Delhi District Court
M/S Omar Shoaib Yawar Ltd vs M/S Pvr Global Trading Company And Ors on 8 October, 2025
CS (Comm) No.180/2022: M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited V/s PVR Global Trading Company & Ors. :
DOD: 08.10.2025
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02:
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
CNR No.DLNW01-001941-2022
Civil Suit (Comm.) No.180/2022
In the matter of:
M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited,
(Through Its A.R Mr.Homayoun Yawar),
Registered Address of plaintiff company
TL No.71636,
Herat, Afghanistan.
Address of the A.R of the Company
Mr.Homayoun Awar,
House No.RZ-2717, Gali No.30,
Gate No.6, Tughlakabad Extn.,
Delhi-110019.
E.Mail: [email protected]
.....Plaintiff
(Through Shri Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate)
Versus
1. PVR Global Trading Company,
(Through Its Partners)
Having Address at:
2nd Floor, Unit No.209, D-Mall, A-1,
Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura,
Delhi-110034.
Also At:
PVR Global Trading Company,
C/o Shri S.S Dahiya & Co.,
Office-201, Nikita Tower-I,
Azadpur Commercial Complex,
Delhi-110033.
2. Shri Ranbir Singh,
S/o Shri Satnaran Singh,
(Partner-PVR Global Trading Company),
2nd Floor, Unit No.209, D-Mall, A-1,
Digitally signed
VINOD byYADAV
VINOD
Page 1 of 23
YADAV Date: 2025.10.08
17:20:06 +0530
CS (Comm) No.180/2022: M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited V/s PVR Global Trading Company & Ors. :
DOD: 08.10.2025
Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura,
Delhi-110034.
Also At:
1585, Village Badli, District Jhajjar, Haryana-124105.
3. Shri Prem Das,
S/o Shri BashanDas,
(Partner-PVR Global Trading Company),
2nd Floor, Unit No.209, D-Mall, A-1,
Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura,
Delhi-110034.
Also At:
2nd Floor, Shop No.23/11-B, Tilak Nagar,
Opposite-Post Office, Old Market, Delhi-110018.
4. Shri Sandeep,
S/o Shri Ravinder Singh,
(Partner-PVR Global Trading Company),
2nd Floor, Unit No.209, D-Mall, A-1,
Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura,
Delhi-110034.
Also At:
23/537, Jhajjar Road, Mohan Nagar,
Bahadurgarh, Haryana-124507.
5. Shri Jaipal Singh Gulia,
S/o Shri Satnaran Gulia,
House No.1585, Badli (72),
Jhajjar, Badli, Haryana-124105.
Representative of M/s PVR Global Trading Company
.....Defendants
(Through Shri Sushant Dahiya, Advocate)
Date of Institution of Suit : 11.03.2022
Date of transfer to this Court : 04.07.2023
Date of passing of decree under Order XIII-A CPC: 08.04.2024
Date of hearing final arguments : 08.10.2025
Date of judgment : 08.10.2025
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.58,78,000/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Lakhs Seventy
Eight Thousand Only) ALONGWITH PENDENTELITE INTEREST UNDER THE
COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 R/W THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Page 2 of 23
CS (Comm) No.180/2022: M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited V/s PVR Global Trading Company & Ors. :
DOD: 08.10.2025
08.10.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case in brief, as borne out from the record are that instant commercial suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.58,78,000/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Only) alongwith future and pendente lite interest against the defendant(s) inter alia stating therein that plaintiff is a company registered in Afghanistan and is dealing in saffron, botanical name - Crocus Sativus and has authorized Mr.Homayoun Yawar through its Board Resolution dated 10.11.2021, to represent the company.
2. It is averred that defendant No.1 is a partnership firm having registered address in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and defendants No.2, 3 and 4 are its partners. The defendant No.5 is an agent/representative of the defendant No.1 firm and had impersonated himself as a partner of the defendant No.1 company and has been actively dealing with the plaintiff company. It is further stated that defendant No.1 through its partners and its agent defendant no.5 approached the plaintiff company for import of Saffron in India, on credit, with an assurance to make timely payment of imported saffron of specified quality and quantity. The plaintiff company was looking for an export opportunity in India, and accordingly trusted defendant No.1 and agreed to export Safforn through defendant no.1 and also agreed to terms of payment i.e after receipt of the material by defendant No.1 firm in India.
