Delhi District Court
Bw E-Commerce Private Limited vs M/S Crossborder Logistech Private ... on 19 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF Dr. RAKESH KUMAR: DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT)-04, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 3695/2024
CNR No. DLSE010098612024
In the matter of:
BW E-commerce Pvt. Ltd.
Registered office at 2/13, Ground Floor,
Ansari Road, Daryaganj,
New Delhi-110002
Email: [email protected]
Mobile No. 9990041960 .....Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Crossborder Logistech Private Limited
Registered office at 40-41, LGF,
Bakshi House Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110019,
Also at: 612, Emaar MGF Capital Tower No. 1,
Sikandarpur, Sector-26, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road,
Gurugram, Haryana-122002
Email: [email protected],
[email protected] &
[email protected] .....Defendant
Date of Institution : 20.09.2024
Date of reserving order : 09.03.2026
Date of pronouncement of order : 19.03.2026
CS (Comm) No.3695/24 BW E-commerce v. M/s Crossborder Page No. 1 to 14
For plaintiff : Mr. Narender Vashistha, Advocate.
For defendant : Ex-parte
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of ₹19,59,702/- (Nineteen Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Two only) with pendent-lite and future interest and costs instituted by the plaintiff company BW E-commerce Pvt. Ltd. against the defendant company M/s Crossborder Logistech Pvt. Ltd.
2. Facts, as per the plaintiff's version, are that the plaintiff company is engaged in trading of all type of texts, books, literature & other educational material, stockist/ distributors of leading bookseller/ publishers; that the plaintiff runs their business under the brand image of books wagon; that the defendant is engaged in the business of domestic & cross border logistic/ shipping business; that in the first week of September, 2022, the defendant company's directors, namely, Mr. Sugam Jain and Mr. Parinay Itkan approached the plaintiff and introduced themselves as India's first and only cross border logistic platform and first IOSS ready courier services in India and they are working under the brand name 'Shypmax'; that the defendant company send the business proposal cum service guide/ terms email dated 29.09.2022 to the plaintiff which was digitally approved by the plaintiff during the course of their CS (Comm) No.3695/24 BW E-commerce v. M/s Crossborder Page No. 2 to 14 business and, accordingly, the defendant company created the customer and opened the account which was activated on 30.11.2022; that the plaintiff deposited sum of ₹2,000/- as an advance and placed various orders to the defendant company to ship the goods across the world to their customers from whom the plaintiff received the order and money.
3. It is further averred in the plaint that thereafter, on several occasions, defendant failed to locate the parcel and eventually booked orders were cancelled by the customers of the plaintiff and eventually the plaintiff company was forced to return the entire amount back to the respective customers and total 33 number of packets of worth ₹36,628/- and very manipulatively the defendant raised and debit the plaintiff's account with ₹24,172/- on account of freight charges, despite non delivery of said 33 packets and plaintiff suffered a loss of ₹61,544/-; that the plaintiff company during the course of business with the defendant company handed over 257 number of packets containing educational books and literature to be delivered at various locations in Europe worth of ₹3,20,442/- against which the defendant had raised freight charges bill in tune of ₹1,95,743/-, however, till date neither these 257 packets were delivered to the customers nor the same were returned back to the plaintiff despite repeated requests to the defendant company; that in the month of May & June, 2023, plaintiff handed over 203 CS (Comm) No.3695/24 BW E-commerce v. M/s Crossborder Page No. 3 to 14 number of packets containing educational books and literature to be delivered at various locations in Europe which was cancelled due to delay in delivery from the defendant's side; that the defendant returned the packets to the plaintiff but in damage condition; that the total worth of 203 packets was ₹2,82,423/- against which the defendant company had raised the freight charges bill of ₹1,62,893/- and the plaintiff suffered a loss of ₹4,45,316/-; that similarly, the defendant company failed to deliver 386 packets consignment on time and the same were cancelled due to huge delay in delivery at defendant's side; that the plaintiff returned the packets but in damage condition; that the total worth of 386 packets was worth of ₹4,07,689/- against which the defendant company had raised the freight charges bill of ₹4,72,100/- and the plaintiff suffered a loss of ₹8,79,789/-; that the plaintiff further handed over to the defendant their last consignment on 27.06.2023 and plaintiff further recharged their account with ₹7,60,000/- and despite advance payment, the defendant company failed to provide painless service to the plaintiff; that to the above, the plaintiff had issued the invoice towards each shipment to the defendant with its terms and conditions and the defendant has duly received all the invoices, particulars of the consignments have been duly mentioned in each bill and particulars of the due invoices and amount therein are as under:
CS (Comm) No.3695/24 BW E-commerce v. M/s Crossborder Page No. 4 to 14 S. No. Invoice no. Date charge Extend IGST Total N of ed Area @18% o pack Surchar ets ge
1. 33 SX07202302 12.07.20 459184 350 82716.1 542252.
