Delhi District Court
Mukesh Kumar Arora Proprieter Of M/S ... vs M/S S K Enterprises Through Its ... on 7 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-02
SHAHDARA DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023
INDEX
SI. NO. HEADINGS PAGE
NOS.
1. Memo of Parties 2
2. Plaint 3-5
3. Written Statement 6-7
4. Replication 7-8
5. Admission/Denial 8
6. Issues framed 8
7. Plaintiff's Evidence 9 - 10
8. Defendant's Evidence 10
9. Judgments relied upon by plaintiff 10
10. Analysis and Discussion 11 - 35
11. Relief 35 - 36
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.1 of 36
Digitally signed
by KIRAN
KIRAN BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2026.01.07
14:39:03 +0530
In the matter of
Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora,
Alias Mukesh Arora,
Proprietor of M/s. Vandana Enterprises,
Having Office at,
L.R. Complex, Gate No.4,
Melaram Farm House, Mandoli,
Delhi - 110093
Email id: [email protected]
.... Plaintiff
Vs.
1. M/s S.K. Enterprises
Through its Proprietor, Mr. S.K. Kabil
Having Office at Plot No.1466,
Garrage Chhak Lewis Road,
Bhubaneshwar, Orissa,
Mob: 94338 814786, 8249666293
Email IDs : [email protected]
2. Mr. S.K. Kabil
Prorpietor, M/s S.K. Enterprises
Address at Plot no.1466,
Garrage Chhak Lewis Road,
Bhubaneshwar, Orissa,
Email ID: [email protected]
Mob: 94338 814786, 82496 66293 .... Defendants
Date of Institution :18.08.2023
Date of final arguments :06.01.2026
Date of conclusion :07.01.2026
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.2 of 36
Digitally signed
KIRAN by KIRAN
BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.01.07
14:39:10 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.28,34,443.66/- along with damages to the tune of Rs.20,18,000/- (i.e. Rs.9,18,000/- + Rs.11,00,000/-) with interest @ 18% per annum from 01.04.2020 till its realization.
PLAINT 2.1 Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff Mukesh Kumar Arora alias Mukesh Arora is engaged in the business of trading, manufacturing of gas stove and gas stove spare parts in the name and style of M/s Vandana Enterprises having GST registration Certificate also. It is stated that defendant is customer of plaintiff since August, 2018 and both parties have been doing business over a period of time and trust developed between the parties and defendant started placing oral orders and was also granted credit as per normal business practices. It is stated that from time to time plaintiff supplied the said material to defendant to its entire satisfaction on the basis of orders placed by defendant and raised various invoices for a total amount of Rs.66,44,123.66 w.e.f. 10.05.2019 to 13.02.2020.
2.2 It is submitted that plaintiff had been maintaining an open and running account with defendant debiting therein the respective bills/invoices and crediting the payments received from the defendant. It is stated that in first week of February, 2020, defendant telephonically placed an oral order for supply of 720 pieces of gas stove magic for Rs.10,90,320/- and it was agreed between the parties that defendant would make payment Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.3 of 36 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.01.07 14:39:19 +0530 of old outstanding amount of Rs.20,98,123.66/- + value of fresh ordered material worth Rs.10,90,320/- totaling to Rs.31,88,443.66/- through cheque which would be sent by defendant to plaintiff by post and upon encashment of said cheque, the plaintiff would dispatch the ordered quantity of the said material to the defendant. It is further stated that on 10.02.2020, the Gas Stove Magic as ordered by defendant was ready for delivery for which plaintiff raised performa invoice no.
VE/11/19-20, dated 10.02.2020 for Rs.10,90,320/-, but the defendant delayed the issuance of cheque. It is submitted that as per ledger account maintained by plaintiff on 13.02.2020, the defendant was liable to pay Rs.21,44,123.66 which included Rs.46,000/- which was transferred by plaintiff on 13.02.2020 to a seller from whom the defendant bought a generator set, thus, defendant was liable to pay Rs.32,34,443.66/- to the plaintiff. Further, it is submitted that on 19.02.2020, in part discharge of his total debt and liabilities towards plaintiff, defendant issued cheque bearing no. 616576, dated 20.02.2020 for Rs.31,82,543/-, drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, however, on presentation the said cheque dishonored with remarks 'funds insufficient'. It is further submitted that defendant made part payments for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (i.e. Rs.2 lakhs on 05.03.2020, Rs.1 lakhs on 22.07.2020 and Rs.1 lakhs on 14.08.2020), but, defendant neither took delivery of fresh ordered quantity, nor made payment of remaining dues.
2.3 A Legal Notice dated 06.08.2022 was served upon the defendant, but, due to typographical error, the amount of demand was written as Rs.28,82,543/- instead of Rs.28,34,443.66/-. It is submitted that on 01.03.2020, plaintiff Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.4 of 36 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.07 14:39:26 +0530 has incurred expenses of Rs.9,18,000/- on account of rent, salary to security guards, sweeper charges etc. as the goods are still lying with plaintiff and plaintiff had made best efforts to sell the said unpicked and ordered material, however, till date he is unable to do so. The calculation sheet of the damages of Rs.9,18,000/- w.e.f. 01.03.2020 till December, 2022 is also filed.
2.4 Plaintiff has submitted that as per ledger account filed along with the suit, the defendant is liable to pay Rs.28,34,443.66 along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of expenses incurred, till its realisation. Plaintiff further submitted that defendant is also liable to pay damages to tune of Rs.11,00,000/- on account of plaintiff not being able to fulfill further orders of other customers as the goods of defendant are lying in godown of plaintiff. It is submitted that since defendant made a last payment of Rs.1 lakh on 14.08.2020, therefore, the suit is within limitation. Further, it is submitted that value of the suit is assessed at Rs.28,34,443.66 on which court fees of Rs.30,014/- has been paid. It is stated that since part payments have been made into the bank account of plaintiff maintained at HDFC Bank, Jyoti Nagar, Shahdara Branch, therefore, this court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. The Non Starter Report is also filed.