3. It is further averred that plaintiff company got sampling done of 50 Kg of Saffron- Grade A on 17-01-2021 and issued an Invoice 001, dated 20.01.2021 in the name of defendant No.1 @ USD 500 Per Kg (sic), having Page 3 of 23 CS (Comm) No.180/2022: M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited V/s PVR Global Trading Company & Ors. :
DOD: 08.10.2025 total value of USD 25,000/- which was equivalent to INR Rs.18,46,250/- and same was imported by defendant no.1 firm. It is stated that the plaintiff company had paid the requisite fee to Afghanistan Airport custom on
21.01.2021 and accordingly defendant firm imported 50 Kg of saffron having gross weight of 55 Kg via KAM AIR on 22-01-2021. It is further stated that the defendant No.3 and 5 also asked for financial assistance from the plaintiff company to get the consignment cleared from Customs and requested that the plaintiff may pay for custom clearance charges and other charges with the promise to refund the same and accordingly, the plaintiff company through AR paid the defendant on 25-01-2021 Rs.1,12,000/- in cash expecting that defendants would clear the entire payment; the cost of saffron detailed as above and customs clearance charges to the plaintiff but the defendants have failed to pay for the saffron and customs clearance charges. It is alleged that the defendants despite receiving the material did not release the payment to the plaintiff company and accordingly after a lot of follow up, expressed its inability to make the payment and returned 49.5 Kg of imported saffron to the plaintiff company on 03.02.2021 and made assurance to return the cash amount paid by plaintiff towards custom clearance charges, however, the defendants failed to pay the same.
4. It is further stated that defendants again on 07.04.2021 imported 100 Kg of Saffron - Grade B after sampling done and plaintiff company issued invoice No.002 dated 11.04.2021 for 100 Kg saffron (pushal) grade (2) @ USD 450/- having total value of USD 45,000/- which was equivalent to INR 33,36,750/-. The defendant also paid requisite custom fee to Afghanistan Airport Custom and paid Rs.3,66,000/- to defendants for custom clearance charges on their requests. It is alleged that despite getting the material imported and cleared from customs, the defendants did not release the Page 4 of 23 CS (Comm) No.180/2022: M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited V/s PVR Global Trading Company & Ors. :
DOD: 08.10.2025 payment to the plaintiff company and started making excuses and they again showed their in ability to release the payment and after a lot of discussion, returned 39.5 Kg of saffron on 12.06.2021 and 7 Kg on 14-6-2021. It is stated that thus the defendants returned total of 96 Kg saffron to the plaintiff but did not release the payment of balance 54 Kg saffron and also have not returned the material.
5. It is averred that legal notice was issued to defendants, but payment was not made by them. As such, the plaintiff filed the instant suit against the defendants.
6. After getting served with the summons in the present matter, the defendants filed written statement as well as an application U/o VII Rule 11 CPC, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.05.2023. In the said application as well as in written statement, the defendants pleaded the following points:
(i) The defendants sought rejection of the suit on various grounds inter alia that the suit was filed by unauthorized person.
It was stated that plaintiff is a company registered with Afghanistan Govt. and showed herself to be exporter and initiation of courts proceedings are based on its Board Resolution passed on Indian soil by a foreign company on 10.11.2021 wherein Mr. Homayoun Yawan is shown as AR which is not in accordance with law as postulated under Indian Law. Further, it was stated that jurisdiction of this Court is barred under Section 34 of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "FEMA"). Further, it is stated that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the defendant sold most of the Page 5 of 23 CS (Comm) No.180/2022: M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited V/s PVR Global Trading Company & Ors. :
DOD: 08.10.2025 goods to Swastik International, Pranam Gems and in cash. Further no goods were returned to the plaintiff by the defendant. It is stated that defendant by its reply dated 22-11-2021 to the plaintiff that M/s Swatwik International and Pranam Gems are the shody company of the plaintiff and the defendant demanded the amount of sale consideration from Swatwik International & Parnam Gems and issued a legal demand notice on 10.11.2021 and then the plaintiff issued a demand notice dated 12.11.2021. It was stated that plaintiff is having a cartel of company in order to deceive the prospective buyers / importer and therefore suit is bad for non-joinder of Swatwik International & Parnam Gems as necessary party.