5542 23 2 12 SX06202302 15.06.20 721890 129940. 851830.
3731 23 20 20 SX06202302 08.06.20 299037. 53826.6 352863.
2922 23 00 6 66
SX05202302 16.05.20 191871 34536.7 226407.
0789 23 8 78
2. 257 SX05202302 16.05.20 191871 34536.7 226407.
0789 23 8 78
SX05202302 22.05.20 197924 35626.3 233550.
1236 23 2 32
SX06202302 08.06.20 299037 53826.6 352863.
2922 23 6 66
SX06202302 Not
2069 given
3. 203 SX06202302 08.06.20 299037 53826.6 352863.
2922 23 6 66
SX06202302 15.06.20 721890 129940. 851830.
0731 23 20 20
4. 386 SX07202302 12.07.20 459184 350 82716.1 542250.
5542 23 2 12
CS (Comm) No.3695/24 BW E-commerce v. M/s Crossborder Page No. 5 to 14
4. It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff has been maintaining regular Book of Accounts in the ordinary course of their business and as per Statement of Account/ ledger of account, maintained by the plaintiff, an amount of ₹19,58,702/- is due upon the defendant, however, despite various demands, defendant has failed to pay the same.
5. It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff was constrained to issue a Legal Notice dated 16.01.2024 calling upon the defendant to pay the upto date charges, which notice has been duly served to the defendant through registered post on 21.01.2023 and through email on 18.01.2024 and the defendant telephonically committed to discharge the entire amount with interest within few months, however, did not pay any amount to the plaintiff.
6. It is further averred in the plaint that as per section 2 (1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the subject matter of the present suit is a commercial dispute, therefore, before institution of the suit, the plaintiff approached the South-East District Legal Services Authority for per-litigation mediation against the defendant, but the defendant failed to appear before the said authority for settlement of the issues leading upto the institution of the suit.
CS (Comm) No.3695/24 BW E-commerce v. M/s Crossborder Page No. 6 to 14
7. The defendant could not be served in ordinary way. Thereafter, an application under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 made on behalf of the plaintiff was allowed and it was ordered that the defendant be served through substituted mode. On 03.06.2025, this court observed that the defendant was served by way of publication in newspapers 'The Statesman' and 'Veer Arjun' on 22.04.2025 and vide affixation on 30.04.2025. Despite several notices/ summons, none appeared for the defendant on any date nor any written statement was filed and as such, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte on the very said date and the matter was posted for ex-parte hearing.
8. To prove the case, the plaintiff examined Shubham Jain, Authorized Representative of the plaintiff company as PW1, who reiterated the contents of plaint in his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A. During his examination-in-chief, PW1 Shubham Jain has also tendered in evidence the following documents:-
i. Resolution of Board of Directors Ex.PW1/1. ii. Company registered with ROC of Delhi having corporate identity number U72900DL2021PTC380859 Ex.PW1/2. iii. Company Income tax PAN No. AAJCB8356L Ex.PW1/3. iv. Company GST no. 07AAJCB8356L1Z4 Ex.PW1/4. v. Certificate u/s 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Ex.PW1/5.
vi. Declaration on oath for electronic records Ex.PW1/6.
