Delhi District Court
Nitesh Kumar Jha vs Statesman Automation Pvt Ltd on 19 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHAILENDER MALIK, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT)-2, NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm) No.493/2023
CNR No. : DLNT012096302023
In the matter of:
Nitesh Kumar Jha
Sole Proprietor M/s. Seairo Shipping and Logistics
AG-61, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar,
New Delhi-110042.
Also at:
A-2, Gazipur, Outside Container Depot,
Delhi-110092. ..... Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Statesman Automation Pvt. Ltd.
419, 4th Floor, Aditya High Street,
South Side Industrial Area, Lal Kuan,
NH-24, Ghaziabad, U.P.-201002.
(through its Director Mr.Chunni Lal Sharma ....... Defendant
Date of Institution : 02.09.2023
Date of reserving judgment : 18.02.2026
Date of pronouncement of order : 19.02.2026
JUDGMENT (Ex-parte)
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.5,37,348/-. Plaintiff being sole proprietor of firm M/s Seairo Shipping and Logistics is stated to be engaged in business of shipment and custom clearing. It is stated that defendant company approached plaintiff for availing its services in relation to import consignment of defendant from China. Plaintiff has been rendering to defendant its services on mutual agreed terms and conditions in respect of various import consignments. After completion of work, plaintiff has been raising different invoices which included its service charges, reimbursement amount spent/incurred by plaintiff on behalf of defendant in connection with its consignment. It is stated that during the course of business dealings plaintiff has been maintaining a running account of defendant in Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2026.02.19 16:00:23 +0530 respect of business transactions. It is stated that initially the business transactions between the parties went on quite smoothly, however subsequently defendant became quite irregular in making payment of outstanding dues towards plaintiff. It is mentioned in the plaint that in respect of services provided by the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.3,08,821/- were outstanding as per details mentioned in the statement of account regarding which plaintiff further claimed interest @ 24% per annum upto 20.07.2023 which is Rs.2,28,527/-. As such for total sum of Rs.5,37,348/- present suit has been filed as per the provisions of Commercial Court Act.
2. Pre-litigation mediation was invoked, however it resulted into non-starter report which is lying on the record.
3. Summons to defendant were issued, however summons in RC cover received back with the report of refusal. Consequently by order dated 18.01.2024 of ld. Predecessor of this court defence was struck off and defendant was proceeded exparte.
4. In exparte evidence, plaintiff has examined one witness i.e. PW1 Nitesh Kumar Jha. After recording of evidence on 26.04.2024, an application was moved on 21.03.2025 seeking to place on record additional documents. Same was allowed by ld. Predecessor of this court and PW1 was examined for proving additional documents.
5. I have heard Sh.Sharad Malhotra, ld. counsel for the plaintiff and have also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of plaintiff.
6. In exparte evidence PW1 has testified that plaintiff firm has been providing its services in relation to import consignment of defendant from China. Import Export Code of defendant company is Ex.PW1/1, certified copy of GST registration of defendant is Ex.PW1/2, certified copy of Master Data of defendant company is Ex.PW1/3.
7. PW1 went on to testify that during its ordinary course of business transactions a running account of defendant was being maintained by the plaintiff firm. PW1 states that in respect of all invoices dated 20.06.2020 Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/8, the payment has not been made. PW1 says that certified copy of port Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2026.02.19 16:00:37 +0530 charges is Ex.PW1/9, statement of account is Ex.PW1/10, certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW1/11.
8. Evidence of PW1 remained unrebutted and unchallenged. Moreover from the evidence as well as documents proved on the record, it is very much evident that plaintiff has been providing services of custom clearance in respect of shipment of defendant from China. The invoices Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/8 establish that fact which are also reflected in statement of account Ex.PW1/9. Beside this, PW1 in additional documents further proved tax invoices issued by EMU Lines Pvt. Ltd. Ex.PW1/12 pursuant to which plaintiff has made the payment on behalf of defendant. That payment correspond to invoices raised by plaintiff which is Ex.PW1/6. Similarly tax invoice Ex.PW1/13 issued by M/s Bluebean Logistics Pvt. Ltd. is regarding payment made by the plaintiff on behalf of defendant which is corresponding to the invoice raised by the plaintiff Ex.PW1/7. Thus documents Ex.PW1/12 and Ex.PW1/13 also corroborate the case of the plaintiff.
9. Thus on assessing the entire evidence and totality of documents proved on the record, this court fins that plaintiff has been able to establish its case by preponderance of probabilities with regard its claim for sum of Rs.3,08,821/- being principal amount. However from going through the invoices Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/8, there was no stipulation with regard to charging of interest @ 24% per annum. As such, this court finds that plaintiff is entitled for interest @ 12% per annum on the principal amount w.e.f. 20.06.2020 till its realization.
10. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and after necessary compliance file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court on the 19th day of February, 2026 (Shailender Malik) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Digitally signed
SHELENDER by SHELENDER
MALIK
MALIK Date: 2026.02.19
16:00:50 +0530