(ii) It was further stated that this Court's jurisdiction is also ousted in directing to pay the pay foreign remittance through court order. It is stated that as per Govt. of India import of goods/ currency circular No.9 dated 24.08.2000, the import grade is regulated by Directorate of General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) under the said policy the authorized dealer only could make the payment outside India on behalf of the importer and the importer cannot make the remittance directly to the plaintiff and / or even the court also cannot direct any person to pay a person who exported the goods to India. Further, as per import licence and guidelines of Govt. of India envisages that the authorized dealer should open the letter of credit or allow remittance for the goods.
(iii) It was stated that no Indian law allow to return the imported goods in India. Further it is stated that plaintiff did not Page 6 of 23 CS (Comm) No.180/2022: M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited V/s PVR Global Trading Company & Ors. :
DOD: 08.10.2025 produce any document to show that plaintiff has paid Rs.4,78,000/- as custom clearance charges and it is the defendant who paid all the charges for clearance of goods to custom authorities. Further the suit does not fall under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. In this regard, it is stated that as per import invoice, the value of the goods of 54 KG as per plaintiff was Rs.34,78,000/- but now in the plaint, the plaintiff is assessing, without any basis, on the present date value i.e. also not clear to the tune of Rs.54,00,000/- which is against the contract. It is stated that a suit under the Act of 2015, can only be filed where the value is ascertainable as per Contract Act, not the hypothetically calculation.
(iii) It was also contested that suit is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder of party. It is stated that plaintiff has not placed any document on record to show that the defendant no.5 acted as an agent of the defendant no.1 and there is no privity of contract between the parties qua defendant no.5 and therefore suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties.
(iv) It was contended that there are inconsistent pleas taken. It was stated that board of resolution is alleged to have been held at the residence of Mr. Humayoun Yawar, Vice President at Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi whereas the memo of parties shows the address as H. No. RZ-2717, Gali No.30, Tughlakabad Extn., Delhi which are inconsistent. Further a foreign national company cannot hold the board of meeting in India until unless that is authorized in accordance with section 78(6) and 85 of Evidence Act and such resolution has no authenticity in the eyes of law.Page 7 of 23
CS (Comm) No.180/2022: M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited V/s PVR Global Trading Company & Ors. :
DOD: 08.10.2025
7. (i) This Court dealt with the contentions raised by the defendants in application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC vide order dated 27.05.2023, the operative part whereof reads as under:
xxxxx
20. It is well settled that if suit is barred by any specific law, it can be rejected. However, in most of the grounds taken in the application for rejection of plaint such as suit has been instituted by unauthorised person and for non-joinder of parties, mis-joinder of parties, incomplete documents, they are not covered under the provisions of Order VII Rul 11 CPC and therefore same will be ignored.
21. As regards submission that suit is filed by unauthorized person. As per S. 85 of Indian Evidence Act, there is presumption with respect to documents i.e. power of attorney, which has been executed before, and authenticated by, a notary public, or any court, judge, Magistrate, Indian Consulate or vice-consul or representative of the Central Govt. was so executed and authenticated. Ld. Counsel for defendant submitted that power of attorney submitted in present case is not authenticated by a notary public, or any court, judge, Magistrate, Indian Consulate or vice-
counsel or representative of Central Govt. I have perused record. There is no power of attorney. In fact, there is Board's Resolution passed in the meeting held at the house of Vice President in Delhi and since meeting was held in Delhi, India, same is not required authentication by Indian Consulate etc. Section 85 even otherwise applies to the stage of evidence and when case goes for evidence, such objection can be taken. Hence this objection at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 is without any merit and hence rejected.
22. As regards cited judgment in case of M/s Rudnap Export-Import (supra), it is observed that power of attorney in the instant suit was executed in Yugoslavia which was authenticated by a Judge, Court of that country and thereafter through the foreign Page 8 of 23 CS (Comm) No.180/2022: M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited V/s PVR Global Trading Company & Ors. :
DOD: 08.10.2025 office of Yugoslavia Government whose signatures are attested by the officials of the Indian Embassy, which was held to be valid and having presumption of its existence. Further, in case of M/s Birla DLW Ltd. (supra), the power of attorney was admittedly not executed in the presence of Notary and verification itself was vague and hence it was held that power of attorney was not proper. Therefore cited judgments are not applicable to facts of the present case, as in the present case, Resolution was passed in the meeting of Directors held on 10-11-2021 in India at the residence of the Vice President of the Company which authorizes 'authorized representative' to represent company in the suit and there is no power of attorney.
