registered Dissolution Deed. Thereafter, the firm became the sole proprietorship concern of defendant no.2, Ms. Piya Bakshi.
3.5 Any transaction regarding the alleged sale of 50% shares of Bakshi Petrol Pump, Sector-1, Rohini, Mangolpuri, Delhi, to the plaintiff is denied. It is stated that in reality, the plaintiff only had business dealings with late Mrs. Usha Bakshi, wherein he used to purchase petroleum products on advance payment for resale in the market at a profit. That for security purposes and in accordance with market practice, CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 8/41 two undated blank cheques were taken by the plaintiff from late Mrs. Usha Bakshi. The plaintiff never presented these cheques for encashment, which clearly shows that they were without consideration and not issued towards discharge of any legally enforceable debt, as falsely alleged.
3.6 It is stated that the plaintiff had merely purchased petroleum products worth ₹50,00,000/- from late Mrs. Usha Bakshi between December 2019 and February 2020, making advance payments directly into the account of defendant no.1 through bank transactions. That the plaintiff was fully aware that during her lifetime, it was only late Mrs. Usha Bakshi who managed the business of the firm and that his dealings were exclusively with her. However, seeking to take undue advantage of her death, the plaintiff has concocted a false story of sale of 50% shares of Bakshi Petrol Pump and filed the present frivolous suit in an attempt to illegally enrich himself. It is stated that the plaintiff's claim is false, imaginary, baseless, and liable to be dismissed.
4. No replication has been filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of the defendants.
5. On completion of pleadings, following issues were framed, to be adjudicated upon by the Court:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-from the defendant with respect to the consideration of becoming 50% partner in the Petrol Pump run by the defendant?
OPP CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 9/41
2. Whether the present suit is barred under the Provisions of Commercial Courts Act, as the present dispute does not fall within the definition of Commercial Dispute? OPD
3. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties for impleading defendant no. 3? OPD (3)
4. Whether the security cheque issued by the deceased Usha Bakshi not presented during life time of the drawer? OPD
5. Relief.
EVIDENCE IN THE MATTER:
6. In exercise of power u/o. XV A Rule 6 (o) and (p) CPC, Court appointed Local Commissioner namely Mr. P. C. Ranga, Ld. Retd. Additional District Judge, who has been pleased to record the evidence in this matter.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE:
7.1 The Plaintiff in support of its case, got examined its authorized representative Sh. Virender, as PW1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at Point A and Point B. PW - 1 has exhibited documents Ex. PW-1/2 and Ex. PW-1/3 at the time of evidence, but he could not explain why the same were not filed along with the plaint. By way of affidavit of chief- examination, the PW-1 has deposed as per the averments in the plaint and has relied upon following documents:-
S. No. Documents Exhibited as 1 Board resolution dated 05.07.2022. Ex. PW1/1 2 Minutes of the meeting of board of Ex.PW-1/2 CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 10/41 director dated 05.07.2022. (Colly.) 3 Letter of authorization Ex.PW-1/3 Certified copies of the bank account Ex.PW-1/4 4 statement. (Colly.) The original cheque no. 000654 and 5 Ex. PW1/5 000656.
Ex. PW1/6 (OSR) 6 Copy of complaint.
(Colly.).
Incorporation certificate of the plaintiff company i.e. Times Infrastructures Pvt. Ex. PW1/7 7 Ltd. alongwith Memorandum and Article (Colly.) of association of plaintiff.
7.2 PW1 namely Sh. Virender, has been cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant, at length. During the course of cross- examination, PW-1 stated that he is a graduate and conversant with English. He deposed that his affidavit Ex. PW-1/A had been prepared by his counsel, the contents thereof were known to him, and that he had signed the same in the presence of the Oath Commissioner. He admitted that documents Ex. PW-1/2 and Ex. PW-1/3 were available with him at the time of filing of the suit, but he could not explain why the same were not filed along with the plaint. He denied the suggestion that said documents had been manufactured after observations of the Court while deciding his application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC. He further stated that the plaintiff company had been incorporated in the year 2006, though he had not filed the certificate of incorporation or memorandum and articles of association of the plaintiff company on record. He also admitted that the plaintiff company is engaged in the business of real estate. He deposed that one Raj Kumar Sharma, Manager of the defendant company, had been introduced to him by Rajesh Solanki, who was known to him since around 2017-2018. According to him, Raj CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 11/41 Kumar Sharma introduced him to Usha Bakshi, Piya and Rashmi in September/October 2019 at his residence situated at Swarn Apartment, Pitampura, Delhi.
7.3. On further cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that generally, entry of outsiders into his residential society is recorded in the visitors' register maintained at the gate. However, he clarified that if the person to be met is already standing near the gate, then such entry is not required. He further stated that he did not recollect the exact date when the defendants and their mother had visited his residence. He also deposed that in the year 2019 there was no CCTV camera installed at the society gate and conceded that he had not filed the visitors' register of the society on record.
7.4. PW-1 denied the suggestion that defendant nos. 2 and 3, along with their mother Late Smt. Usha Bakshi, had never visited his residence, or that they had never met him or that they were not known to him. He also denied the suggestion that defendant nos. 2 and 3, along with their mother, had never disclosed to him that defendant no. 1, the Defendant Company, owned three petrol pumps in Delhi, including one at Mangolpuri and two others at Wazirpur and Laxmi Nagar.