CS (Comm) No.3695/24 BW E-commerce v. M/s Crossborder Page No. 7 to 14 vii. Companies master data information downloaded from the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs Ex.PW1/7. viii, Memorandum of understanding between the plaintiff and Bombino Express Ex.PW1/8.
ix. The email written by Ms. Rakhi Gussain to Mr. Ashis Jain Ex.PW1/9.
x. Credit card statement of one of the director of the plaintiff company through which the payment were tendered to the defendant Ex.PW1/10.
xi. Summary of 3 packets along with shipping details of various orders which are neither received by the plaintiff company nor delivered to the customers Ex.PW1/10A. xii. E-portal systems generated order cancellation and refunds Ex.PW1/10B.
xiii. Tax invoice no. SX072023025542 along with details of freight charge by the defendant company consignment wise Ex.PW1/10C.
xiv. Tax invoice no. SX062023023731 along with details of freight charge by the defendant company consignment wise Ex.PW1/10D.
xv. Tax invoice no. SX062023022922 along with details of freight charge by the defendant company consignment wise Ex.PW1/10E.
CS (Comm) No.3695/24 BW E-commerce v. M/s Crossborder Page No. 8 to 14 xvi. Tax invoice no. SX052023020789 along with details of freight charge by the defendant company consignment wise Ex.PW1/10F.
xvii. Debit note for ₹1,459.96/- Ex.PW1/10G. xviii. Debit note for ₹61,544/- Ex.PW1/11. xix. Summary of 257 packets of worth ₹3,20,442/-along with total freight charge in the tune of ₹1,95,743/- Ex.PW1/11A.
xx. Various email details exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendant along with order number and consignment details Ex.PW1/11B.
xxi. Defendant company emails Ex.PW1/11C. xxii. Tax invoice no. SX052023020789 along with details of freight charge by the defendant company without supplying of consignment Ex.PW1/11D. xxiii. Tax invoice no. SX052023021236 along with details of freight charge by the defendant company without supplying of consignment Ex.PW1/11E. xxiv. Tax invoice no. SX062023022922 along with details of freight charge by the defendant company without supplying of consignment Ex.PW1/11F. xxv. Debit note for ₹ 5,16,185/- to the defendant company Ex.PW1/12.
xxvi. Summary of 203 packets consignment with consignment details Ex.PW1/12A.
CS (Comm) No.3695/24 BW E-commerce v. M/s Crossborder Page No. 9 to 14 xxvii. Tax invoice no. SX062023022922 along with details of freight charge by the defendant company without supplying of consignment Ex.PW1/12B. xxviii.Tax invoice no. SX062023023731 along with details of freight charge by the defendant company consignment wise Ex.PW1/12C.
xxix. Defendant company apology and inconvenience caused to the plaintiff and emails to the plaintiff by Sh. Shyam Kumar and Ms. Aliya regarding return of assignments to the plaintiff Ex.PW1/12D.
xxx. Debit note for ₹4,45,316/- to the defendant Ex.PW1/13. xxxi. Summary of 386 packets of worth ₹4,07,689/-
Ex.PW1/13A.
xxxii. Defendant charged the freight of ₹ 7,72,100/- for consignment of freight without considering their own fault Ex.PW1/13B.
xxxiii.Tax invoice no. SX072023025542 for consignment worth of ₹4,72,100/- for non supply of goods along with the freight consignment details Ex.PW1/13C. xxxiv.List of 386 shipment regarding severe loss/ damages Ex.PW1/13D.
xxxv. Debit note for ₹8,79,789/- raised upon the defendant company Ex.PW1/13E.
xxxvi. Whatsapp group and chats as well as emails Ex.PW1/14.
