Delhi District Court
M/S Dns Electronics Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Ottomate International Pvt. Ltd on 3 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-04
DISTRICT WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 548/2023
CNR No. DLWT-01-005735-2023
In the matter of :
M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD.
Through its Authorised Representative
Mr. Sachin Kakkar
Regd. Office: J-11, Reserve Bank Enclave
Outer Ring Road, Paschim Vihar,
Delhi-110063
Mob. No. 9811126877
Email- [email protected] .........Plaintiff
VERSUS
M/s OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.
Through its Director Mr. Vishal Sehgal
Regd. Office: WZ-106/101, Rajouri Garden
Delhi -110027
Mob. No. 9560549000
Email:[email protected] ........Defendant
Date of filing of suit : 17.07.2023
Date of reserving judgment : 13.12.2025
Date of judgment : 03.01.2026
COMMERCIAL SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 13.04
LAKH & Rs. 8.27 LAKH BALANCE IN SHAPE OF
CREDIT & Rs. 58,364/- TOWARDS MARKETING
SCHEMES ETC. DAMAGES ALONG WITH PENDENTE
LITE INTEREST @24% P.A. & COST(S)
Appearance:
Sh. Sahil Mongia and Sh. Hemant Sharma, Ld. Counsels for plaintiff.
Sh. Amulya Dhingra and Sh. Diwakar Singh, Ld. Counsels for defendant.
CS (Comm) No.548/2023
M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 1 of 38
JUDGMENT
1. This judgement shall dispose of the suit filed by plaintiff against the defendant for for recovery of Rs. 13.04 lakhs unsold stocks lying with plaintiff & Rs.8.27 lakhs balance in the shape of credit and Rs. 58,364/- towards marketing scheme etc., damages along with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization and cost(s).recovery of money.
2. Briefly stated case of the plaintiff is that it is a private limited company duly registered with Registrar of Companies and has instituted the present suit through its AR Sh. Sachin Kakkar duly authorised vide Board Resolution dt. 10.05.2023. It claim itself to be renowned name operating as a distributor of mobile phones and small electronics appliances including but not limited to electric fans, geysers etc.
3. As per plaintiff, the defendant is a private limited registered company and engaged in business of manufacturing of electric fans including but not limited to ceiling fans and exhaust fans etc. In July, 2020 defendant through its sales manager Sh. Tarun Malhotra approached the plaintiff through its director Rajan Dhingra with a business proposal of distribution/dealership of defendant's electric fans in Delhi. Defendant through Vishal Sehgal (CEO) had meeting on VC with Plaintiff through its CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 2 of 38 Director Rajan Dhingra wherein defendant offered to the plaintiff a dealership of electric fans in Delhi region and further agreed to provide assistance/full support in terms of marketing and publicity to plaintiff with respect to selling of the electric fans.
4. Defendant offered that it would forward a suggestive purchase order to plaintiff and same would be finalized with approval of the plaintiff and for this on 24.07.2020 defendant sent an email to plaintiff seeking some documents Aadhar card, GST certificate PAN card etc. including one canceled cheque for generation of code for distribution of Ottomate fans in Delhi and same was acknowledged by plaintiff and it sent the requisite documents whereafter it received a welcome mail from Mr. Tarun Malhotra, Sales Manager and Mr. Vishal Sehgal, CEO of defendant. It is further claimed that in furtherance to the agreement, plaintiff was sent a purchase order (PO) by defendant through email dated 25.07.2020, which quantified in the sum of Rs.48 lakhs approx.
5. It is further claimed that vide email dated 26-27.07.2020 defendant told the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs, however, inventory of fans which would be delivered would quantify in the sum of Rs. 50 lakhs meaning thereby that the stocks quantifying for the balance Rs. 25 lakhs would be defendant's contribution towards credit sales of proposed electronics fans. While acting upon the purchase order, plaintiff made payment of Rs. 25 lakhs CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 3 of 38 to defendant by way of bank transfer on 28.07.2020 and ultimately, the products when delivered to plaintiff by defendant quantified in the sum of Rs. 49.75 lakhs approx. inclusive of defendant's contribution in the shape of credit sales quantifying in the sum of Rs. 24.75 lakhs and delivery of stocks in the sum of Rs.50 lakhs.
6. It is further alleged that plaintiff made all endeavors to sell the fans of the defendant, however, within a span of 3-4 months, plaintiff noticed that there was no support from defendant in terms of marketing and support system to sell the products and several other dealers were reporting issues in sale of products, so, plaintiff having left with no other option, after having reported all the related issues to defendant, terminated the agreement with defendant over email dated 20.11.2020 and requested the defendant to get the balance stocks picked up and make payment to this effect, as also, to issue credit notes against the pending monthly claims, salaries, demo claims, wrong interest amount deducted etc.
7. It is further stated that defendant got the stock inspected and acknowledged the same vide email dated 12.04.2021 through one Mr. Kuldeep Pandey and assured the plaintiff that defendant would pick up all the stocks at the earliest and initiate refund after full and final reconciliation of accounts and thereafter, from CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 4 of 38 16.04.2021 to 12.11.2021, plaintiff returned the ground stocks (partially) in good salable condition to the defendant, which quantified in the sum of Rs. 29.17 lakhs and balance stock in the sum of Rs. 13.04 lakhs continues to be lying with plaintiff, which defendant avoided to accept only in order to evade making repayment for the same to plaintiff. It is further pleaded that the defendant failed to clear the dues tallying in the sum of Rs. 13,04 lakhs for the unsold stocks lying with the plaintiff and Rs. 8.27 lakhs balance in shape of credit as per the ledger of defendant itself and Rs. 58,364/- towards marketing schemes etc. to plaintiff and interest in the sum of Rs. 4,59,802/-.