Therefore the arguments itself is mischievous.
23. As regards second objection with respect to FEMA, S. 5 of FEMA provides that current account transactions can only take place by authorized person with respect to sell or draw foreign exchange and the Central Government in consultation with the Reserve Bank may impose such reasonable restriction for current account transaction in public interest as may be prescribed. S. 10 of FEMA provides as to who is authorised person. Authorised person stated to be authorized person who deal in foreign exchange or in foreign securities, as an authorised dealer, money changer or off-shore banking unit or in any other manner as it deems fit and authorised by Reserver Bank. S. 34 of FEMA bars jurisdiction of Civil Court, which reads as under:-
34. Civil Court not to have jurisdiction. - No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which an Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Tribunal or the Special Director (Appeals) is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any Page 9 of 23 CS (Comm) No.180/2022: M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited V/s PVR Global Trading Company & Ors. :
DOD: 08.10.2025 power conferred by or under this Court.
24. From the perusal of the provisions, it is apparent that the jurisdiction of Civil Court has bar in respect of suit or proceedings filed in respect of matter for which Adjudicating Authority or Appellate Tribunal or the Special Director (Appeals) is empowered. The present dispute is with respect to non-payment of due against supply of goods by the plaintiff to the defendant. There is no proceedings pending before Adjudicating Authority or Appellate Tribunal or the Special Director (Appeals) and once Court came to conclusion that defendant is liable to pay, the plaintiff shall take necessary permission and while making payment in USD, which is agreed currency, question regarding valuation would arise. As of now, since there is no determination of amount which is payable by defendant, there is no question of valuation. Therefore suit proceedings before Civil Court is not barred as no proceedings is pending before Adjudicating Authority or Appellate Tribunal or the Special Director (Appeals).
25. Even other wise, defendant having not paid amount despite transaction already taken place now cannot take shield behind FEMA for avoiding legitimate payment if it is so decided by the court. Therefore the contention is without merit and rejected.
26. As regards cited judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court in case of Veekay Leather Industry (supra) and judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case Raj Kumar Shivhara (supra), none of the cited judgments provide that if there is any legitimate dues payable by importer, same is barred under FEMA whereas the judgments provide that in case any violation is done, adjudicating authority can impose penalty for violation. Bar in civil court jurisdiction is only with respect to matter in which proceedings regarding imposing of penalty is pending before adjudicating authority and hence these judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Page 10 of 23CS (Comm) No.180/2022: M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited V/s PVR Global Trading Company & Ors. :
DOD: 08.10.2025
27. As regards arguments that suit under Act of 2015 can only be filed where the value is ascertainable as per Contract Act and it is contended that suit is filed without valuation as valuation is not ascertainable. The suit before Commercial Court can be filed as per specified value. It is not required that it should be based on written contract. The court is required to see the averment in the plaint and if it is above the specified value, it can be filed. There is no bar in Act of 2015 as contended by counsel for defendant.
xxxxx
(ii) Consequently, the application filed by defendant(s) U/o VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-.
8. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XIII-A CPC, inter alia praying for passing of summary judgment in the matter. Vide order dated 08.04.2024, the said application was disposed off with following directions:
xxxxx
20. There is no material on record even to remotely suggest that the defendants have ever made payment of the received goods to the plaintiff.
21. In view of the material on record, it can be safely inferred that atleast a sum of Rs.18,01,845/-
(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs One Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Five Only), as mentioned in paragraph No.25 of the plaint, the defendants do not have any plausible defence and with regard to the claim of plaintiff for Rs.58,78,000/-, the same can be decided during the course of trial.
22. In this view of the matter, the application U/o XIII-A CPC filed by plaintiff is disposed off with the directions to the defendant(s) to deposit a sum of Rs.18,01,845/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs One Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Five Only) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of suit, i.e 11.03.2022 till today in Court.
xxxxx Page 11 of 23 CS (Comm) No.180/2022: M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited V/s PVR Global Trading Company & Ors. :
DOD: 08.10.2025
9. The aforesaid decree dated 08.04.2024 stands challenged by the defendants before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of CM (M) No.3566/2024, titled as, "M/s PVR Global Trading Company & Ors. V/s M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited", wherein the next date of hearing is stated to be 27.11.2025.