7.5. PW-1 admitted that he had not personally verified whether Bakshi Enterprises owned three petrol pumps at Mangolpuri, Wazirpur and Laxmi Nagar, though he stated that he knew about the existence of one petrol pump at Mangolpuri. He further deposed that, as per his knowledge, Bakshi Enterprises had a petrol pump at Mangolpuri CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 12/41 but he could not say definitely about the other two locations. He added that the defendants themselves had informed him about ownership of petrol pumps at Wazirpur and Laxmi Nagar, but he conceded that he had not personally verified the same. When confronted with para 2 of his affidavit, wherein he had stated that one Rajesh Solanki acted as a middleman between the plaintiff and defendants, he stated that the said aspect was a matter of record and did not directly answer whether this fact had been mentioned in the plaint.
7.6. PW-1 denied the suggestion that the fact regarding Rajesh Solanki acting as a middleman had not been mentioned in the plaint. He admitted, however, that the plaintiff company had paid a sum of ₹50,00,000/- to defendant no.1 without there being any written agreement or partnership deed. He candidly stated that he could not produce any document evidencing the alleged negotiations for sale of 50% shares of Bakshi Petrol Pump as the negotiations were carried out only verbally. He denied the suggestion that defendant nos. 2 and 3 along with Late Smt. Usha Bakshi had never approached him with an offer to sell 50% shares of the petrol pump or that there was never any such transaction. He further denied the suggestion that the story of sale of 50% shares of Bakshi Petrol Pump was false and concocted. He admitted that the plaintiff company had business relations with Late Usha Bakshi but denied the suggestion that he used to purchase petroleum products from her from time to time for resale to his contacts in the market. He also denied the further suggestion that such business was conducted on advance payment basis.
CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 13/41 7.7. PW-1 admitted that two cheques had been handed over to him, which were duly filled in but undated, and that the same were given in the year 2021 towards repayment of the advance allegedly paid by him in 2019. He also admitted that he had never presented the said cheques for encashment. He denied the suggestion that the cheques were merely undated security cheques without consideration and not issued towards discharge of any legally enforceable debt. He further denied the suggestion that he had purchased petroleum products for a sum of ₹50 lakhs from Late Smt. Usha Bakshi between December 2019 and February 2020 against credit memos and had made advance payments accordingly in the account of defendant no.1.
7.8. He admitted that he had not written any letter or email to the defendants requesting transfer of 50% shares of Bakshi Petrol Pump after making payment of ₹50 lakhs, explaining that such requests had been made verbally and telephonically. He denied the suggestion that he had dealings only with Late Usha Bakshi, was aware that she was managing the business during her lifetime, and had filed the present suit to take advantage of her death by concocting a false story of sale of shares. He stated that he did not know whether a duly executed partnership deed was required for sanction of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. to induct a new partner in the petrol pump. He admitted that no partnership deed was ever executed between him and the defendants.
7.9. PW-1 further stated that he did not remember the exact place or date when the said cheques (Ex.PW-1/5) were handed over to him. He, however, deposed that at the time of handing over of the CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 14/41 cheques, Piya and Raj Kumar Sharma were present, and upon further recollection, added that Rajesh Solanki was also present, who was known to him for a long time and had called him there. He denied the suggestion that Rajesh Solanki was planted by him to support a false case. He admitted that in his plaint he had alleged that the cheques were handed over after the demise of Usha Bakshi, but volunteered that he was not aware of her death at that time. He denied the suggestion that he had misused the cheques for filing the present suit, though conceded that he could not produce any document to show that the two cheques had been issued towards discharge of payment for sale of 50% shares of Bakshi Petrol Pump.
7.10. He stated that he did not know if, after the death of Usha Bakshi and retirement of defendant no.3, the partnership stood dissolved, or if Bakshi Enterprises had become a proprietorship concern of defendant no.2. He denied the suggestion that defendant no.3 had nothing to do with the present suit, or that the suit had been wrongly filed against a dissolved partnership firm. He admitted having filed a written complaint Ex.PW-1/6 against the defendants at PS Rani Bagh, Delhi, but also admitted that no FIR was registered pursuant to the same. He denied the suggestion that upon preliminary inquiry the police had found no truth in his complaint. He further denied the suggestion that his claim of ₹50 lakhs along with interest @18% per annum was false, imaginary and without basis.
7.11. On further cross-examination dated 22.10.2024, PW-1 filed on record the certificate of incorporation of the Plaintiff company, CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 15/41 along with its Memorandum and Articles of Association, which were exhibited as Ex.PW-1/7 (Colly.).
7.12. He admitted that as per Ex.PW-1/7, the main objective of the company was real estate business, though he volunteered that there were many other objects/articles authorizing the company to undertake different types of business, which also stand recorded in Ex.PW-1/7.
7.13. PW-2, Sh. Ranbir Kumar, Junior Assistant from the Department of Trade & Taxes, Government of NCT of Delhi, was summoned to produce the record. PW-2 has produced on record the following document:
Sl No. Documents Exhibited as
Cheque nos. 000654 and 000656 issued from
1 account no. 09981100000238 standing in the Ex. PW 2/1
name of defendant no.1
7.14 He deposed that the said account was opened on
11.05.2020. He admitted that cheque nos. 000654 and 000656 were never presented for encashment and that the cheque book had been issued after the opening of the bank account on 11.05.2020.