CS (Comm) No.3695/24 BW E-commerce v. M/s Crossborder Page No. 10 to 14 xxxvii.Ledger account of the defendant for the period 30.11.2022 to 07.10.2023 Ex.PW1/15.
xxxviii.Legal notice along with postal receipts and email along with tracking report Ex.PW1/16.
xxxix.Mandatory pre-litigation mediation fees Ex.PW1/17.
xl. Non starter report Ex.PW1/18.
9. I have heard counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record carefully.
10. Having drawn the attention of the Court on the testimony of PW1 Shubham Jain and invoices Ex.PW1/10A to 10F, Ex. PW1/11D to 11F and Ex. PW1/12B to 12D, it is submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant company failed to deliver various consignments which were booked by the plaintiff for the customers at different places at different times. Counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that despite repeated assurances and representations made by the defendant, the defendant failed to clear the outstanding dues within time and adopted a casual approach towards repayment and did not pay the freight charges even after the plaintiff served a legal notice Ex. PW1/16 to him.
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the plaintiff.
CS (Comm) No.3695/24 BW E-commerce v. M/s Crossborder Page No. 11 to 14
12. From the testimony of PW1 Shubham Jain and invoices Ex.PW1/10C to Ex. PW1/10F, Ex. PW1/11D to Ex. PW1/11F, Ex. PW1/12B, Ex. PW1/12C and Ex. PW1/13C, the defendant company failed to deliver various consignments which were booked by the plaintiff for the customers at different places at different times.
13. From the testimony of PW1 Shubham Jain and the documents Ex.PW1/16, it has been proved that before institution of the present suit, the plaintiff company also sent a legal notice dated 16.01.2024 calling upon the defendant to pay a sum of ₹19,58,702/- of the outstanding amount with interest within 10 days of receipt thereof, however, the defendant failed to make any payment, thereafter, the plaintiff company approached the South-East District Legal Services Authority for per-litigation mediation against the defendant, but defendant failed to appear before the said authority for settlement of the issues and non- starter report was issued.
14. From the testimony of PW1 Shubham Jain and Ledger account Ex.PW1/15, it has been proved that a sum of ₹19,59,702/- was due an outstanding against the defendant.
CS (Comm) No.3695/24 BW E-commerce v. M/s Crossborder Page No. 12 to 14
15. From the testimony of PW1 Shubham Jain and the document Ex. PW1/6, the registered office of the defendant company is situated at Nehru Place, New Delhi, which is within the territorial limits of this court and the payments were also received by the defendant at their registered office, therefore, this court has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit.
16. From the testimony of PW1 Shubham Jain and invoices Ex.PW1/10A to 10F, Ex. PW1/11D to 11F and Ex. PW1/12B to 12D, the all the transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant had taken place in the year 2023, and the present suit is instituted on 20.09.2024, which is, thus, within limitation.
17. The plaintiff company has also claimed pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum, which is excessive. Taking into account the fact that transactions were commercial, it is held that the plaintiff company is entitled to the interest @ 10% per annum.
18. In view of above discussion, the suit is decreed with costs in terms that the plaintiff company is found entitled to recover ₹19,59,702/- from the defendant along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of institution of suit till realization of such sum.
CS (Comm) No.3695/24 BW E-commerce v. M/s Crossborder Page No. 13 to 14
19. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and after necessary compliance file be consigned to the record room.
Digitally
signed by
RAKESH
Pronounced in the open Court RAKESH
KUMAR
KUMAR
Date:
on the 19th day of March, 2026 2026.03.19
16:35:22
+0530
(Dr. Rakesh Kumar)
District Judge(Commercial Court)-04
South-East, Saket Courts Complex,
New Delhi.
CS (Comm) No.3695/24 BW E-commerce v. M/s Crossborder Page No. 14 to 14