8. It is further averred that since defendant failed to pick up unsold goods and pay the amount and since the dispute was commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Act, plaintiff filed a mediation/pre-litigation application on 14.12.2022 before the Delhi Mediation Centre, West District, Tis Hazari Court, but as defendant failed to appear there, non-starter report was issued. Further, it is averred that the office of the plaintiff is at Paschim Vihar and that of defendant is at Rajouri Garden, both come within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Hence, the present suit before this court.
9. Notice of the suit was served upon the defendant, who filed its written statement raising preliminary objection that this Court has CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 5 of 38 no territorial jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter of the present suit since no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. It claimed that the present suit was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of Section 12A of Commercial court Act since the pre-litigation mediation had not been filed properly before the forum having the jurisdiction. It has also been claimed that the present suit has not been instituted by the authorized person and is not maintainable either in law or on fact; that it has been filed as an afterthought to extort money from the defendant though the plaintiff is not entitled to any amount from the defendant. Defendant claimed that present suit was the result of the plaintiff's failure in business and thus plaintiff was guilty of suppression of material facts and had not approached the Hon'ble Court with clean hands.
10. As per defendant, plaintiff seeing the success, goodwill and presence of the product of the defendant in the market, has approached the defendant and expressed its desire to be associated commercially with the defendant. The defendant believed the representation of the plaintiff and agreed transacted with the plaintiff. The plaintiff placed orders for the goods worth Rs. 50,00,000/- and defendant supplied the said goods on the request and demand of the plaintiff. The relation between the defendant and plaintiff was of buyer and seller and on principal to principal and not as that of principal or agent meaning thereby that plaintiff CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 6 of 38 is in no manner is agent of the defendant.
11. The defendant is under no legal obligation or liable in any manner to take back the goods sold to the plaintiff except for the goods having inherent manufacturing defects or covered under the guarantee/warranty given by the defendant company. Plaintiff made only part payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- against the aforesaid goods supplied to the plaintiff by the defendant with the assurance that the balance amount would be paid shortly. The plaintiff had consumed the goods so supplied by the defendant in its business and when the defendant asked for its balance amount, the plaintiff started making lame excuses and deferred the payment.
12. As per defendant, upon persistent follow up by the defendant, the plaintiff started giving excuse that there was no demand of the goods of the defendant in the market, on the contrary the product of the defendant were doing good but it was the plaintiff who due to its own reason failed to harness the market. After some time plaintiff became dishonest and in order to avoid its liability towards the defendant, told the defendant that the plaintiff was unable to sell the goods so purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant in the market and requested the defendant to take back the goods.
13. The defendant without prejudice to its right or without admitting CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 7 of 38 any of its liability or obligation towards the plaintiff, offered the plaintiff of its expertise to assist the plaintiff to some extent and also accommodated the plaintiff to give support in the market though the defendant was not under any legal obligation or contractual obligation or liability towards the plaintiff but in order to maintain the goodwill of its product and to some extent help the plaintiff by extending goodwill gesture.
14. Defendant after some time again approached the plaintiff for its remaining balance amount but plaintiff became dishonest and in order to avoid its liability towards the defendant, as an after thought, started saying that it was unable to sell the goods so purchased from the defendant and requested defendant to take back the goods. Defendant again offered its help but plaintiff insisted on to defendant to take back the unsold stock, which was contrary to the business practice nevertheless defendant took back goods worth Rs 29.17 lacs as good will gesture and to help it's reputation and the plaintiff. Defendant further pleaded that it was under no legal obligation or liable to take back the unsold stock of the plaintiff as plaintiff was responsible for the same. Since defendant did not bow to plaintiff's illegal demand, hence the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff, defendant claims. It denies any liability to pay anything to the plaintiff in any manner. On merits, the defendant denied the case of the plaintiff and prays for dismissal of the suit.
CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 8 of 3815. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 26.11.2024:-
1. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD
2. Whether plaintiff has concealed the material facts and has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount along with interest, as prayed for? OPP.
4. Relief.
16. In order to prove its case, plaintiff examined Sh. Sachin Kakkar who filed his evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A in examination-in-chief wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint and relied upon various emails Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/24, copy of invoice Ex.PW1/25 and copy of tax invoice Ex.PW1/26, Statement of Account of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/27, merger account of plaintiff Ex.PW1/28, email of settlement shared by the defendant Ex.PW1/29, stock status prepared by the plaintiff Ex.PW1/30, Board Resolution Ex.PW1/31, original certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW1/32. He was duly cross-
examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant whereafter plaintiff closed its evidence.
17. In order to prove its case, defendant examined Sh. Sanjay Adlakha as DW-1 who filed his affidavit Ex.DW1/A wherein he reiterated CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 9 of 38 the contents of the written statement and relied upon Board Resolution dated 21.08.2023 Ex.DW1/1.