7.15. PW-3, Sh. Gaurav Sagar, Manager (Retail Sales), Delhi-7 RSA, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. has proved his authority letter as Ex.PW-3/1. PW-3 has produced on record the following documents:
Sl No. Documents Exhibited as 1 Authority letter Ex. PW 3/1 Ex. PW 3/2 2. Dealership agreement dated 15.06.2023 (Colly.) 3. Dealership agreement dated 13.06.2022. Ex. PW 3/3 CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 16/41 (Colly.) Ex. PW 3/4 4. Dealership agreement dated 10.12.1998. (Colly.) Ex. PW 3/5 5. Dealership agreement dated 12.12.1994. (Colly.) 7.16 PW - 3 has admitted that the dealership agreement
dated 15.06.2023 was with the Defendant Company.
7.17. In his cross-examination, PW - 3 admitted that prior to the dealership agreement dated 15.06.2023, another dealership agreement dated 13.06.2022 had been executed with the Defendant Company, which at that time was a sole proprietorship concern of Ms. Piya Bakshi. He further admitted that IOCL had never received any reconstitution proposal from the defendants for inducting the plaintiff as a partner in defendant no.1 firm. He also admitted that the property on which the petrol pump of the Defendant Company at Mangolpur Khurd is situated had been allotted to IOCL by the DDA on lease basis. The Plaintiff did not examine any other witness and the plaintiff's evidence was closed.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE 8.1. In defence evidence, defendant examined Ms. Piya Bakshi, one of the Partners of the dissolved Defendant partnership firm, as DW-1, who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A bearing his signatures at Point A and Point B. By way of affidavit of chief-examination, DW - 1 has deposed as per the averments in the Written Statement and has relied upon documents as under:-
Sl No. Documents Exhibited as
Copy of Death Certificate of Ms. Usha
1 Ex.DW-1/1 (OSR)
Bakshi
CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise
17/41
Ex.DW-1/2 (Certified
Copy of Dissolution Deed dated
2. copy seen and
27.05.2022
returned)
Copy of Request Letter for Ex.DW-1/3 (Certified
3. Reconstitution of Bakshi Enterprises copy seen and
dated 11.02.2022 returned)
Ex.DW-1/4 (Certified
Copy of Reconstitution of RO
4. copy seen and
Dealership dated 25.04.2022
returned)
Ex.DW-1/5 (Certified
Copy of Allotment of Dealership Letter
5. copy seen and
dated 05.08.1993
returned)
Ex.DW-1/6 (Certified
Copy of Dealership Agreement dated
6. copy seen and
10.06.1994
returned)
Ex.DW-1/7 (Certified
Copy of Partnership Deed dated
7. copy seen and
23.11.1994
returned)
Copy of Approval Letters of
Ex.DW-1/8 (Colly.)
reconstitution of the Defendant
8. (Certified copy seen
Company dated 17.11.1994 and
and returned)
12.12.1994
Mark X (D-exhibited;
Copy of Partnership Deed dated
9. shown in affidavit as
01.04.1999
Ex.DW-1/9)
Copy of Approval Letters of Ex.DW-1/10 (Colly.)
10. reconstitution dated 28.07.1998 and (Certified copy seen 10.12.1998 and returned) Ex.DW-1/11 (Colly.)
11. Copy of Invoices (OSR) Ex.DW-1/12 (Colly.)
12. Copy of Ledger Statement (OSR) 8.2. DW-1, on oath, stated that she is a graduate (B.A.) and also holds a Commercial Pilot Licence. She deposed that she had been working in the Defendant Company for the last three years. She admitted that she was one of the partners in the Defendant Company, though not an CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 18/41 active partner in the dissolved partnership firm. She further clarified that this fact was not mentioned in the partnership deed of the year 1999, wherein she, her mother Late Smt. Usha Bakshi, and her sister Rashmi were partners. She admitted that she used to receive profit from the said partnership firm since its inception. She also stated that she had never met Sh. Virender, Director of the plaintiff company.
8.3. On further cross-examination, DW-1 admitted that the defendant company had received a sum of ₹50,00,000/- through banking channels from the plaintiff company. She further admitted that after dissolution of the firm vide Dissolution Deed Ex.DW-1/2, she had acquired the assets and liabilities of the partnership firm. She stated that she had never informed the plaintiff company about the said dissolution. With respect to the day-to-day affairs of the petrol pump, she deposed that there are many people who look after the same on behalf of the Defendant Company.
8.4. In her further cross-examination, DW-1 denied the suggestion that she did not look after the day-to-day affairs of the petrol pump, and stated that she also took care of the same. She admitted that Raj Kumar Sharma was one of the managers at the petrol pump in Mangolpuri, Delhi. She reiterated that she had never met Sh. Virender, Director of the plaintiff company, though her mother had business relations with him regarding purchase and sale of diesel on advance basis. She stated that she did not know the nature of business of the plaintiff company. She deposed that her mother, Late Smt. Usha Bakshi, expired on 18.05.2021. She admitted that she had no personal knowledge of the CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 19/41 dealings between the defendant company and Sh. Virender, and that only her mother used to deal with the plaintiff company. On being asked about maintenance of day book by the petrol pump, she stated that she did not know, nor could she state who might be acquainted with such facts. She admitted that the petrol pump maintained CCTV cameras but could not say for what duration the data was preserved, and further stated that she could not file CCTV footage for the period November 2019 to February 2020.