Plaint is supported by the supporting affidavit and statement of truth of Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora, Proprietor of M/s. Vandana Enterprises.
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.5 of 36 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.01.07 14:39:33 +0530 WRITTEN STATEMENT
3. WS has been filed on behalf of defendant wherein he denied each and every averment and contention of the plaintiff and stated that the present suit filed by the plaintiff is completely misconceived, baseless, unfounded and devoid of merits. Defendant has stated that plaintiff has not filed the proper court fees with the respect to the damages as claimed by the plaintiff. Defendant has submitted as per his ledger there is an outstanding balance of Rs.35,676.90/- against the plaintiff. It is submitted that Invoice No.43 for a sum of Rs.44,999/- is the excess amount. Invoice bearing no.124 is for a sum of Rs.1,82,900/- instead of Rs.1,77,000/-. Invoice bearing no.412 for a sum of Rs.13,62,900/- is false and frivolous. Invoice bearing no.762 for a sum of Rs.46,000/- is wrongly entered in Ledger Account by plaintiff.
3.1 It is further submitted that defendant paid Rs.2,00,000/- in cash for fine paid for transport charges and a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- ORC amount paid for 600 pcs @ of Rs.200/- due to close down of portal. Further, it is submitted that plaintiff had the liability of Rs.35,675.90/- to pay to the defendant. It is stated that defendant has never consented to jurisdiction of Delhi Court and he works for gain at Bhubneshwar, Odisha. Further, it is stated that suit is liable to rejected at its threshold as plaintiff failed to disclose any cause of action for maintaining its claim.
3.2 It is submitted that plaintiff is empaneled with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) for taking order Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.6 of 36 Digitally signed KIRAN BANSAL by KIRAN BANSAL Date: 2026.01.07 14:39:39 +0530 and sale of goods relating to stoves and appliances, however, the plaintiff's name was removed from the website. It is further submitted that the supply of the goods to the retailers by the plaintiff has to be recorded in the website of HPCL and in turn the retailers who sell the goods have to be recorded in the website of HPCL.
3.3 It is submitted that the transport agency has never supplied the E-way bills to the defendant. It is further submitted that plaintiff with mala fide intention filled the amount and other details in the cheque to show the liability and the plaintiff had cheated the defendant for sending the impugned cheque for encashment without any liability. Further, it is submitted that the defendant has to recover Rs.35,675.90/- from the plaintiff. Defendant has denied that he had issued cheque bearing no. 616576, dated 20.02.2020 for Rs.31,82,543/- , drawn on Indian Overseas Bank for the purpose of encashment. It is submitted that defendant has no liability to pay any amount to the plaintiff and it is denied that cause of action arose when defendant made some part payment.
Remaining material averments of the plaint are denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the suit with heavy cost.
REPLICATION
4. Replication to the WS of defendant has been filed wherein plaintiff denied all the allegations/contentions/defense set up in the written statement filed by the defendant. It is stated that the answering defendant has set up a totally false, frivolous, baseless, bogus, afterthought and moonshine story with the sole Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.7 of 36 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.07 14:39:46 +0530 intention to mislead the court. The averments made in the plaint are reiterated and the contents of the WS are denied and prayer has been made for decreeing of the suit.
ADMISSION/DENIAL
5. During admission/denial, defendant has admitted the following documents of the plaintiff i.e.,
1. Legal Notice dated 30.08.2022 with postal receipt as Ex.P1;
2. Copy of email dated 30.08.2022 as Ex.P2 On the other hand, plaintiff in his affidavit of admission/denial of documents has not admitted any of documents of the defendant and has denied the ledger account filed by the defendant.
ISSUES FRAMED:
6. Vide order dated 04.06.2024, on completion of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were settled for consideration:
i. Whether the plaintiff has the liability of Rs.35,675.90 to be paid to the defendant? If so, to what effect? OPD. ii. Whether the present court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? OPD. iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree? If so, to what amount? OPP.
iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
v. Relief.
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.8 of 36 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.07 14:39:54 +0530 PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
7. In support of its case, plaintiff has examined Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora, Proprietor of M/s. Vandana Enterprises as PW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit on 27.07.2024 which is Ex.PW1/A and has relied upon the following documents:
• GST Registration Certificate is Ex.PW1/1; • Original five invoices dtd. 10.05.2019 to 13.02.2020 as well as five E-way Bills and carbon copy of the transport slip as Ex.PW1/2 (Colly-15 pages); • Proforma invoice No.VE/11/19-20 dtd. 10.02.2020 as Ex.PW1/3;
• Printout of the Bank Statement of the plaintiff along with the ledger account as Ex.PW1/4 (Colly.); • Original postal envelope along with postal stamps as Ex.PW1/5 (Colly.);
• Original cheque no. 616576 dtd. 20.02.2020 for Rs.31,82,543/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Bhuvneshwar, District Khurda-751014, Odisha as Ex.PW1/6;
• Original cheque returning memos dtd. 02.03.2020 and 11.05.2020 issued by the HDFC Bank as Ex.PW1/7 (Colly.);
• Office Copy of the legal notice dated 05.08.2022 along with original postal receipts as Ex.PW1/8(Colly.); • Printout of the e-mail dated 30.08.2022 sent by the defendant to the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/9;
• Photographs of the godown with the newspaper cuttings and video CD as Ex.PW1/10 (Colly.);
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.9 of 36 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.07 14:40:03 +0530 • Copy of Rent Agreement of the Godown as Mark A. • Printout of Ledger Account maintained by the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/11;
• Non-starter Report dated 09.02.2023 as Ex.PW1/12; • Certificate by way of affidavit under Order XI Rule 6(3) CPC as applicable to the Commercial Courts r/w Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/13.