10. Thereafter, on the joint request of the parties, the matter was sent to the Mediation Centre for exploring the possibility of amicable settlement between the parties, but the same could not be settled.
11. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.03.2025, following issues were settled for trial in the matter:
Issues:
(i) Whether the suit has not been filed by a duly authorized person?
If so, its effect? OPD.
(ii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? If so, its effect? OPD.
(iii) Whether there is no privity of contract between the parties? If so, its effect? OPD.
(iv) Whether the suit does not fall within the purview of Commercial Courts Act, 2015? If so, its effect? OPD.
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of the suit amount, as prayed for? OPP.
(vi) If answer to aforesaid issue is in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest thereupon. If so, at what rateand for what period? OPP.
(vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages, as prayed for? OPP.
(viii) Relief.
Page 12 of 23CS (Comm) No.180/2022: M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited V/s PVR Global Trading Company & Ors. :
DOD: 08.10.2025
12. Pursuant to framing of issues, vide order dated 11.03.2025 itself, Shri Sagar Dawar, Advocate, was appointed as "Local Commissioner" to record evidence in the matter.
13. (a) In order to discharge the onus of proving issues put upon it, plaintiff company examined its Authorized Representative namely Shri Ahmad Fahim Ahmadi as PW-1 in the matter, who in his evidence by way of Affidavit Ex.PW1/A has reiterated the averments made in the plaint and proved on record the following documents:
(i) Copy of Licence No.71636, Registration No.146267 and TIN No.9011931632, issued by Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as Ex.PW1/1 (OSR) (Objected to by learned counsel for the defendant on the mode of proof);
(ii) Certified True Copy of Board Resolution dated 10.11.2021, passed by the plaintiff company as Ex.PW1/2 (Objected to by learned counsel for the defendant on the mode of proof and non-production Minutes Book);
(iii) Copy of passport of Mr.Homayoun Yawar as Mark A;
(iv) Certified True Copy of Board Resolution, dated 03.07.2024, passed by plaintiff company in favour of PW-1 alongwith copy of Aadhar Card and copy of Passport of PW-1 as Ex.PW1/3 (Colly) (OSR) (Objected to by learned counsel for the defendant on the mode of proof and non-production Minutes Book);
(v) Original Authorization Letter issued by Afghanistan Chamber of Commerce And Investment (ACCI) in favour of PW-1 as Ex.PW1/4 (Objected to by learned counsel for the defendant on the mode of proof and non-production Minutes Book);
(vi) Copy of GST Certificate of defendant No.1 firm as Ex.PW1/5 Page 13 of 23 CS (Comm) No.180/2022: M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited V/s PVR Global Trading Company & Ors. :
DOD: 08.10.2025 (Colly) (from pages 26 to 34 of the paperbook);
(vii) Copy of FSSAI licence of defendant No.1 firm as Ex.PW1/6;
(viii) Copy of IEC (Importer-Exporter Code) Number of defendant No.1 firm as Ex.PW1/7;
(ix) Copies of Aadhar Card and tenant verification form(s) of defendants No.1, 2 and 4 and Mark B (running from page Nos.37 to
42);
(x) Copy of Aadhar Card of defendant No.5 as Mark C;
(xi) Copy of Sampling Certificate, dated 17.01.2021, issued by Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as Mark D;
(xii) Copy of Phythosanitary Certificate No.277347, dated 19.01.2021, issued by Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as Mark E;
(xiii) Invoice No.001, dated 20.01.2021, for 50 Kgs of saffron, amounting to Rs.25,000/- as Ex.PW1/8;
(xiv) Copy of Receipt paid to Afghanistan Airport Custom, dated 21.01.2021 as Ex.PW1/9 (OSR);
(xv) Copy of KAM Air Document as Mark F (pages 49-50); (xvi) Copy of Bill of Entry as Ex.PW1/10 (Colly) (pages 51 & 52); (xvii) Copy of Sampling Certificate, issued by Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as Mark G (page 53);
(xviii)Copy of Phythosanitary Certificate No.274578, dated 10.04.2021, issued by Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as Mark H;
(xix) Copy of Invoice No.002, dated 11.04.2021, for 100 kgs saffron, for a sum of Rs.45,000/- as Ex.PW1/11 (OSR);
(xx) Copy of Fee Receipt to Afghanistan Airport Custom, dated 12.04.2021 as Ex.PW1/12 (OSR);
Page 14 of 23CS (Comm) No.180/2022: M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited V/s PVR Global Trading Company & Ors. :