8.5. When shown two cheques Ex.PW-1/5, DW-1 stated that the signatures appearing thereon resembled those of her mother, though she was not an expert. She could not say whether her mother had signed the said cheques in the capacity of partner of M/s Bakshi Enterprises. However, she admitted that her mother had given the said cheques to Sh. Virender, Director of the plaintiff company.
8.6. DW-1 further stated that she could not tell when the cheques Ex.PW-1/5 were given, as the same were not handed over in her presence. She explained that the cheques were given as security because the plaintiff used to make advance payment and in turn lifted diesel, and therefore the cheques were issued. She further stated that these cheques were connected with business dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant company, which were handled by her mother, wherein advances were taken and diesel was supplied. She expressed lack of knowledge as to whether there were any other business dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant apart from the present one.
CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 20/41 8.7 DW-1 admitted that Ex.DW-1/11 (Colly.) and Ex.DW-1/12 (Colly.) were not prepared by her and that she did not know who had prepared them. She also stated that she was unaware of how many cash memo booklets were maintained at the petrol pump. On being asked, she stated that in the year 2019, separate cash memo booklets were maintained for separate customers, though presently no such trend was being followed and that she was conducting business in her own way. She declined to comment on whether it was illegal to sell diesel to individuals for resale on profit basis, volunteering that she was not part of such dealings.
8.8. She also stated that she was maintaining records of her employees during the period 2019-2020. However, she expressed her inability to identify the signatures appearing on the cash memos exhibited as Ex.DW-1/11 (Colly.).
8.9. DW-1 further stated that, as per her knowledge, diesel was supplied to the plaintiff through a tanker, though she could not recall who had informed her of this fact. She expressed ignorance as to whether the guidelines of IOCL permitted supply of diesel in tankers. She also admitted that she had no records for the years 2019-2020 to show that the alleged sale of diesel to the plaintiff had been reflected in the balance sheet of the defendant company. She admitted that Ex.DW-1/12 (Colly.) was a computer-generated copy, that the computer was operated by many persons, and that no certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act had been filed along with the said document.
CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 21/41 8.10. When asked about the carbon copies of the cash memos Ex.DW-1/11 (Colly.), DW - 1 stated that she would have to check, but was not sure. She expressed ignorance regarding whether she, her mother, or any other employee of the defendant company had obtained any receiving from the plaintiff company or its officials in respect of the alleged sale of diesel during the period December 2019 to February 2020, and stated that she was not part of the deal. She further stated that she did not have any such records of receiving in the firm.
8.11. On further cross - examination on merits, DW - 1 denied having personally given the cheques Ex.PW-1/5 (Colly.) to the plaintiff company, and explained that her knowledge of the facts of the present case was based upon what had been disclosed to her by her manager and to some extent by her husband. She admitted that Rashmi, i.e., defendant no.3, was a partner of the Defendant Company during the year 2019-2020. She also admitted that she presently had a partner, namely Arun Sehrawat, holding 49% share in the Defendant Company, and that this partnership was entered into after filing of the present suit.
8.12. DW-1 denied the suggestion that no receiving existed because no sale had been made. She also denied that the cash memos were manipulated to evade liability towards the plaintiff. She further denied that an amount of ₹50,00,000/- was taken from the plaintiff for sale of 50% share in M/s Bakshi Enterprises, and likewise denied that the said cheques were handed over by her and Rashmi to the plaintiff after the death of her mother.
CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 22/41
9. The Defendants did not examine any other witness and the defendant's evidence was closed vide order dated 04.01.2025.
10. I have already heard the arguments at length advanced by Sh. Ravinder Malik, Ld.counsel for plaintiff and Sh. Mukesh Jha, Ld.counsel for defendant. Detailed written arguments on behalf of parties also filed.
11. It is argued on behalf of plaintiff that by the evidence led on record, the plaintiff has successfully established that the payment was made through banking channel to the defendant firm. That even the defendants have admitted the receipt of the said amount, however, they have taken plea that the said amount was for purchase of petroleum, but they have failed to prove the delivery of said petroleum products. That the defendants have failed to produce on record any balance sheet showing the alleged sale of diesel to the plaintiff. That in view of material on record the plaintiff has successfully established his case and defence has been demolished.
12. It is submitted on behalf of defendants that the present dispute does not fall under the definition of commercial dispute as no mercantile documents was executed between the parties. That there was no transaction regarding sale of 50% shares of Bakshi Petrol Pump and the alleged false and frivolous story has been concocted by the plaintiff. It is stated that the plaintiff had purchased the petroleum products of Rs.50 lacs from Late Smt. Usha Bakshi during the period from December 2019 to February 2020 and made the payments for the same in advance in the CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 23/41 account of the defendant no.1. That the plaintiff which is a private limited company has paid Rs.50 lacs without there being any agreement in writing nor there is authorization of board of directors to deal such a huge amount without the defendant. That the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties as the defendant no.3 has been wrongly impleaded as party as after the demise of Usha Bakshi on 18.05.2021 and retirement of defendant no.3 on 25.04.2022, the partnership firm was dissolved on 28.05.2022 and the present suit is filed against a dissolved firm. That the plaintiff has failed to prove his case. It is prayed that the suit may kindly be dismissed.