He was duly cross examined on behalf of defendant and thereafter, PE was closed on the statement of plaintiff. DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
8. In rebuttal, defendant has examined himself as DW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit on 18.11.2024 which is Ex.DW1/A. He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for plaintiff and thereafter, DE was closed on his statement and the case was proceeded for final arguments.
9. The court has heard ld. counsel for the plaintiff as well as counsel for defendant and have also gone through the record of the case. The court has perused the written submissions filed by both the petitioner and the defendant.
JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY PLAINTIFF
10. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the following cases in support of his contention:
a. Thangam and Anr. vs. Navamani Ammal (2024) 4 SCC 247 b. TKW Management Solutions Pvt Ltd vs Sherif Cargo and Anr 2023 DHC 000745 c. Sanjana Agarwal vs Namoshivai Apparels Private Limited 2024:DHC:9987-DB Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.10 of 36 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.07 14:40:10 +0530 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
11. The present suit is commercial in nature and squarely falls within the purview of Section 2 (1) (C) of Commercial Courts Act and plaintiff has also duly complied with mandatory provision of Pre-Institution Mediation and Conciliation as provided in Section 12 A of Commercial Courts Act, as per the Non-Starter Report dated 09.02.2023 Ex.PW1/12.
12. The present suit is filed for recovery of money due on the defendant. The period for limitation of filing the suit for recovery is three years. The last invoice raised by the plaintiff, as per ledger of the plaintiff, is of 31.01.2020 and the last payment was received by the plaintiff on 14.08.2020 of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Thus, period of three years would expire on 14.08.2023.
13. As per the judgement of Hon'ble SC in IN RE:
COGNIZANCEFOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION (Suo Moto Writ Petition (c) no. 3 OF 2020) has held that period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall be excluded while in computing the period of limitation. Moreover, the time from 16.01.2023 to 09.02.2023 has also to be excluded in view of time consumed in complying with pre-institution mediation settlement in view of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.
14. The present suit filed on 18.08.2023, thus, in view of above discussion, is filed within the extended period of limitation. As far as the territorial jurisdiction is concerned the same is discussed hereinafter and the detailed findings on the issues are as under:
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.11 of 36 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.07 14:40:18 +0530 Since the issue no. (ii) pertains to the territorial jurisdiction of the court, therefore, it is dealt at first.
Issue no. (ii): Whether the present court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? OPD.
15. The defendant has contended that the plaintiff has vested territorial jurisdiction on this court by twisting the facts and thus, the suit is being devoid of jurisdiction as the defendant never consented to jurisdiction of courts at Delhi and he works for gain at Bhubaneshwar, Odisha. Moreover, it is stated by the defendant that no cause of action arose in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant within the territorial jurisdiction of the present court.
16. On the other hand, the plaintiff has contended that defendant has made part payments into the bank account of the plaintiff maintained with HDFC Bank, having branch office at Jyoti Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi- 93. Thus, it is contended that the present court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit.
17. The law relating to the territorial jurisdiction is contained Part I of CPC from Section 15-20. Section 16-18 CPC provides for the cases where the suit involves an immovable property. Section 19 CPC provides for compensation for wrong to person or movables. Section 20 CPC is a residuary provision which applies only when the above-mentioned provisions are not applicable. In the present case, territorial jurisdiction of the present court has to be determined as per Section 20 CPC.
18. It is also pertinent to mention here that Section 20(a) Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.12 of 36 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 14:40:26 Date: 2026.01.07 +0530 and (b) CPC are inapplicable in the present case. The only clause to be considered is Section 20(c) which provides that the place where a cause of action arises will have jurisdiction to try the suit.
19. The perusal of the file reveals that the invoices raised by the plaintiff against the defendant provides for details of bank account of the plaintiff maintained at HDFC Bank, Jyoti Nagar Branch, Shahdara, Delhi.
20. Moreover, counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Delhi HC in the case of TKW Management Solutions Pvt Ltd vs Sherif Cargo and Anr 2023 DHC 000745 wherein Hon'ble HC has held that courts at Delhi would have jurisdiction on the basis of the Principle of 'Debtor seeks Creditor', if the payments were to be received in Delhi.
21. Since the payment was to be received by the plaintiff in the given bank account, thus, the present court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit on the basis of principle of 'Debtor Seeks Creditor'.
22. At this stage, it is pertinent to note here that the purchase order(s) were also placed at the registered office of the plaintiff and thus, the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was also concluded within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Moreover, perusal of the e-way bills filed along with the invoices reveals that the goods were dispatched from Mandoli, Shahdara (registered office of the plaintiff as per GST registration certificate Ex. PW1/1) which falls within the Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.13 of 36 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 14:40:34 Date: 2026.01.07 +0530 territorial jurisdiction of this court.
23. The present court also has jurisdiction to try the present suit as the cheque issued by defendant was presented for encashment at the East Jyoti Nagar, Shahdara Branch which falls within the jurisdiction of this court. Thus, a cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court, therefore, the present court has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit.
Therefore, the issue no. (ii) is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no. (i): Whether the plaintiff has the liability of Rs.35,675.90 to be paid to the defendant? If so, to what effect? OPD
24. The defendant has stated that as per ledger of the defendant, a negative balance of Rs. 35,675.90/- exists which means that the plaintiff owes Rs. 35,675.90 to the defendant. On the other hand, the plaintiff has denied the submission of the defendant as being vague, bald and notional and liable to be rejected.