DOD: 08.10.2025 (xxi) Copy of KAM Air Document dated 12.04.2021 as Mark I (Colly) (page 58-59);
(xxii) Original Bill of Entry BE No.DT/CC TYP:
3572958/15/04/2021/N/H as Ex.PW1/13 (pages 60-61); (xxiii)Copy of Bank Statement as Ex.PW1/14, maintained by plaintiff in respect of the transactions done with the defendant(s) for the period from 01.05.2021 to 30.05.2021 as Ex.PW1/14; (xxiv)Copies of WhatsApp chats images between defendant No.3 and Vice-President of plaintiff company as Ex.PW1/15 (Colly) (from pages 67 to 77);
(xxv) Copies of WhatsApp chats images between defendant No.5 and Vice-President of plaintiff company as Ex.PW1/16 (Colly) (from pages 78 to 82);
(xxvi)Copy of legal notice dated 12.11.2021, sent on behalf of plaintiff to the defendant(s) as Ex.PW1/17;
(xxvii)Reply of the defendants dated 22.11.2021 as Ex.PW1/18 (pages 86-90);
(xxviii)Original letter dated 29.11.2021, sent by learned counsel for the plaintiff to the learned counsel for the defendant as Ex.PW1/19; (xxix)Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, issued under the signatures of Shri Homayoun Yawar, A.R of plaintiff company as Ex.PW1/20.
(b) PW-1/Shri Ahmad Fahim Ahmadi was thoroughly cross- examined by learned counsel for the defendant. In his cross-examination, copy of his passport was put to him as Ex.PW1/R1 (OSR); and Certificate dated 35.10.2021, issued by Embassy of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, New Delhi as Mark X. Page 15 of 23 CS (Comm) No.180/2022: M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited V/s PVR Global Trading Company & Ors. :
DOD: 08.10.2025
14. Despite according various opportunities by the learned Local Commissioner, defendants did not lead any evidence in the matter.
15. (i) It is worthwhile to note that the onus of proving issues No.(i) to
(iv) was upon the defendants, but no evidence in the matter was led by the defendants to prove the aforesaid issues.
(ii) As regards issues No.(v) to (vii), today the statements of learned counsels for both the parties on instructions were recorded, which for ready reference is re-produced hereunder:
______________________________________________ 08.10.2025 Statement of Shri Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Enrolment No.D-4276/2018.
Without Oath I am counsel for plaintiff company in the present matter. My Vakalatnama in this regard is duly on record, which is Ex.PX, bearing my signatures at point A. The plaintiff company is based in Afghanistan. The plaintiff company has initially filed the present suit against the defendants, inter alia claiming a decree in the sum of Rs.58,78,000/- alongwith pendentelite and future interest @15% per annum as well as costs of the suit.
Vide detailed order dated 08.04.2024, a decree under Order XIII-A CPC, for a sum of Rs.18,01,845/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs One Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Five Only), which is value of 54 Kgs of saffron priced at USD 24,300/-, alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of suit, i.e 11.03.2022 till 08.04.2024 was passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant(s) and the defendant(s) were directed to deposit the aforesaid amount in Court. The defendant(s) have so far not complied with the directions/decree dated 08.04.2024, as they have not deposited the aforesaid decreetal amount alongwith requisite interest quotient in the Court.
On account of non-compliance of order dated 08.04.2024 by the defendant(s), the plaintiff had already filed an execution petition for realization of the aforesaid Page 16 of 23 CS (Comm) No.180/2022: M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited V/s PVR Global Trading Company & Ors. :
DOD: 08.10.2025 decreetal amount, being Ex.Ptn.No.33/2025, wherein the NDOH is 31.10.2025. Further, in the aforesaid Execution Petition, vide order dated 04.09.2025, Warrants of Attachment of movable properties of defendant(s)/ J.D(s) have already been issued.
Thereafter, vide order dated 11.03.2025, issues were framed in the main suit and the plaintiff has already evidence before the learned Local Commissioner and the PE in the matter was closed by learned Local Commissioner vide order dated 20.08.2025.
Thereafter, despite grant of several opportunities, the defendant(s) have so far not led any evidence in the matter before the learned Local Commissioner.