ISSUE NO. 11. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-from the defendant with respect to the consideration of becoming 50% partner in the Petrol Pump run by the defendant? OPP
13. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff, which is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The present suit has been filed under the signatures and authority of Sh. Virender, who is one of the Director of the plaintiff company.
14. The defendant has raised the objection with regard to maintainability of the suit filed on behalf of plaintiff company on the ground that the proper authorization to file the present suit is not proved as per provisions of law. The defendants have raised the objection with regard to exhibits of documents Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/2.
CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 24/41
15. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff company, therefore the relevant provisions contained in order XXIX CPC is required to be reproduced, which reads as under:-
"Order XXIX CPC
1. Subscription and verification of pleading.--In suits by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the corporation by the secretary or by any director or other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case.
2. Service on corporation.--Subject to any statutory provision regulating service of process, where the suit is against a corporation, the summons may be served--
(a) on the secretary, or on any director, or other principal officer of the corporation, or
(b) by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the corporation at the registered office, or if there is no registered office then at the place where the corporation carries on business.
3. Power to require personal attendance of officer of corporation.--The Court may, at any stage of the suit, require the personal appearance of the secretary or of any director, or other principal officer of the corporation who may be able to answer material questions relating to the suit".
16. Order XXIX rule 1 CPC specifically provides that a suit filed by the company may be signed and verified on behalf of said company by any of its Directors, who is able to depose to the facts of the case. In the present case the suit is filed by Sh. Virender, one of the Directors of the plaintiff company. The defendants neither in their written statement nor in the evidence or cross-examination of PW1 have disputed the fact regarding the authority of Sh. Virender, as Director of CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 25/41 the plaintiff company. In view of above, it is clear that the Sh. Virender being one of the Director of the plaintiff company was within its powers to institute the suit on behalf of plaintiff company. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff company under the signatures of Sh. Virender is maintainable in the eyes of law.
17. It is also contended that the documents Ex. PW1/1 i.e. Board Resolution dated 05.07.2022, minutes of the meeting of board of Directors Dated Ex. PW1/2(colly) from page no.1-5 in the judicial file, were not filed alongwith the suit, therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the same.
18. The perusal of the case file in this regard would reveals that the plaintiff has filed the list of documents alongwith documents, at the time of filing of the suit. The plaintiff has specifically mentioned the board resolution dated 05.07.2022 filed in original at page no.24. The board resolution is also found placed at serial no.24 as annexure A alongwith the list of documents. The defendant alongwith written statement has also filed the affidavit of the admission/denial of documents filed by the plaintiff alongwith plaint. The defendants in their affidavit of admission/denial of documents have also denied the board of resolution dated 05.07.2022 relied upon by the plaintiff. In view of above, it is clear that the list of documents filed by the plaintiff alongwith the documents, contain the description of the board resolution dated 05.07.2022 Ex. PW1/1 and the affidavit of admission/denial of documents filed by the defendants also contain 'denial' of said documents. Therefore, it can be easily inferred that the board resolution CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 26/41 dated 05.07.2022 was filed by the plaintiff alongwith the suit. Hence, the reliance on the same can be placed. The objection raised by the defendants in this regard is rejected.
19. The plaintiff by way of board resolution dated 05.07.2022 Ex., PW1/1 has proved the authority of Sh. Virender to institute the suit on behalf of plaintiff. Therefore, the objection of the defendant regarding authority of the AR/Director to institute the suit is not tenable in the eyes of law.
20. It is also contended on behalf of defendant that the plaintiff has failed to produce the best witness i.e. Sh. Rajesh Solanki. It is stated that this witness has been withheld by the plaintiff from the court, therefore, adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the plaintiff.
21. The plaintiff in the present case has examined PW-1 Sh. Virender who claimed himself to be well aware about the facts and circumstances of the case. PW-1 Sh. Virender has also stood the test of cross-examination and during his cross-examination no material contradiction has been raised regarding his knowledge of the facts related to the present case. It is no doubt true that PW-1 Sh. Virender has disclosed the name of Sh. Rajesh Solanki, as another witness relating to the transaction between the parties, who has not been examined by the plaintiff. However, it is required to be seen how much number of witnesses are required to be brought on record by the parties to prove their case. In this regard it is relevant to consider the provisions contained CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 27/41 under Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act(Now Section 139 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam(BSA), which reads as under:-
"134. Number of witnesses:- No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact"
22. It is well settled law that the evidence has to be weighed and not counted. When a witness is reliable and trustworthy, the fact sought to be proved by that witness need not be further proved through other witnesses. If the defendant was of the view that the testimony of Sh. Rajesh Solanki is helpful to prove the case of the defendant, there was no bar upon the defendants to produce the said witness. In view of above, this objection raised by Ld.counsel for defendant is not tenable in the eyes of law.