25. The sole basis for the claiming such an amount is the ledger maintained by the defendant. No other document was produced by the defendant in support of such a claim. It is a settled law that statement of account/ entries in the book of account alone are not sufficient to charge a person with some liability. In this regard, reference can be made to Section 28 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Section 34 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872) which is re-produced as follows:
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.14 of 36 KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.07 14:40:41 +0530 "28. Entries in books of account when relevant: Entries in the books of account, including those maintained in an electronic form, regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability."
25.1 The Hon'ble SC in the case of CBI vs V C Shukla AIR 1998 SC 1406, Hon'ble SC has observed as follows:
"From a plain reading of the Section it is manifest that to make an entry relevant thereunder it must be shown that it has been made in a book, that book is a book of account and that book of account has been regularly kept in the course of business. From the above Section it is also manifest that even if the above requirements are fulfilled and the entry becomes admissible as relevant evidence, still, the statement made therein shall not alone be sufficient evidence, to charge any person with liability"
Thus, merely on the basis of the ledger maintained by the defendant, which is not corroborated by any other document, plaintiff is not liable for any such claim of the defendant.
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.15 of 36 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.07 14:40:49 +0530
26. The claim of the defendant that the plaintiff is liable to pay Rs. 35,675.90 is also not liable to be considered on the following grounds:
(i) The defendant has not complied with the rules as to counter claim or set off provided in CPC. The defendant has merely averred in the WS that the plaintiff is liable to pay Rs.
35,675.90/- to the defendant. The defendant has not filed a separate counter claim as per law in this regard nor has filed appropriate court fees on the said claim.
(ii) The defendant has filed ledger along with the Written Statement but has not relied upon the same during the evidence. In its evidence by way of affidavit, the defendant has marked its ledger as Mark D/1 in para 18 of its affidavit. However, during recording of examination in chief of DW-1 on 18.11.2024, the defendant has not relied upon the said ledger.
27. The defendant has stated that he has paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as transport fine and has also paid an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- as ORC, but, no proof of such payment has been filed by the defendant on record. If an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- as ORC was paid for 600 pieces @ Rs.200/- due to close down of portal, the defendant should have filed cogent proof regarding the payment of Rs.1,20,000/- as stated by him in his WS and as reflected in his ledger. Without any cogent proof of making the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash as transport fine and Rs.1,20,000/- as ORC, such entries in the ledger made unilaterally by the defendant cannot be taken into account. Moreover, as already observed that the defendant though has filed the said ledger, but, has not exhibited or relied upon the Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.16 of 36 KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 14:40:58 Date: 2026.01.07 +0530 ledger during recording of evidence in the court. The defendant, thus, has failed to prove that the plaintiff is liable to pay an amount of Rs.35,676.90/-.
The issue is, thus, decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff, accordingly.
Issue No. (iii): Whether the plaintiff is entitled to money decree?
If so, to what amount? OPP
28. The plaintiff has filed the present case for recovery of Rs. 28,34,443.66 against the defendant and Rs. 9,18,000/- on account of salary to security guards, sweeper charges etc. against the defendant. Plaintiff has also claimed damages of Rs.11,00,000/- and future damages @ Rs.26,943/- per month. The broad heads of above said amount are as follows:
A) Rs. 20,98,123.66/- as old outstanding amount out of which Rs. 4 Lakhs was paid by the defendant and the remaining amount is Rs. 16.98,123.33/-;
B) Rs. 46,000/- as payment made by the plaintiff to a seller from whom the defendant had purchased the generator set; C) Rs. 10,90,320/- for the performa invoice no. VE/11/ 19-20 dated 10.02.2020;
D) Rs.9,18,000/- along with interest @ 18 % per annum on account of expenses incurred by the plaintiff; E) Rs.11,00,000/- along with interest @ 18 % per annum on account of damages suffered by the plaintiff; F) Rs.26,943/- per month along with interest @ 18 % per annum on account of future damages suffered by the plaintiff.
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.17 of 36 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.07 14:41:07 +0530 A) RS. 20,98,123.66/- AS OLD OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OUT OF WHICH RS. 4 LAKHS WAS PAID BY THE DEFENDANT AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT IS RS. 16.98,123.33/-.
29. The defendant, has made a payment of Rs. 4 Lakhs, thus, the total outstanding amount is calculated by the plaintiff as Rs. 28,34,443.66/- (i.e. Rs.16,98,123.66/- + Rs.46,000/- + Rs.10,90,320/-).
The calculation of the above said amount is as follows:
Outstanding amount as on 31.01.2020 Rs. 20,98,123.66/- Payment made on 05.03.2020 Rs. 2,00,000/- Payment made on 22.07.2020 Rs. 1,00,000/- Payment made on 14.08.2020 Rs. 1,00,000/- Remaining Balance (A) Rs. 16,98,123.66/- Payment made by the plaintiff to seller Rs. 46,000/- on 13.02.2020 (B) Amount of Performa Invoice (C) Rs. 10,90,320/- Grand Total (A+B+C) Rs. 28,34,443.66/-
30. The defendant in his Written Statement has denied its liability to pay rather has claimed Rs. 35,675.90/- from the plaintiff. The defendant has solely relied upon the ledger maintained by him. Perusal of the said ledger reveals that the said ledger is incomplete as it does not provide for complete details of the transaction between the parties as it starts from 04.07.2019 with a balance of Rs. 13,34,4736.20. The said ledger is not even relied upon by defendant during the examination in chief and even in the affidavit it is only mentioned as Mark D/1 and as already observed, the said ledger of defendant cannot be taken into consideration. The defendant has admitted the business Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.18 of 36 Digitally signed KIRAN BANSAL by KIRAN BANSAL Date: 2026.01.07 14:41:32 +0530 relations between the parties as it has been stated in his evidence that he knew the plaintiff since 2018.