18. At the final arguments, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff while drawing attention of the court to various emails sent by the plaintiff to the officials of defendant and some of the emails sent by the officials of the defendant to the plaintiff contended that it was orally agreed between the parties that plaintiff would pay Rs. 25,00,000/- against which defendant would supply goods worth Rs. 50,00,000/- which plaintiff would distribute in onward retailership market and plaintiff was to work as a dealer/distributor for the defendant's goods i.e. Fan. He further contended that it was agreed that defendant would bear the cost of advertisement, sales promotion, demo etc. and would pay for damaged/broken quality as well as for return of unsold goods. He further contended that plaintiff proved on record that on account of poor quality and defects in the product of the defendant, the product of the defendant could not be sold in the market and therefore, defendant agreed to take it back and in fact defendant took back the products worth Rs. 29.17 lakhs and promised to lift the remaining product worth Rs. 13,04,000/- but thereafter, defendant became dishonest. Defendant neither picked up the unsold goods worth Rs.13,04,000/- nor paid for the discount scheme etc. amounting to Rs. 8,27,169/- and therefore, plaintiff was constrained to file the instant suit for recovery. He further contended that various emails would show that defendant CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 10 of 38 was under obligation to lift the goods back and pay for the cost. He further contended that the terms and conditions agreed between the parties has got to be inferred from the communication between the parties and conduct of the parties. He further contended that it was not the outright sale as alleged by the defendant. Had it been the outright sale as claimed by the defendant, the defendant would not have taken back the goods worth Rs.29.17 lacs. He, therefore, contended that suit may be decreed.
19. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the defendant contended that the goods were sold to the plaintiff and accordingly invoice was raised which raises presumption in favour of the defendant that goods were sold and same were not required to be returned to the defendant in the event of plaintiff not being able to sell to the retailer. He further contended that plaintiff miserably failed to prove oral agreement as claimed and contended by the plaintiff. He further contended that emails had not been proved by the plaintiff. He further contended that plaintiff had failed to prove that cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. He further contended that no account had been settled and proved on record. He drawn attention of the court to the testimony of PW-1 which recorded during his cross examination contending that testimony of PW-1 destroys the case of the plaintiff. He, thus, claimed that suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.
CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 11 of 3820. Having heard rival submissions of Ld. respective counsels for the parties, judicial file, material and oral testimonies available on record and contentions are taken into account.
ISSUE No.1:- "Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD"
21. Onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. Defendant's witness in his examination-in-chief did not utter a single word as to how this court would have no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. He only deposed that defendant had its corporate office at Plot No.221, Udyog Vihar, Phase-I, Gurugram, Haryana-122016. However, defendant's witness DW1 in his cross examination admitted that defendant had its registered office at Rajouri Garden, Delhi. In response to plaintiff's averment in paragraph No. 24 of the plaint that this court have territorial jurisdiction as both parties have their respective registered office within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, defendant in its written statement in reply to corresponding paragraph pleaded "that para 24 of the suit is matter of record to the extent that defendant it has its registered office at the above mentioned address in Delhi, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court but it is denied that defendant is carrying on any business for gain in the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. And also denied that this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in issue between the parties in the present CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 12 of 38 suit".
22. Explanation to Section 20 of CPC reads as under:
"A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place, where it has also a subordinate office, at such place".
23. Despite the aforesaid legal fiction, defendant had audacity to deny that it did not carry on business for gain in the territorial jurisdiction of this court. The objection to the territorial jurisdiction of this court is hollow and without any legal substance.
24. Further it is a matter of record that plaintiff has a registered office at J-11, Reserve Bank Enclave, Outer Ring Road, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063. Defendant was served at its Rajouri Garden address and DW1 admitted that defendant had its registered office at Rajouri Garden. Invoices of the defendant show that plaintiff was being billed from its Karol Bagh address and goods were supplied at its Peeragarhi address thus, cause of action did arise within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Moreover, defendant did not put any question to the plaintiff's witness regarding its objection qua the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Hence, this court does have territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 13 of 38ISSUE NO.2:- "Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts and has not come with clean hands? OPD"
25. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. Except for making a bald averment in the written statement, the defendant has neither pleaded nor proved as to what material facts were concealed by the plaintiff. No specific instance of concealment has been pointed out either in the pleadings or in the evidence.
26. The defense of the defendant is primarily that the transaction between the parties was an outright sale on principal-to-principal basis, whereas the plaintiff claims it to be a distributorship arrangement with credit support, marketing assistance and obligation upon the defendant to lift unsold stock. Such divergent stands taken by the parties pertain to disputed questions of fact and cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be termed as concealment of material facts.
27. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that suppression must be of a fact which would have had a direct bearing on the relief sought. It is well settled that suppression of material facts must be specific, deliberate and material to the adjudication of the dispute. Mere denial of the opposite party's version does not amount to suppression. Vague allegations of concealment without particulars cannot be accepted. In the present case, no such concealment has CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 14 of 38 been established. Hence, Issue No. 2 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE No. 3:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount along with interest, as prayed for? OPP.
28. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. Before proceeding further it would be important to find out the nature of relationship forged between the parties. In other words the primary controversy between the parties revolves around the nature of the transaction - whether it was an outright sale or a distributorship arrangement with credit and return obligations. Admittedly there does not exist written terms of the agreement between the parties and neither parties have pleaded so. In Kailash Nath Associates v. DDA, (2015) 4 SCC 136, the Hon'ble Supreme Court acted on the conduct of parties for interpreting contractual obligations where written terms were absent or ambiguous. Thus, in the present case also conduct of the parties since beginning till the arising of dispute would be the guiding torchlight for unearthing the real nature of transaction/relationship between the parties.
29. The plaintiff has placed on record extensive contemporaneous correspondence allegedly exchanged between the parties, particularly printout of emails Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/24. These are secondary electronic documents and they would become admissible only if supported by valid certificate under Section 65B CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 15 of 38 Indian Evidence Act (IEA). Plaintiff's witness PW1 deposed to have filed certificate (Ex PW1/32) under Section 65B of IEA. The content of this certificate is as under:
"I, Sachin Kakkar duly authorised by board of resolution dt. 10.05.2023 passed by, M/s DNS Electronics Pvt. Ltd., the Plaintiff herein, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
1) I state that I am the AR of the Plaintiff in the present commercial suit and hence, competent to file the present affidavit. I have filed the present suit in the manner as narrated in the accompanying suit filed against the Defendant, therefore, competent to swea present affidavit for the purpose of meeting the requirement of Section 65B of the Indian evidence Act, 1872.
2) I further state the internet copies of all documents including emails etc. on which the Plaintiff wishes to place reliance in the accompanying suit are accurate and have not been tampered with.
3) I further confirm that the contents of all/any internet-generated documents as per the list of documents annexed are identical copies of the respective originals. I crave leave to refer to and rely upon them, as and when required.
DEPONENT Verification Verified at New Delhi, this___ day of June, 2023 that the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
30. The content of the aforesaid certificate has been quoted with purpose to show that the certificate is not in accordance with the requirement of Section 65B(4) of the IEA. Section 65B(4) of IEA reads as under:-
(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 16 of 38 showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purpose of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.
31. It can be seen that the contents of the certificate Ex PW1/32 is not only not in accordance with Section 65B(4) of the IEA but also no where near the requirement of Section 65B(4) of the IEA. Plaintiff's witness also admitted in his cross examination that he had not identified all the mails/electronic documents relied upon by him in his certificate Ex PW1/32. Furthermore, aforesaid affidavit/certificate Ex PW1/32 is neither attested by a Oath commissioner nor by a Notary Public. Instead it has stamp of an Advocate namely Rahul Yadav and appear to have been signed by said Rahul Yadav over/across the said stamp. Electronic document/evidence without requisite certificate under Section 65B(4) of IEA is not admissible in evidence. Hence, all the emails Ex. PW1/1 to Ex PW1/24 and all other electronic document/evidence are inadmissible and cannot be read in evidence.
32. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff would contend that DW1 in his cross examination admitted that email at point X2 on Ex PW1/2 was sent by the defendant and he also admitted the emails sent by Mr. CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 17 of 38 Vikas Sehagal and therefore at least admitted printout of email could be read in evidence. Contention of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff would have been sustainable if DW1 had admitted the same. But DW1 did not admit the email at X-2 on Ex PW1/2 rather he read out what was obvious i.e. to say he deposed " This is an email sent by one Vishal Sehgal from email ID [email protected]"
which anyone could have seen and read by looking at X-2 on Ex PW1/2. Further, he admitted that email ID not the content of the email sent by Mr. Vikash Sehagal. Hence, DW1 cannot be said to have admitted that said email was sent by said Vishal Segal for and on behalf of defendant. Further with respect to other emails at X-3 to X-5 on Ex PW1/2 or X-7 on Ex PW1/12 or X-8 on Ex PW1/14 he showed his ignorance. Thus, the emails Ex PW1/1 to Ex PW1/24 could not be read in evidence being inadmissible for want of requisite certificate under Section 65B(4) of IEA.
33. With correspondence gone out of consideration, this court is left only with pleadings of the parties, other documents and testimonies of the witnesses as material to know or form final opinion about the nature of relationship between the plaintiff and defendant.
34. Pleadings of the parties has already been noted above. Plaintiff's witness PW1 in his examination-in-chief reiterated the contents of the plaint. In his cross examination he deposed that he was in CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 18 of 38 employment of the plaintiff initially from 2011 to 2014/15 as Business head and then again joined the plaintiff in the year 2015/16 as Head Sales and Marketing. He deposed that he was not part of the alleged meeting where terms and conditions were decided. He, however, volunteered that he was made part of the said discussion in mid 2021. He denied the suggestion that no such meeting (where terms and condition were agreed) was ever held or that no such terms and conditions were decided.
35. He admitted that plaintiff received goods vide Invoices Ex PW1/25. He neither admitted nor denied the suggestion that the total value of the above invoices was Rs. 52.42 lacs. He admitted that no terms/stipulation that defendant would take back the goods in case plaintiff was unable to sell the same, was mentioned in the Invoices Ex PW1/25. He denied the suggestion that there was no terms/condition that the defendant would take back the goods in case the plaintiff was unable to sell the same. He, however, was made to admit that plaintiff was the distributor of the defendant. He specifically denied that goods supplied by the defendant against invoices Ex PW1/25 was outright sale and deposed that it was a new brand in the market and the company officials (defendant) suggested themselves the models billed to plaintiff. He explained the models bill as "product name which company bills to us and also known as SKU."
CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 19 of 3836. He further deposed that no objection was raised by the plaintiff when invoices Ex PW1/25 were raised by the defendant or the goods were supplied to plaintiff. He volunteered that dispute arose only when plaintiff found some problem with the trade, support and non moving of the goods. He admitted that relation between the plaintiff and defendant was on principal to principal basis. He further deposed that as he was not part of the discussion held in July, 2020, so he could not tell if there was any agreement in writing to the effect that the defendant would take back the goods in case the plaintiff was unable to sell the same. He admitted that plaintiff had purchased the goods from the defendant. He volunteered that the models were billed to plaintiff by the brand as it was a new brand and plaintiff was not aware of what would sell so company had billed to plaintiff as per their market trends and analysis.
37. Defendant's stand had already been noted above. Defendant's witness DW1, who was in its employment from 2019-2020 and from 2022 to April, 2025, in his chief examination reiterated the stand of the defendant in Written statement and in his cross examination deposed that defendant company sell products through dealers and distributors. Defendant did not sell its products directly to end users/customers. Whenever a new dealer or distributor was associated with the defendant, a new customer's account was opened in the computer. He was not aware as to how CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 20 of 38 defendant company execute correspondences with the dealers/distributors of defendant company, as that was done by the Sales Team. He was only Accounts Manager in the company. There was another accounts team above him which managed opening of new customer's accounts, he was not aware of the same. There were 5-6 people in the accounts team. He was not not heading the team.
38. He further deposed that he used to take care of the billing by the defendant company. He also used to ensure that the billing was done at appropriate rates/price. He used to manage all the accounts of dealers/distributors using a computer based system. Everything was generated from the system including invoices, rates and other details of quantity work were fed manually by him. No manual log book or ledger were maintained by the defendant company relating to sales. There was no physical register of data or dealer or distributor relating to sales or when a new dealer or distributor was associated with the defendant company. Only records were maintained through a computer based system and nothing was done manually on physical register relating to sales.
39. He further deposed that defendant had dealers/distributors about 100 in number during his period and the records of all the above were maintained in computer. He also used to operate through computer. He admitted that the plaintiff also had a customer CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 21 of 38 account opened with the defendant in the computer system of the defendant. He admitted that he ( sic defendant) had not produced/filed any record in so far as the plaintiff's company was concerned. He (sic defendant) had not produced the same as the case had been filed by the plaintiff. He admitted that he ( sic defendant) had an opportunity to file the said records of the plaintiff company along with written statement, however, defendant company had chosen not to file. He was not aware if there was any credit balance towards the plaintiff company in the computer system of the defendant company due towards the plaintiff. A tally accounting software was used by the defendant company for maintaining the ledger for all the customers of the defendant company including the plaintiff.
40. He further deposed that he could not produce the ledger of the plaintiff company as the company was undergoing commercial winding up process meaning thereby that no sale and purchase was happening in the market or no commercial activity was being done by the defendant company in the market. He had no idea if any liquidator was appointed for winding up process. He could not say whether the records of the defendant company were available or not as I had left the company for last more than 8 months ago (from the date of his testimony). He had left the plaintiff company on 08.04.2025.
CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 22 of 3841. He further deposed that the registered office of the defendant company was at Rajouri Garden office while pointing out at point X-1 on Ex. DW1/1 to show the same. He used to raise the sales orders against which invoices were raised by warehouse/godown based on availability of physical material/stock. He denied the suggestion that he was generating invoices for the defendant company. He said invoices were sent by the defendant company along with stock. He admitted that his email ID was [email protected] while he was employed with the defendant company. He had no gmail ID relating to Company work. Warehouse team was outsourced to third party and not part of the defendant company. All staff of the defendant company used to maintain email IDs on the domain of the defendant company i.e. ottomate.com.
42. When he was asked as to whether email at point X-2 on Ex PW1/2 was sent by defendant Company, he deposed that the said was email sent by one Vishal Sehgal from email ID [email protected]. He shown ignorance about the emails at point X-3, X-4 and X-5 on Ex PW1/2. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately deposing falsely about the above email at point X-5 despite admitting that the domain used by the staff of the defendant company was ottomate.com and all the emails had been exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendant using the domain @ottomate.com. He admitted that Mr. CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 23 of 38 Vishal Sehgal was the Director of the defendant company at the time of transaction in question.
43. He further deposed that he was not aware about Mr. Kuldeep Pandey. He never had any direct dealing with any person from plaintiff. He was not serving with the defendant company when there was transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant. He was not aware who had been looking after the accounts of the defendant during the period company had transactions with the plaintiff. He deposed that he had all the information from Mr. Vishal Sehgal Director of the defendant company. He admitted that all his above deposition was based on the information given by Mr. Vishal Sehgal and the data of the computer of defendant company and not in his personal knowledge.
44. In response to question as to what was the terms between the plaintiff and defendant company during the relevant period when he was not the employee of the defendant, he deposed on the basis of what Mr. Vikash Sehgal had explained to him that it was discussed that plaintiff company would pay Rs. 25 lakhs and equal amount of Rs. 25 lakhs would be paid later on to the defendant against the billing of 50 lakhs approx. He admitted that the plaintiff paid Rs. 25 lakh to the defendant and the defendant delivered stock worth Rs. 50 lakh to the plaintiff. He deposed that Rs. 25 lakhs was given on credit by the defendant to the plaintiff.
CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 24 of 38He admitted that defendant had not filed any document demanding Rs. 25 lakhs from the plaintiff. As per him balance was to be paid within 30 days from date of delivery by plaintiff but never paid. He admitted that no counter claim was filed for recovery of Rs. 25 lakhs. He admitted the suggestion that defendant had accepted return of unsold stock of Rs. 29 lakhs approx. as per the request made by the plaintiff.
45. He deposed that it was not agreed between the parties that defendant would accept unsold stock. Defendant, however, accepted unsold stock by the plaintiff as per business decision of the director of the defendant. He denied the suggestion that it was accepted as returned unsold stock in terms of the original agreement between plaintiff and defendant. For want of his knowledge about Mr. Kuldeep Pandey, he denied that email at point X-6 on Ex PW1/12 was sent by Mr. Kuldeep Pandey on 12.02.2021 allegedly confirming that subject to inspection of the stock, the plaintiff was to send the stock to the Noida warehouse of the defendant. He admitted that he was not informed about this by Mr. Vishal Sehgal along with all other information that was also given to him by Mr. Vishal Sehgal. Similarly for want of his knowledge about Mr. Kuldeep Pandey he denied the email at point X-7 on Ex PW1/14 dt. 12.04.2021 allegedly confirming that ottomate would take care of unsold/balance stocks lying with the plaintiff subject to providing list of stocks. He admitted that he CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 25 of 38 was also not informed about this email by Mr. Vishal Sehgal.
46. He deposed that the system automatically generate the ledger of dealer/distributor. He was aware that the defendant company through Mr. Vishal Sehgal used to deal with the plaintiff over emails. He was not aware that plaintiff and defendant used to correspond with email or not. During his period with defendant company, he used to deal with dealers and distributors of the defendant by way of email and telephone. Ledger of dealers and distributors were shared on behalf of the defendant using email. All the details of the transaction of the defendant company with their dealer and distributor including sales, purchase, debit, credit, return etc. were forming part of the ledger of each such respective dealer and distributor.
47. He did not identify the email allegedly sent by [email protected] on 08.09.2022 at point X-8 on Ex PW1/29 and copied also to [email protected] with an attachment of ledger statement allegedly maintained by defendant. He showed his ignorance about all emails allegedly exchanged between the plaintiff and defendants using domains dnsglobal.in and ottomate.com except the emails sent by Mr. Vikas Sehagal. He admitted that Mr. Vishal Sehgal had informed him that in so far as dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant were concerned, the defendant would provide assistance in marketing and selling of CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 26 of 38 the products of the defendant. If there was a ledger maintained by the defendant of the plaintiff and it reflected any credit notes, then the same would have been given by the defendant to the plaintiff.
48. He admitted that if any unsold stock or goods and defective goods when returned by the plaintiff to the defendant was updated in the ledger of the plaintiff maintained by the defendant. This was a practice maintained by the defendant company for all its dealers and distributors. Defendant had nothing to give or recover from the plaintiff since accounts between the parties were settled and therefore, defendant had not produced any ledger of the plaintiff by the defendant. He deposed that it was assumed that there was a settlement accounts between the plaintiff and defendant as per books of the defendant and nothing remained recoverable or payable and therefore, defendant had not filed. He denied the suggestion that defendant had not filed the ledger because it would have reflected the actual position of accounts between the parties and would have shown credit balance outstanding towards the plaintiff payable by the defendant. He deposed that he had not been given any document on behalf of the defendant and therefore, ledger had also not been filed. He did not remember if he had seen the ledger maintained by the defendant of the plaintiff.
49. On asking as to which of his statement correct about the settlement of account after seeing the ledger or his statement was based on his CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 27 of 38 assumption, he deposed that he had not seen the ledger. He admitted that therefore he did not know the outstanding due and payable towards the plaintiff by the defendant. He expressed his inability to produce the ledger. He denied that he had deposed that the defendant had to announce marketing scheme and promotional strategy to promote sales of products and the expenses were recoverable from the defendant. He denied the suggestion that defendant had to announce marketing scheme and promotional strategy to promote sales of products and the expenses were recoverable from the defendant. He denied the suggestion that the ledger maintained by the defendant of the plaintiff was not being produced on purpose in order to avoid payment of outstanding dues in the sum of Rs.13.04 lacs, Rs. 8.27 lacs and Rs. 50,000/- p.m. from February 2023 towards damages/user and occupation charges. He was not aware if any other person from the defendant's company office used to deal with the plaintiff besides Mr. Vishal Sehgal.
50. On a holistic and purposive appreciation of the oral evidence deposed to by both respective witnesses of the parties, it is firstly noticed that defendant had chosen to examine the person who was not there in defendant company when the material transaction took place between plaintiff and defendant. Neither plaintiff chose to examine Mr. Rajan who was allegedly in the virtual meeting when the terms and condition were finalised nor defendant chose to CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 28 of 38 examined Mr. Vikas Sehgal with whom plaintiff allegedly agreed to the terms and condition it pleads. Interestingly, defendant did not chose to place on record a single document about the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant which conduct of the defendant has tilted the scale little against the defendant. Moreover, DW1 specifically deposed that his information was based on what Mr. Vikas Sehgal had informed him, so his testimony is hearsay. No doubt he also deposed that his information is based on information available in the computer of the defendant but admittedly said basis i.e. printout of those computer stored information has not been placed as per law before the court to evaluate his knowledge about the information allegedly drawn from those electronic sources.