23. The plaintiff has alleged that a sum of Rs.50 lacs was paid to the defendants for induction of the plaintiff as partner in the defendant firm. The plaintiff has alleged the following payment to the defendants:
Bank Account No. Transaction ID Amount (in Rs.) Date Name RTGS/SK/ 919020078033741 UTIBR5201911 25,00,000 29.11.2019 Axis Bank 2900361117 912020024339568 RTGS/SK/ 15,00,000 29.11.2019 Axis Bank UTIBR5201911 CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 28/41 2900361081 RTGS/ Union 163611100005312 ANDBR520191 10,00,000 30.11.2019 Bank 13000209203
24. The defendants in their written statement have not disputed the payment of Rs.50 lacs made by the plaintiff through banking channel. The defendants in their evidence have also not denied the receipt of payment of Rs.50 lacs from the plaintiff company. Section 53 of the Indian Evidence Act(Now Section 58 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) laid down that the facts admitted need not to be proved. The principle contained in the above Section means that the facts admitted need not to be proved. The parties in the legal case do not have to bring the evidence to prove the existence of facts which have been admitted by the opposite party in the pleading or evidence. In the present case there is specific admission of the defendants regarding receipt of amount of Rs.50 lacs. Therefore, the plaintiff is not required to bring any evidence to prove this fact. The fact of payment of Rs.50 lacs to the defendants stands proved by way of admission by the defendants.
25. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said sum of Rs.50 lacs was paid by him to have 50% share in the partnership firm of the defendant, which was running petrol pump. On the other hand the defence raised by the defendant is that the said amount was paid by the plaintiff as advance payment for purchase of petroleum product from the defendant firm. Now it is required to be examined whether the plaintiff and defendants have been able to prove their respective contention in this CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 29/41 regard. Once the payment of the said sum stands admitted, the onus shifts upon the defendants to show that the said amount was not towards the alleged consideration but for some other transaction.
26. The plaintiff further relied upon two cheques (Ex. PW-1/5) issued by late Mrs. Usha Bakshi, partner of the firm, for amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-, which corroborates the plaintiff's case of advancement of consideration. The defendants have admitted that the signatures on the cheques in question (Ex.PW-1/5) appear to be those of late Smt. Usha Bakshi, albeit with the qualification by DW-1 that she is "not an expert". This statement, though cautiously worded, clearly amounts to an implied admission. It was open to the defendants to rebut this by producing expert testimony under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 39(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), or by furnishing documentary proof to establish forgery or non- execution. However, no such evidence has been produced. Thus, the execution of the cheques by late Smt. Usha Bakshi stands proved.
27. The defence sought to explain away these cheques as mere "security" for advance payments allegedly made by the plaintiff in connection with transactions for supply of diesel. However, the defendants have utterly failed to substantiate this plea. No delivery challans, E-way bills, invoices, stock registers, or transport receipts have been placed on record to show that any diesel was in fact supplied to the plaintiff pursuant to such advances. Even the cash memo records relied upon by the defendants Ex. DW-1/11 (Colly.) and Copy of Ledger Statement Ex. DW-1/12 were not countersigned and both exhibits were CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 30/41 not authored by DW-1, and were not proved in accordance with law, and could not be corroborated by any receiving from the plaintiff's side. DW-1 candidly admitted that she was not the author of DW-1/11 (Colly.) and Ex. DW-1/12, nor could she verify the signatures thereupon. Thus, the objections of the plaintiff against the admissibility of these documents are sustained, and they cannot be read in evidence.
28. It is not out of place to mention that the defendants have neither disclosed the name of person who issued the cash memo Ex. PW1/11 or the person who have sold the said diesel to the plaintiff. It is not out of place to mention that the defendants have even failed to disclose the name of person to whom the said goods/diesel was supplied by the defendants. The defendants have failed to bring on record any acknowledgment of the plaintiff or its representative regarding receipt of supply of diesel against invoice Ex. PW1/11.
29. It is also pertinent to mention here that the best witness, namely Mr. Rajesh Solanki, who was specifically named in the plaint as the mediator in the transaction, was withheld by the defendants. Non-production of the material witness attracts adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1862 (under Section 119 (g) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). The defendants, having failed to produce Rajesh Solanki, cannot now escape the presumption that his testimony would have gone against them.
30. The evidence of DW-1 has to be carefully examined in the light of the law on admissibility. It is settled law that only a witness CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 31/41 who has direct knowledge of the facts in issue can depose before the Court. A witness who bases his statement merely on information received from others, without personal knowledge, renders such testimony hearsay and hence inadmissible.
31. In Civil Suits, evidence by oral testimony based on conjectures and surmises, not supported by any substantive document or supporting witness is a mere statement without any credibility or reliability. Hearsay evidence, indirect or second-hand evidence refers to a statement made out of court that is presented in court to prove the truth of the matter stated. It is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness testifying and is, therefore, generally inadmissible.