31. The plaintiff has produced following invoices a. Invoice no. 412 dated 31.01.2020 for an amount of Rs. 13,62,900/-
b. Invoice no. 291 dated 12.10.2019 for an amount of Rs. 6,44,280/-
c. Invoice no. 213 dated 31.08.2019 for an amount of Rs. 6,66,033.30/-
d. Invoice no. 167 dated 05.08.2019 for an amount of Rs. 6,66,033.30/-
e. Invoice No. 164 dated 03.08.2019 for an amount of Rs. 6,66,033.30/- (all five Ex.PW1/2 (collectively)) f. Performa invoice no. VE/08/19-20 dated 10.02.2020 for an amount of Rs. 10,90,320/- (Ex.PW1/3)
32. The above said invoices Ex.PW1/2 are duly supported by the e-way bills and the Transport receipt which proves the delivery of the goods to the defendant. The plaintiff in his cross examination has stated that the goods were supplied by the transporter and, therefore, no signature of the defendant was required. Moreover, it has been stated by the plaintiff that he has paid requisite GST amount on all the invoices as mentioned in the ledger. The relevant part of the cross examination of PW-1 is re-produced as follows:
"I have paid GST before the concerned department of the entire invoices which is mentioned in the Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.19 of 36 KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 14:41:42 Date: 2026.01.07 +0530 ledger account. It is correct that I have not filed the GST details in the plaint. (Vol. I can produce the same). It is wrong to suggest that items have not been supplied against invoice no. 412 dated 31.01.2020.
I do not know whether the defendant has claimed input of GST or not. The items were supplied to the defendant through the transport, therefore, no signature of defendant is required. I have filed the photocopy of transport receipt by which the items were delivered to the defendant."
33. The plaintiff in his plaint has averred that a cheque no. 616576 dated 20.02.2020 for Rs. 31,82,543/- was sent by the defendant on 19.02.2020 through post and the same was dishonoured with remarks as "funds insufficient". The plaintiff has also proved an envelope Ex.PW1/5 which was received by the plaintiff via speed post. The said envelope contained the cheque Ex.PW1/6. The perusal of the receipt affixed on the back side of the envelope shows that the said enveloped was booked from Bhubaneshwar on 19.02.2020 for Delhi.
34. The defendant admitted that he had issued the said cheque but according to defendant the same was sent blank and was sent as security cheque. The relevant part of the cross examination of the defendant/DW-1 is as follows:
"Ques. I put it to you that you had issued cheque bearing no. 616576, dated 20.02.2020, amounting to Rs. 31,82,543/- through speed post in favour of Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.20 of 36 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.07 14:41:50 +0530 plaintiff?
Ans. It is correct that I had issued cheque bearing no. 616576, but, the same was given as security cheque and the same was sent blank. It is correct that cheque bearing no. 616576, bears my signatures.
Q. I put it to you that what was the amount between you and the plaintiff as security amount which was to be kept as security.
Ans. No such amount was fixed."
35. The defendant has merely taken this plea that a blank cheque was sent by him to the plaintiff. However, the defendant has failed to produce any cogent evidence in support of his contention. As per the Invoices the first transaction between the parties is dated 03.08.2019 and from 03.08.2019 till 31.01.2023, the defendant has received goods against 5 invoices. When the goods against 5 invoices were already dispatched and received by the defendant then how come a cheque Ex.PW1/6 which was sent through speed post as per postal envelope Ex.PW1/5 on 19.02.2020 can be considered as a security cheque. The security cheque generally is issued at the time of start of business. The fact that the cheque was sent on 19.02.2020 by the defendant through speed post, itself is sufficient to discredit this contention of the defendant that it was the security cheque as no question arises of issuing any security cheque when the business between the parties had already commenced and payments were due. Also, if the said cheque was issued as the security cheque then why the defendant has transferred Rs. 4 lakhs in the account of the plaintiff after February, 2020. Thus, this contention of the Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.21 of 36 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 14:41:59 Date: 2026.01.07 +0530 defendant can not be accepted.
36. As far as the delivery of goods is concerned, the defendant in his cross examination has admitted the fact that he has not returned any order supplied by the plaintiff. The relevant part of the cross examination of the defendant is as follows:
"Ques. I put it to you that during the period of business transactions, was any order placed by you upon the plaintiff, returned, if yes then for what reason?
Ans. No order was returned by me."
37. The plaintiff has relied upon the para 38 and 39 of the judgement in the case of Sanjana Agarwal vs Namoshivai Apparels Private Limited (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble HC has discussed rule 138 (11) and (12) of The CGST Act and observed that e-way bills are available on the common portal of the supplier and the recipient and if the person to whom the goods are supplied does not communicate his acceptance or rejection within 72 hours, he shall be deemed to have accepted the goods.
38. The e-way bills so produced by the plaintiff are supported by a certificate under Order XI Rule 6 CPC as well as the carbon copy of transport receipt. Thus, the delivery of the goods qua those invoices are considered as proved. However, if the defendant had disputed the delivery/ receipt of the goods, the defendant should have produced some cogent evidence in its support. The defendant, in order to prove, that he has not received the supply, should have produced the GST documents or Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.22 of 36 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 14:42:40 Date: 2026.01.07 +0530 any other record in support of the fact that he has not taken input credit of the supplies. Thus, the defendant has not proved the fact that he has not received the supply.
39. The plaintiff has, thus, duly proved the delivery of the goods qua the invoices no. 412, 291, 213, 164 and 167 which are duly supported by the e-way bills and transport receipt.