51. As noted excluding emails from consideration as contractual proof, the issue as to whether the relationship between the parties was that of a distributor and manufacturer operating under a special commercial arrangement or was a simple buyer-seller transaction of outright sale, can be decided on the oral testimonies of the witness couple with other documents present, absent and proved in the court file.
52. At the outset, it is important to note that defendant did not prove on record that its brand is old and renowned and had huge demand and sales in the market. It is equally important to bear in mind that CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 29 of 38 when parties entered into relationship India was witnessing lock down with gradual removing of restriction on the movement of public. It is further important to note that plaintiff itself did not require the fans for its own consumption, hence prima facie it looks unbelievable that it would buy almost 3000 of fans from defendant in such restricted time of Corona pandemic.
53. It is further important to note that the plaintiff is not asserting a conventional agency relationship but a distributorship arrangement in which the defendant, as a manufacturer of a new and relatively unknown brand, consciously adopted a market-entry strategy by pushing stock into the channel with shared commercial risk. This foundational aspect emerges not merely from pleadings but from the admissions of the defendant's witness during cross- examination.
54. The defendant's witness categorically admitted that goods worth approximately Rs. 50 lakhs were supplied to the plaintiff against a payment of only Rs. 25 lakhs, and that the balance Rs. 25 lakhs was extended as credit. What was the need for defendant to supply goods worth Rs. 25 lakhs over and above Rs. 25 lakhs? It is neither case of the defendant that plaintiff had asked for supply of goods on credit nor defendant sought to prove the same that plaintiff had asked for goods worth Rs. 25 lakhs on credit. Thus, it does appear that it was not a routine commercial sale as is being CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 30 of 38 claimed by the defendant. In ordinary buyer-seller transactions, especially between two corporate entities, such a high-value unsecured credit without contemporaneous demand, security, or follow-up is commercially improbable. The fact that no demand for payment of Rs. 25 lakhs was made later at any point of time and that none filling of suit for recovery for the said amount further weakens the defendant's assertion of a simple sale. If the transaction were truly an outright sale, the defendant's failure to seek recovery of a substantial unpaid amount is inexplicable and runs contrary to standard commercial conduct.
55. Further, the defendant's own witness admitted that the defendant company sells its products only through dealers and distributors and not directly to end customers. This admission directly supports the plaintiff's case that it was operating as part of the defendant's distribution network as undisputedly plaintiff did not require almost 3000 fans for its own use/consumption. Further, the opening of a customer account in the defendant's system, maintenance of a running ledger in Tally, and treatment of the plaintiff at par with other dealers and distributors firmly situate the plaintiff within the defendant's distribution structure rather than as a one-time purchaser.
56. Crucially, the defendant admitted that it accepted return of unsold stock worth approximately Rs.29 lakhs from the plaintiff. While CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 31 of 38 the defendant attempted to characterise this as a "goodwill gesture," such an explanation does not withstand legal scrutiny. In the written statement defendant pleaded that it (return) was accepted in order to give boost and fillip to the business of the plaintiff though the defendant was not under any legal obligation or contractual obligation or liability for the same but the same had been extended as a goodwill gesture to provide support to maintain goodwill of the product of the defendant in the market to assist the plaintiff. In commercial law, conduct speaks louder than labels. Acceptance of returned goods, updating of such returns in the ledger, and adjustment of accounts are actions wholly inconsistent with an outright sale. Once goods are sold absolutely, the seller has no right or obligation to accept their return except in cases of defect or warranty. Here, the defendant accepted return of unsold goods and it is noticed that it is not the case of the defendant it accepted the same as goods were defective. Therefore, it shows that defendant accepted those goods on grounds of non-sale in the market. This conduct unmistakably indicates that the defendant itself did not treat the transaction as a completed sale transferring all risk to the plaintiff.
57. The defendant's witness further admitted that, as a matter of company practice, whenever unsold or returned goods were received from a dealer or distributor, the same were reflected in the ledger maintained by the defendant. This admission assumes CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 32 of 38 significance because the defendant deliberately chose not to produce the ledger of the plaintiff, despite admitting that such a ledger existed and was system-generated. The explanation offered
- that the company was undergoing winding up or that accounts were assumed to be settled, are evasive and unconvincing. Under settled law, withholding best evidence gives rise to an adverse inference. Had the ledger been produced, it would have revealed the true state of accounts and, in all probability, the credit balance claimed by the plaintiff or outstanding towards the plaintiff would have come to the fore. By withholding ledger, mails and other documents, defendant has rendered itself liable for drawing of an adverse inference against it.
58. The plaintiff's inability to raise a return invoice for the remaining stock of Rs.13.04 lakhs does not defeat its claim. The plaintiff's witness explained that invoices for return could not be raised without confirmation from the brand, which never came. This explanation is consistent with a distributor - manufacturer relationship, where returns and credit notes are controlled by the manufacturer and not unilaterally generated by the distributor. The fact that the defendant had already inspected the stock and accepted substantial quantities back further corroborates that the remaining stock was also intended to be taken back but was avoided only to evade financial adjustment.
CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 33 of 3859. The plaintiff's admissions regarding "principal-to-principal dealing" does not aid the defendant as the PW1 was made to admit both. At one place he was made to admit that plaintiff was distributor of the defendant and other place he was made to admit that the business relation between the plaintiff and the defendant was on principal to principal basis. Both admission has come on the admission of the defendant during cross examination. Nevertheless, a distributor relationship is often structured on a principal-to-principal basis for tax and accounting purposes, while still involving shared risk, credit support, marketing assistance, and stock rotation. Principal-to-principal does not automatically mean outright sale without return; it merely negates agency. The plaintiff's case is not one of agency but of distributorship with commercial support and stock-risk sharing, which is fully compatible with a principal-to-principal framework.
60. Viewed cumulatively, the following factors tilt the balance decisively in favour of the plaintiff i.e. to say the supply of goods far exceeding payment, absence of demand for credit, absence of any demand or legal action for alleged unpaid sale consideration, acceptance of large-scale returns of unsold stock, maintenance of a running ledger with credit and return adjustments, defendant's admitted practice of supporting dealers and distributors, and deliberate non-production of the ledger which alone could have conclusively settled the issue. These circumstances, taken together, CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 34 of 38 demonstrate that the transaction was not a clean, concluded sale but a continuing commercial arrangement typical of a distributorship for market penetration of a new brand.
61. Accordingly, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was that of distributor and manufacturer under a special credit-supported arrangement, wherein unsold stock was liable to be taken back and adjusted. The defendant's refusal to lift the remaining stock and clear the credit balance constitutes a breach of that commercial understanding.
62. Plaintiff has asserted that defendant did not take back goods worth Rs. 13,04,000/-. Defendant while defending its liability to take back the unsold goods did not question the quantum of unsold goods lying with plaintiff at defendant's risk. Plaintiff has successfully proved with records and oral testimony that unsold goods worth Rs. 13,04,000/- is lying in its warehouse at defendant's risk. Hence, plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 13,04,000/- from the defendant irrespective of question whether or not defendant choose to take it back.
63. Plaintiff has proved its ledger Ex PW1/28 account maintained in the defendant's name, as per which there is debit balance of Rs. 8,27,169/-. Except for suggestion that defendant was not liable to pay the said amount not a single question was asked about the said CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 35 of 38 outstanding. As discussed above defendant deliberately not chose to file its own ledger in the name of the plaintiff rendering itself liable for drawing of an adverse inference against it. Hence, plaintiff has successfully proved that it is also entitled to recover Rs. 8,27,169/- from defendant.
64. Plaintiff has claimed interest of Rs. 1,99,800/- till Feb, 2023 calculated @24% per annum, however, there is nothing to suggest that such was the agreement between the parties with respect to charging of interest at such rate and in fact plaintiff itself had claimed reimbursement of interest which defendant charged from plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled for interest for pre litigation period at such rate.
65. In Central Bank of India v. Ravindra (2002) 1 SCC 367, the Supreme Court held interest must be reasonable. In the case of Cimmco Limited Versus Pramod Krishna Agrawal 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7289, it was held as follows:
"3..........Hon'ble Supreme Court has now mandated that lower rates of interest be granted and therefore the pre-suit and also the pendente lite and future interest is liable to be reduced by this Court. Reliance is placed upon the judgments in the cases of Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, (2005) 6 SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v.
Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G. Harischandra, (2007) 2 SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan v. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC)."
66. In view thereof since it is commercial transaction plaintiff is CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 36 of 38 hereby held entitled to simple interest @ 9 % per annum on the outstanding from 11.07.2022 till whole amount is realised. Further since it was the conduct of the defendant which compelled the plaintiff to initiate legal action against the defendant, therefore plaintiff is also entitled to the cost of the suit.
67. Plaintiff has also claimed Rs. 50,000/- per month as damages/use and occupation charges from Feb, 2023 till the defendant removes their goods which are lying unused and unwarranted in the warehouse of plaintiff. But plaintiff did not lead evidence on this aspect as to how much rate of rent is prevalent in the area for the space required for storage of good as lying unused with plaintiff. Nevertheless it cannot be denied that plaintiff would have to spend or not use the space in his warehouse occupied by the goods of the defendant and sum guess work is inevitable. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month would be reasonable for damages to this effect.
68. Hence, in view of the above discussion and reasoning, the issue No.3 is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Relief
69. In view of the findings recorded on all issue, a decree for recovery of Rs. 21,31,169/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Thirty One CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 37 of 38 Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Nine Only) is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant, along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from 11.07.2022 till actual realisation.
70. Further, a decree of damages @ Rs. 5,000/- pm is hereby passed against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff till defendant lifts the goods lying in plaintiff's warehouse. Defendant is at liberty to lift back the said goods under "as is where basis/condition" within 30 days of this judgement.
71. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of plaintiff.
72. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
73. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
HARISH Digitally signed by HARISH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.01.03 15:52:33 +0530 (Harish Kumar) District Judge (Commercial)-04 Announced in the open court District West, Tis Hazari Courts (Judgement contains 38 pages) Delhi/03.01.2026 CS (Comm) No.548/2023 M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 38 of 38