32. Under Indian law, hearsay is not admissible, as only direct evidence is permitted in most cases. This rule is laid down in Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1862, which provides as under:
Oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct; that is to say
--
.... if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it;
33. Similarly, as per the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, oral evidence now, provided under Section 55 of the BSA, 2023, provides as under:
55. Oral evidence shall, in all cases whatever, be direct; if it refers to,--
(i) a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it;
CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 32/41
(ii) a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it;
34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India through its five Judge Bench in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2009, (2023) 4 SCC 731, (per B.V. Nagarathna, J.; S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna & V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. concurring) though observed in a criminal case, but the concept duly describes the evidentiary value of such indirect evidence. The relevant paras are provided as under:
Further, according to Sarkar on Law of Evidence, 20th Edn., Vol. 1, "direct" or "original" evidence means that evidence which establishes the existence of a thing or fact either by actual production or by testimony or demonstrable declaration of someone who has himself perceived it, and believed that it established a fact in issue. Direct evidence proves the existence of a fact in issue without any inference of presumption. On the other hand, "indirect evidence" or "substantial evidence" gives rise to the logical inference that such a fact exists, either conclusively or presumptively. The effect of substantial evidence under consideration must be such as not to admit more than one solution and must be inconsistent with any explanation that the fact is not proved. By direct or presumptive evidence (circumstantial evidence), one may say that other facts are proved from which, existence of a given fact may be logically inferred.
34. Again, oral evidence can be classified as original and hearsay evidence. Original evidence is that which a witness reports himself to have seen or heard through the medium of his own senses. Hearsay evidence is also called derivative, transmitted, or second-hand evidence in which a witness is merely reporting not what he himself saw or heard, and not what has come under the immediate observation of his own bodily senses, but what he has learnt in respect of the fact through the medium of a third person.
Normally, a hearsay witness would be inadmissible, but when it is corroborated by substantive evidence of other witnesses, it would CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 33/41 be admissible vide Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 8 SCC 136 : (2017) 3 SCC (Cri) 607 .
...
Section 60 of the Evidence Act requires that oral evidence must be direct or positive. Direct evidence is when it goes straight to establish the main fact in issue. The word "direct" is used in juxtaposition to derivative or hearsay evidence where a witness gives evidence that he received information from some other person. If that person does not, himself, state such information, such evidence would be inadmissible being hearsay evidence..... ......
40. Although the expression "hearsay evidence" is not defined under the Evidence Act, it is, nevertheless, in constant use in the courts. However, hearsay evidence is inadmissible to prove a fact which is deposed to on hearsay, but it does not necessarily preclude evidence as to a statement having been made upon which certain action was taken or certain results followed such as evidence of an informant of the crime."
35. In the present case, DW-1 sought to rely upon documents such as Ex.DW-1/11 (cash memos) and Ex.DW-1/12 (ledger account). However, in cross-examination, DW-1 admitted that she was not the author of these documents, could not verify the signatures contained therein, and was unable to produce any corresponding receiving from the plaintiff. She also conceded lack of first-hand knowledge regarding the alleged transactions with the plaintiff. Thus, DW-1's testimony is essentially derivative, based on what she had been told or what she inferred from records not proved in accordance with law.
36. Therefore, DW-1 cannot be treated as a competent witness to prove the said documents or the underlying transactions. In the absence of examination of the actual person who prepared or maintained CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 34/41 the documents, the evidence of DW-1 falls within the category of hearsay and cannot be read against the plaintiff.
37. On the other hand, the plaintiff's evidence remains consistent and credible. PW-2, the Bank Manager, proved the defendant's account and confirmed that the cheques in question were drawn from the said account. PW-3, the Manager of Indian Oil Corporation, proved the dealership agreements of the firm, thereby establishing the subsistence of the petrol pump business. The incorporation documents of the plaintiff company (Ex. PW-1/7 (Colly.)) further demonstrate its legal capacity to enter into such transactions. The filing of the police complaint (Ex. PW-1/6) contemporaneously also reinforces the bona fides of the plaintiff's claim.
38. In view of the above discussion, it stands proved that the plaintiff paid Rs. 50,00,000/- through RTGS to the defendants towards consideration of being inducted as a 50% partner in M/s Bakshi Enterprises. The denial by the defendants, unsupported by any cogent evidence and resting solely on hearsay and inadmissible documents, cannot prevail. The objections raised by the plaintiff to the defendants' documents are well founded, and adverse inference must be drawn against the defendants for withholding the best evidence.
39. Hence, in view of the factual matrix, evidence on record, and legal principles, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs. 50,00,000/-. It is an admitted case that there was no agreed rate of interest between the parties in case of any default of CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 35/41 payment. Therefore, as per provisions of law, the plaintiff is also held entitled to the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization. The defendants are jointly and severally liable for the amount, given their admitted partnership shares and liabilities.