40. The plaintiff has claimed that Rs. 20,98,123.66/- was outstanding prior to the order placed by the defendant in first week of February, 2020. Thereafter, the defendant has also made the payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- on different occasions (on 05.03.2020, 22.07.2020 and 14.08.2020). Thus, the total outstanding amount thereafter, as shown in the ledger is Rs. 17,44,123.66/- (inclusive of Rs. 46,000/-).
41. The defendant has merely averred that no amount is due and that the defendant has no liability to pay to the plaintiff. The defendant has produced a ledger, which as already discussed above can not be considered as genuine. Also, the ledger does not find mention of the invoice no. 412 dated 31.01.2020 against which the delivery has been proved.
42. The defendant has not produced any bank statement to support his contention that he has paid all the entire outstanding liability nor has produced any other evidence in this regard. Moreover, it has been admitted by the defendant in his cross examination that he has not returned any order.
43. Defendant during his cross examination has Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.23 of 36 Digitally signed KIRAN BANSAL by KIRAN BANSAL Date: 2026.01.07 14:42:46 +0530 admitted that he has signed the said cheque. It has also been admitted by the defendant that he was aware of the fact that cheque issued by the defendant was dishonoured on 02.03.2020 and again on 21.05.2020 for reasons 'fund insufficient'. The relevant part of the cross examination is as follows:
"Q. I put it to you that the cheque bearing no. 616576 issued by you got dishonoured on presentation on 02.03.2020, again on 21.05.2020, for reasons fund insufficient? What you have to say? Ans. I have the knowledge regarding the same. (Vol. There is no liability with respect to the said cheque amount)."
44. Since the defendant had admitted the signatures on the cheques, presumption under section 139 of The Negotiable Instruments Act is attracted and the onus is upon the defendant to prove that the cheque was not issued for a legally recoverable debt. The defendant has not proved any evidence to rebut the said presumption.
45. The defendant has also admitted that he has paid Rs.4,00,000/- in discharge of his liability towards the plaintiff after February, 2020. The relevant part of the cross examination of the plaintiff is as follows:
"Ques. I put it to you that in discharge of your liability towards the plaintiff, you made a part payment of Rs. 4 Lakhs by way of different bank transfers in account no. 50200021961759. What do Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.24 of 36 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.01.07 14:43:01 +0530 you have to say?
Ans. As per ledger I have made a part payment of Rs. 4 Lakhs to the plaintiff."
46. Moreover, the plaintiff has stated that the ledger account maintained by the plaintiff was shared with the defendant to which the defendant has denied the same. The relevant part of the cross examination of the defendant is as follows:
"Ques. I put it to you that the ledger account of S.K. Enterprises as prepared by the plaintiff was in your knowledge and the same was acknowledged by you prior to filing the present suit? What do you have to say?
Ans. The ledger account was not shared by the plaintiff."
47. However, in reply to the legal notice Ex.PW1/9 sent by the defendant vide email dated 30.08.2022, it has been stated that the ledger shared by the plaintiff was incorrect. Thus, the testimony of the defendant that the said ledger was not shared with him is not correct.
48. Moreover, in the said reply Ex.PW1/9 to the legal notice the defendant has stated that in the ledger the amount of invoice no. 104 is wrongly written as 1,82,900/- instead of 1,77,000/-. The defendant has taken the same ground in the WS. If that was the case, the defendant should have produced the original bill of which wrong entry has been allegedly made in the ledger by the plaintiff. But the defendant has failed to prove his Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.25 of 36 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.07 14:43:10 +0530 contention by producing the original invoice in his possession, before the court.
49. Moreover, the defendant has taken a defence that he has paid an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as fine charges on goods seized under transport and has paid Rs. 1,20,000/- for unsold stock remained to another vendor. However, no such evidence in this regard has been produced before the court to corroborate the oral version. Moreover, the defendant is calculating outstanding amount after the adjustment of the fine and ORC amount which is not correct as the said amount was not paid to the plaintiff towards the outstanding amount and therefore, calculating it towards the outstanding amount due to the plaintiff is not justified.
50. The invoices, e-way bills and the transport receipt of the goods corresponds to the ledger account filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 16,98,123.66/- (Rs. 17,44,123.66 - 46,000/-) as amount outstanding against the goods sold by the plaintiff to the defendant and received by the defendant.
B) RS. 46,000/- AS PAYMENT MADE BY THE PLAINTIFF TO A SELLER FROM WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD PURCHASED THE GENERATOR SET.
51. Now coming to the plea that whether plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 46,000/- as it was paid by the plaintiff to a seller from where the defendant has purchased a generator. The defendant in response to this plea has admitted the fact of Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.26 of 36 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.07 14:43:19 +0530 payment of Rs. 46,000/- by the plaintiff. The relevant part of the cross examination is as follows:
"It is correct that plaintiff has transferred Rs. 46,000/- in the account of the said seller on 13.03.2020. (Vol. The same was given as a gift)."
52. The plaintiff in support of his contention has also filed bank account statement Ex.PW1/4 depicting the transfer of Rs. 46,000/- to SHREE ENTERPRICES. The defendant has termed this transaction as a gift. However, this is only an after thought as no evidence was led by the defendant to show that the plaintiff has gifted this generator to the defendant. It is also important to mention here that the defendant in his WS has stated that the said amount of Rs. 46,000/- has been wrongly entered in the ledger by the plaintiff and plaintiff is making false demand from the defendant.
53. The plea of gift by defendant is thus, merely an afterthought, just to evade his liability. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the above said amount of Rs. 46,000/- which was paid by the plaintiff to a seller from whom the defendant has purchased a generator.