On instructions from the plaintiff company, which is a foreign company based in Afghanistan, it it is submitted that plaintiff company is not willing to prolong the litigation any further and instead is willing to forego/not claim the amount claimed in the suit as well as the damages, despite leading PE in the matter and is merely confining its claim to the decreetal amount awarded vide order dated 08.04.2024, i.e decree in the sum of Rs.18,01,845/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs One Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Five Only), alongwith interest, as claimed @ 15% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization thereof. The decreetal amount of Rs.18,01,845/- is price of 54 Kgs of saffron equivalent to USD 24,300/- @ Rs.74.15 per Dollar. It is further prayed that the decreetal amount of USD 24,300/- (equivalent to Rs.18,01,845/-) be decreed in terms of present day price of US Dollar, which is about Rs.88/- equivalent to one US Dollar, as the decreetal amount is to be paid to the Decree Holder, which is a foreign company.
The plaintiff company also prays the litigation cost, i.e approximately Rs.7,00,000/- in the present suit.
The plaintiff company leaves the interest quotient and cost to the discretion of this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice.
RO&AC (Sd/-) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02, North-West/Rohini Courts/08.10.2025 ********** Page 17 of 23 CS (Comm) No.180/2022: M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited V/s PVR Global Trading Company & Ors. :
DOD: 08.10.2025 Statement of Shri Sushant Dahiya, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for the defendants. Enrolment No.D-1985/A/2011. Without Oath I am counsel for all the defendants in the present present matter. My Vakalatnama in this regard is duly on record, which is Ex.DX, bearing my signatures at point A and that of Shri Prem Dass, A.R/one of the partners of defendant No.1 at point B. The earlier Vakalatnama in respect of defendants No.2 to 5 is Ex.DY.
I have seen and heard the statement of learned counsel for the plaintiff recorded in Court today.
The defendants have already filed a CM(M) No.3566/2024, before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, inter alia challenging the order dated 08.04.2024, passed by this Court. Let the said statement of learned counsel for the plaintiff be considered, subject to final outcome of the aforesaid CM (M).
RO&AC (Sd/-) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02, North-West/Rohini Courts/08.10.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------
16. My issue wise findings in the matter are as under.
17. Issues No.(i) to (iv):
(i) Whether the suit has not been filed by a duly authorized person?
If so, its effect? OPD.
(ii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? If so, its effect? OPD.
(iii) Whether there is no privity of contract between the parties? If so, its effect? OPD.
(iv) Whether the suit does not fall within the purview of Commercial Courts Act, 2015? If so, its effect? OPD.
The onus to prove aforesaid issues was upon the defendants. The defendants have not led any evidence in the matter to prove the aforesaid issues. The aforesaid issues are accordingly decided against the defendants.
Page 18 of 23CS (Comm) No.180/2022: M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited V/s PVR Global Trading Company & Ors. :
DOD: 08.10.2025
18. Issues No.(v) to (vii):
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of the suit amount, as prayed for? OPP.
(vi) If answer to aforesaid issue is in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest thereupon. If so, at what rateand for what period? OPP.
(vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages, as prayed for? OPP.
The onus to prove the aforesaid issues was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has today confined its claim in the suit to the decree passed under Order XIII-A CPC vide order dated 08.04.2024, the net effect whereof is that the claim for damages has also not been pressed by the plaintiff.
19. The learned counsel for the defendants has very vehemently argued that the statement has been made today in Court by learned counsel for the plaintiff to thwart the CM (M) No.3566/2024, which has been filed by the defendants before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the order dated 08.04.2024, passed by this Court. It is, however, admitted by learned counsel for the defendants that since the order dated 08.04.2024 stands challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of aforesaid petition, this Court may consider disposing off the present matter, subject to final outcome of the aforesaid petition.
20. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that in terms of order/decree dated 08.04.2024, the payment of Rs.18,01,845/- has to be made by the defendants to the plaintiff in a foreign country, i.e in Afghanistan and as such, the payment may be directed to be made in bilaterally accepted currency, I.e US Dollar. In support of his aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the following two judgments:
Page 19 of 23CS (Comm) No.180/2022: M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited V/s PVR Global Trading Company & Ors. :
DOD: 08.10.2025
(a) Case reported as, "Civil Appeal No.628 with 629 of 1981", titled as, "Forasol V/s Oil and Natural Gas Commission" (DOD: 25.10.1983), decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India; and
(b) Case reported as, "Civil Appeal No.7702/2019", titled as, "DLF Limited (Formerly Known As DLF Universal Ltd.) And Anr. V/s Koncar Generators And Motors Limited" (DOD: 08.08.2024), decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
21. In case of "Forasol" (supra), while deliberating upon the action to recover an amount payable in a foreign currency, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down as under:
xxxxx
24. In an action to recover an amount payable in a foreign currency, five dates compete for selection by the Court as the proper date for fixing the rate of exchange at which the foreign currency amount has to be converted into the currency of the country in which the action has been commenced and decided.
These dates are :
(1) the date when the amount became due and payable;
(2) the date of the commencement of the action; (3) the date of the decree.
(4) the date when the court orders execution to issue; and (5) the date when the decretal amount is paid or realized.
25. In a case where a decree has been passed by the court in terms of an award made in a foreign currency a sixth date also enters the competition, namely, the date of the award. The case before us is one in which a decree in terms of such an award has been passed by the court.
xxxxx Page 20 of 23 CS (Comm) No.180/2022: M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited V/s PVR Global Trading Company & Ors. :
DOD: 08.10.2025 xxxxx
52. For the above reasons, it possible for us to accept the date of payment or realisation of the decretal debt as the proper date for the rate of conversion.
53. This then leaves us with only three dates from which to make our selection, namely, the date when the amount became payable, the date of the filing of the suit and the date of the judgment, that is, the date of passing the decree. It would be fairer to both the parties for the court to take the latest of these dates, namely, the date of passing the decree, that is, the date of the judgment.
xxxxx
22. Further in case DLF Limited (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while relying upon the law laid down in the judgment of "Forasol" (supra) has been pleased to reiterate as under:
xxxxx 5.2 For the remaining amount that still required to be converted to Indian rupee for which no exchange rate was provided in the contract or the arbitral award, the Court considered six possible dates as the proper date for fixing the rate of exchange:
i. the date when the amount became due and
payable;
ii. the date of the commencement of the action;
iii. the date of the decree;
iv. the date when the court orders execution to issue;
v. the date when the decretal amount is paid or realised;
vi. and in cases where a decree is passed by the court in terms of an arbitral award in foreign currency, the date of the award.
......
5.5 .......
Page 21 of 23CS (Comm) No.180/2022: M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited V/s PVR Global Trading Company & Ors. :
DOD: 08.10.2025
(iii) The Court favourably discussed the third option, i.e., the date of the decree or judgment. It held that the decree crystallises the amount payable to the decree-holder. To account for appeals and revisions, the date when the action is finally disposed of and when the decree becomes final and binding on both parties, after exhausting all remedies, can be used. However, it observed that the only objection to be considered against this date is that there is a significant lapse of time between the decree and its execution.
.....
(vi) Among the remaining dates, the Court was of the opinion that the date of the judgment/decree is the most appropriate.
xxxxx
23. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the case law on the subject came to the conclusion that rate of conversion of currency has to be as on the date of passing of decree and the same should be ordered by the Court.
24. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality, the suit is decreed as under:
(a) A decree in the sum of Rs.18,01,845/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs One Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Five Only) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of suit, i.e 11.03.2022 till realization thereof is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally.
Needless to say, the aforesaid decreetal amount alongwith requisite interest quotient shall be paid by the defendants jointly and severally in the account of plaintiff in US Dollars with conversion rate applicable as on 08.04.2024, in accordance with Foreign Exchange Rules and Regulations;
(b) Plaintiff is also held entitled to litigation cost, which includes cost incurred by the plaintiff in filing the present suit as also the counsel's fee which is quantified as Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only).
Page 22 of 23CS (Comm) No.180/2022: M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited V/s PVR Global Trading Company & Ors. :
DOD: 08.10.2025
25. Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly.
26. It is, however, clarified that the aforesaid decree shall be subject to final outcome of CM (M) No.3566/2024, titled as, "M/s PVR Global Trading Company & Ors. V/s M/s Omar Shoaib Yawar Limited", which is stated to be pending disposal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
27. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities. Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD YADAV YADAV Date:
2025.10.08 17:20:57 +0530 Dictated & Announced in the (Vinod Yadav) open Court on 08.10.2025 District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 North-West/Rohini Courts Page 23 of 23