ISSUE NO. 22. Whether the present suit is barred under the Provisions of Commercial Courts Act, as the present dispute does not fall within the definition of Commercial Dispute? OPD
40. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants. The plaintiff has filed the present commercial suit seeking recovery of Rs.50 lacs, which is alleged to have been paid for induction of the plaintiff as partner in the firm of defendants. On the other hand the defendants have claimed that the amount of Rs.50 lacs was paid by the plaintiff as advance payment for purchase of petroleum products from the defendant. It is contended on behalf of defendants that the present suit does not fall within the definition of commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
41. Here it is necessary to reproduce Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, which defines the commercial dispute as under:-
"Definitions.--(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-- [(a) "Commercial Appellate Courts" means the Commercial Appellate Courts designated under section 3A;] CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 36/41 [(aa)] "Commercial Appellate Division" means the Commercial Appellate Division in a High Court constituted under sub-section (1) of section 5;
(b) "Commercial Court" means the Commercial Court constituted under sub- section (1) of section 3;
(c) "commercial dispute" means a dispute arising out of--
(i) ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents, including enforcement and interpretation of such documents;
(ii) export or import of merchandise or services;
(iii) issues relating to admiralty and maritime law;
(iv) transactions relating to aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft equipment and helicopters, including sales, leasing and financing of the same;
(v) carriage of goods;
(vi) construction and infrastructure contracts, including tenders;
(vii) agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce;
(viii) franchising agreements;
(ix) distribution and licensing agreements;
(x) management and consultancy agreements;
(xi) joint venture agreements;
(xii) shareholders agreements;
(xiii) subscription and investment agreements pertaining to the services industry including outsourcing services and financial services;
(xiv) mercantile agency and mercantile usage;
(xv) partnership agreements;
(xvi) technology development agreements; (xvii) intellectual property rights relating to registered and unregistered trademarks, CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 37/41 copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications and semiconductor integrated circuits;
(xviii) agreements for sale of goods or provision of services; (xix) exploitation of oil and gas reserves or other natural resources including electromagnetic spectrum;
(xx) insurance and re-insurance;
(xxi) contracts of agency relating to any of the above; and (xxii) such other commercial disputes as may be notified by the Central Government".
42. The plaintiff by way of testimony of PW-1 has proved that the amount of Rs.50 lacs was advanced to the defendants for acquiring 50% stake in the partnership firm of the defendant which was running the petrol pumps. The transaction involving the partnership investment squarely falls within the commercial dispute definition, especially considering the nature of parties and transaction. The plaintiff's substantial payment and ongoing grievance of non-admittance to partnership firmly establish that this is not mere goods sale dispute but commercial investment dispute. Therefore, the present dispute falls within the definition of commercial dispute. It is not out of place to mention that even from the version of the defendants, the present suit falls within the definition of commercial dispute as payment was made by the plaintiff for purchase fo petroleum products from the defendants. In view of above, the objection with regard to jurisdiction of this court is not tenable in the eyes of law. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 38/41 ISSUE NO. 3
3. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties for impleading defendant no. 3? OPD (3)
43. The onus to prove this issue lies upon the defendants. Defendant No. 3 has urged that she has been wrongly impleaded in the present proceedings, as she ceased to be a partner of M/s Bakshi Enterprises by virtue of a deed of retirement dated 25.04.2022, and that the partnership itself stood dissolved on 28.05.2022. It is contended that since the present suit was filed thereafter, no cause of action survives against her.
44. However, the said contention does not inspire confidence. The plaintiff's claim arises out of an advance payment of ₹50,00,000/-, made through RTGS between November 2019 and February 2020, during which period Defendant No. 3 admittedly continued to be a partner of the firm. The plaintiff has specifically alleged that the said payment was made towards being inducted as a partner in the business of Bakshi Enterprises, and it is not the case of the defendants that Defendant No. 3 was not a partner at the relevant time. Thus, the liability, if any, accrued during his partnership.
45. Section 32 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 provides that a partner may retire with the consent of the other partners or as per contract, but such retirement does not absolve him from liability towards third parties, unless due notice of retirement is given to them. Further, Section 72 of the Act clarifies that a partner continues to remain liable for all acts of the firm done before his retirement. In the present case, CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 39/41 the defendants have not produced any material to show that statutory public notice of retirement was given to the plaintiff or published as per Section 72. In the absence of such notice, the plaintiff is entitled to proceed against Defendant No. 3 as a continuing partner.
46. Applying these principles, the plea of mis-joinder raised by Defendant No. 3 is without merit. Since the alleged payment and transaction took place during his subsistence as a partner, his impleadment is both proper and necessary for the effective adjudication of the dispute. Consequently, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO. 44. Whether the security cheque issued by the deceased Usha Bakshi not presented during life time of the drawer? OPD
47. Having considered the rival submissions, it is clear from the record that the cheques Ex.PW-1/5 were never presented for encashment during the lifetime of late Usha Bakshi. The plaintiff has also admitted that no attempt was made to present them thereafter. In such circumstances, no liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, can arise against the defendants on the basis of the said cheques. However, since the present suit is not founded on the cheques but on the alleged oral agreement for induction of the plaintiff as a 50% partner, the objection raised by the defendants regarding non-presentation of the cheques goes only to the extent of limiting their enforceability under NI Act, and not to the maintainability of the suit as a whole.
CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 40/41
48. Accordingly, this Court holds that the cheques in question cannot independently constitute a basis for recovery, as they were never presented during the lifetime of the drawer. The issue is, therefore, decided in favour of the defendants to the extent that no cause of action can be derived from the said cheques.
ISSUE NO. 55. Relief.
49. In view of findings on issues, the plaintiff is held entitled for the recovery of alleged amount of Rs.50,00,000/-(Rs. Fifty Lacs). The plaintiff is also held entitled for the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization. All the defendants are held jointly and severally liable. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants(who all shall be jointly and severally liable), for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-(Rs. Fifty Lacs) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the suit, till its realization. The plaintiff is also held entitled for the cost of the suit.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room, after due completion. Announced in the open Court on this 24th December, 2025 ( Devender Kumar Jangala ) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West, Rohini, Delhi.
24.12.2025.
CS (Comm.) 739/22 Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bakshi Enterprise 41/41