C) RS. 10,90,320/- FOR THE PERFORMA INVOICE NO. VE/11/ 19-20 DATED 10.02.2020;
54. Now coming to the claim of plaintiff to recover the amount of Rs. 10,90,320/- against the performa invoice no. VE/11/ 19-20 dated 10.02.2020. It has been stated by the plaintiff that the defendant in first week of February 2020, the defendant Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.27 of 36 KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.07 14:43:27 +0530 telephonically placed an order of 720 pieces of Gas Stove Magic for the above said amount. It is further averred that the goods as ordered by the defendant was ready for dispatch and delivery but the defendant delayed the issuance of the cheques for the agreed amount. It is stated by the defendant that the said goods were not picked up by the defendant. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay for the same.
The defendant has, on the other hand, contended that he has not ordered any such goods to the plaintiff.
55. The plaintiff has stated that the defendant has telephonically ordered the goods as mentioned in invoice. The fact that both the plaintiff and the defendant used to communicate telephonically is supported by the testimony of the both the parties. The relevant part of the cross examination of the plaintiff (PW1) is re-produced as below:
"I communicated with defendant sometimes through the phone call or through whatsapp and sometimes dispatched the copy of ledger with the goods to the defendant. It is correct that I have not filed any documents in this regard with the plaint. The performa invoice bearing no. VE/11/19-20 dated 10.02.2020 was sent to the defendant. I do not remember as to through which mode the proforma invoice was sent to the defendant."
56. The relevant part of the cross examination of the defendant (DW1) is re-produced as follows:
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.28 of 36 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.07 14:43:33 +0530 "It is correct that I used to communicate through mobile with the plaintiff for placing any order. It is also correct that I have received the bills/ invoice with the respect the material supplied by the plaintiff. All the money transaction with the plaintiff are done through me only."
Thus, it can be said that orders were placed telephonically.
57. As far as the value of the invoice is concerned, the plaintiff has stated that the defendant has sent a cheque for an amount of Rs. 31,82,543/- through courier and this amount was inclusive of the value of the last ordered material i.e. Performa invoice no. VE/ 11/19-20.
58. The defendant has admitted that he had sent a cheque through the courier and has also admitted his signatures. However, the defendant has taken the plea that he had sent a blank cheque through speed post. This plea of the defendant that he had sent a blank cheque through courier is not appealing as already discussed, as it is not supported by any evidence except for bald statement of the defendant.
59. Moreover as per section 2(j) of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, a fact is said to be proved when after considering the matters before it the court believes it to exist or its existence so probable that a prudent man under circumstances of particular case to act on supposition that it exists. Section 2(j) is as follows:
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.29 of 36 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.07 14:43:49 +0530 "(j) proved: A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists"
60. Also, as per Section 2(c) of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, a fact is said to be disproved when after considering the matters before it the court believes it to non- exist or its non existence so probable that a prudent man under circumstances of particular case to act on supposition that it does not exists. Section 2(c) of the BSA is as follows:
"(c) "disproved" in relation to a fact, means when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist"
Thus, the defence of the defendant that the said cheque had sent a blank cheque through post to the plaintiff, has to be adjudged at the yardstick of a prudent man. It is very clear that no prudent man would ever send a blank cheque to someone that through speed post/ courier. Thus, the plea of the defendant that he sent a blank cheque is not sustainable. Moreover, the defendant has not produced any communication between the plaintiff and the defendant wherein the plaintiff has asked a blank cheque. Thus, the fact that defendant has not produced any Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.30 of 36 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.07 14:43:58 +0530 document in this regard, therefore also, this plea is not sustainable.
61. Moreover, the cheque is for amount of Rs. 31,82,543/-. The fact that cheque had been issued as a security cheque is also defeated by the reason that such an odd and exact amount is filled on the cheque. In this regard reference can be made to the case of Rajesh Ahuja vs Manoj Mittal and Anr. (1995 (34) DRJ 661) wherein Hon'ble Delhi HC has observed as follows:
"(16) PLAINTIFF has averred in his plaint that when he presented cheque No.825456 dated 10.10.1992 for the amount of Rs.16,93,867.70p. to the bank, the said cheque was returned on account of insufficient funds. Plaintiff has also produced the intimation received by him from the bank showing that the cheque was not encashed for insufficient funds. The defendants have tried to explain this cheque by saying that he had agreed to purchase 1,00,000 sq.ft. of marble from the plaintiff and towards the said transaction he had given this cheque in question by way of advance payment or part payment. It is his further claim that as the plaintiff had not supplied him the agreed quantity of marble he has filed a suit for damages of Rs.5,00,000.00 in the District Court, Delhi against the plaintiff. This contention of the defendants that they had a transaction with the plaintiff for purchase of 1,00,000 sq.ft. of marble is vehemently denied by Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.31 of 36 Digitally signed KIRAN BANSAL by KIRAN BANSAL 14:44:06 Date: 2026.01.07 +0530 the plaintiff. The circumstances on record also falsify this claim and show that the said contention is vexatious. If at all there was any transaction, as claimed by the defendants, then the cheque which was by way of advance payment would have been in a round Figure. There could not be a cheque as the cheque in question. Why should there be such an odd figure of Rs.16,93,867.70p. in a cheque which is by way of advance payment towards an alleged transaction? It is not probable that for such a transaction involving lakhs of rupees no document of agreement is got executed. It must be further mentioned here that it is not the claim of the defendants that as the plaintiff failed to deliver the goods, as agreed by him, they had stopped payment of that cheque. It seems that after learning that plaintiff is going to take action on account of dishonouring of cheque the defendants have concocted this story of a transaction for purchase of marble from the plaintiff and straightway filed a suit for damages. Therefore, I hold that the contention raised by the defendants regarding the cheque in question is not at all probable and believable and that no triable issue is involved in this case.
Contentions raised by the defendants are frivolous."
Thus, the defence taken by the defendant is frivolous and not proved. Furthermore, the amount filled in the said cheque is inclusive of the outstanding payment and the amount of the last ordered goods i.e. Rs. 20,98,123.66/- + 10,90,320/- + 46,000/-.
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.32 of 36 KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 14:44:14 Date: 2026.01.07 +0530 The plaintiff has also filed photographs of the stoves which were manufactured for the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to amount of the goods so ordered by the defendant vide Performa Invoice no. VE/ 11/ 19-20 dated 10.02.2020 i.e. Rs. 9,24,000/-. Though, the proforma invoice is for an amount of Rs.10,90,320/-, but, the same is including GST amount @ 18% i.e. Rs.1,66,320/- as Ex.PW1/3. Certainly, the amount of GST would not have been paid by the plaintiff as per proforma invoice Ex.PW1/3 and thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to an amount of Rs.1,66,320/- and the plaintiff is only entitled to the amount of goods which the plaintiff had prepared as per order placed by the defendant i.e. Rs.9,24,000/-.
D) RS.9,18,000/- ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 18 % PER ANNUM ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE PLAINTIFF.
62. Now coming to the plea of the plaintiff regarding claim of damages to the tune of Rs.9,18,000/- on account of rent, salary to security guards, sweeper charges etc. The plaintiff states that these charges are further recurring and being incurred by the plaintiff, as the said goods are still lying with the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff has filed one copy of the rent agreement dated 13.02.2020 which is purported to be executed between Sh. Sushil Sehgal and M/s Vandana Enterprises, which is Mark A. The said rent agreement was not proved during the examination of the plaintiff nor the plaintiff has summoned the executant to the said rent agreement nor has summoned any other witness.
63. The plaintiff has merely averred the said amount on account of rent, salary etc., but, has not provided any specific Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.33 of 36 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.07 14:44:23 +0530 calculation. If the plaintiff has spent any amount on account of rent, salary to security guard, sweeper charges etc. then plaintiff should have produced the relevant bank account statement showing the payment of rent, salary to security guard, sweeper charges etc. No such evidence has been produced by the plaintiff. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff for the said amount of Rs. 9,18,000/- is declined.
E) RS.11,00,000/- ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 18 % PER ANNUM ON ACCOUNT OF DAMAGES SUFFERED BY THE PLAINTIFF;
F) RS.26,943/- PER MONTH ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 18 % PER ANNUM ON ACCOUNT OF FUTURE DAMAGES SUFFERED BY THE PLAINTIFF.
64. Plaintiff has also stated that defendant is liable to pay damages for an amount of Rs.11 lakhs. However, plaintiff has not specifically stated on what basis he has claimed an amount of Rs.11 lakhs.
65. The Hon'ble Delhi HC in the case of Infosys Technologies Limited vs Marwadi Inforys Pvt Ltd and Ors CS (OS) 783 of 2007 decided on 23.07.2009 has held that the claim of damages has to be allowed only on the basis of cogent evidence. The relevant observation is as follows:
"11. On the question of damages it is settled that the assessment of damages has to be based on cogent evidence furnished for the purpose..... "
After observing above, the Hon'ble HC has observed that the plaintiff's claim of damages is not allowed. In Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.34 of 36 Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.07 14:44:32 +0530 the present case also, since the claim of the plaintiff is not supported with the cogent evidence, thus, the claim of the plaintiff qua the damages is not liable to be accepted.
66. Plaintiff has failed to prove that he has suffered any damages on account of non-lifting of goods by the defendant. Plaintiff has already claimed the amount of goods from the defendant and therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to any amount on account of damages. Plaintiff has also sought future damages @ Rs.26,943/- per month, but, no evidence in this regard is led by the plaintiff and therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to any future damages also.
Thus, on the basis of the invoices, E-way bills and the transport receipt Ex.PW1/2, Performa Invoice Ex.PW1/3 which are corresponding to the ledger filed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to the amount of Rs.26,68,123.66/- (i.e. Rs.16,98,123.66 + Rs.46,000 + Rs.9,24,000).
Issue is decided accordingly.
Issue No. (iv): Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
67. The plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18% per annum from 01.04.2020 on the amount of Rs. 28,34,443.66/-. The plaintiff has filed the present suit on 18.08.2023. Thus, the plaintiff is claiming interest on the pre-suit period i.e. from 01.04.2020 to 17.08.2023.
68. The plaintiff has not stated that any agreement was executed between the parties regarding payment of interest @ 18% per annum, nor has led any evidence in this regard. Even in Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.35 of 36 KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.07 14:44:40 +0530 the invoices there is no such stipulation as to rate of the interest to be charged in case of delayed payment. Moreover, interest cannot be granted as such an exorbitant rate. Thus, the claim of the plaintiff for interest @ 18% per annum is not sustainable.
69. However, as the plaintiff is entitled to the above said outstanding amount, he is also entitled to interest at a reasonable rate. The plaintiff is, thus, entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.26,68,123.66/- from 01.04.2020 till its realization. It is pertinent to mention here that a decree qua the interest amount will be executable only pursuant to deposit of court fees on the interest portion.
Issue is decided accordingly.
RELIEF
70. In view of the discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and it is directed that plaintiff is entitled to an amount of Rs.26,68,123.66 /- from the defendant as principal amount along with interest @ 9% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.26,68,123.66 /- from 01.04.2020 till its realization. Cost of the suit to the extent of court fees and Rs.2,00,000/- as litigation cost is also awarded to the plaintiff as per law.
Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.01.07 14:44:48 +0530 Announced in the open court (Kiran Bansal) on 07.01.2026 District Judge, Commercial Court-02 Shahdara, Karkardooma Delhi/07.01.2026 Civil Suit (Comm) No. 415/2023 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Arora Vs. M/s S.K. Enterprises Page No.36 of 36