Delhi District Court
M/S Jivmon Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd vs Vinay Marwah And Ors on 9 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AAKASH SHARMA: CIVIL JUDGE -02
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CS SCJ No. 1164/2020
In the matter of :-
M/S JIVMON TECH SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.
A duly authorized company through its Director,
Sh. Vijay Monga,
Registered Office at:
A-301, Rajendra Santoshi House,
3, LSC, 2nd Floor, Dilshad Garden,
New Delhi-110095.
.... Plaintiff
VERSUS
SH. VINAY MARWAH,
Proprietor, M/S Paul Brothers,
Office at: 31, Sabharwal Market,
New Delhi-110006.
Also at: Sh. Vinay Marwah (Shakti Marwah),
Proprietor, M/s Paul Brothers,
262-A, Late Sh. Chatter Singh Malik House,
Dhirpur, (Nirankari Colony), Delhi.
Also at: Sh. Vinay Marwah (Shakti Marwah),
Proprietor, M/s Paul Brothers,
265, Main Road, Dhirpur, (Nirankari Colony),
Delhi.
Also at: Sh. Vinay Marwah (Shakti Marwah),
Proprietor, M/s Paul Brothers,
H.No. B-4, Sector-40,
Police Station Sector-39, Noida, U.P.
Also at: Sh. Vinay Marwah (Shakti Marwah),
CS No. 1164/2020 M/s Jivmon Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Vinay Marwah Page 1/19
Digitally signed
AAKASH by AAKASH
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.09.09
16:28:51 +0530
Proprietor, M/s Paul Brothers,
262,A, Dhirpur, New Delhi-110009.
.... Defendant
Date of Institution: 19.09.2020
Date of reserving the judgment: 08.09.2025
Date of Judgment: 09.09.2025
Final Judgment : Suit Decreed.
CONTESTED JUDGMENT
(Suit for recovery of amount Rs. 2,68,650/- alongwith pendente-lite and
future interest @18% p.a.)
1.The brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff is a private limited company and duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. That the plaintiff is a reputed freight fleet owner and transport contractor and controlling its business from its address above mentioned in the title of the suit. That Sh. Vijay Monga, who is one of the Directors of the company has been authorized to sign and verify the present proceedings, vakalatnama, applications, to give evidence and to do all other acts necessary in the legal proceedings against the defendants vide resolution dated 07.08.2020 passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 07.08.2020. Hence, Sh. Vijay Monga is competent to file the present suit.
1.1 It is further submitted that the defendant no.1 is a proprietorship firm and to be served through its proprietor namely Sh. Vinay Marwah (Shakti Marwah). That the defendant no.2 Ambica CS No. 1164/2020 M/s Jivmon Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Vinay Marwah Page 2/19 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.09 16:28:56 +0530 Corporation Limited (through its Director) office at: B2-501, Boomerang, Chandivali Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400072; defendant no.3 Daksh India Pvt. Ltd. (through its Director) office at: Sarla Software Park, Fantree Building Plot No. 369, Marol Maroshi Road, Sankasth Pada Welfare Society, Marol Andheri East, Mumbai-400059; & defendant no. 4 Vinayaka Polymers (through its proprietor) office at: B-17, Devka Palace, Mamlatdarwadi Road No.1, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 (defendants no.2, 3 & 4 are already dropped/deleted as parties from the present suit vide order dated 18.07.2023) are the other consignors who booked different consignments which were to be delivered to the defendant no.1. That the defendant no.1 have been regularly dealing with the plaintiff whereby different consignments were booked by the defendants no.2, 3 & 4 to be delivered to the defendant no.1 with the freight charges to be billed to the defendant receiver and beneficiary of the goods. That as such the plaintiff was maintaining a running statements of account in the name of the defendant no.1 in the regular course of business wherein the transportation charges for the goods delivered to defendant no.1 were debited while payment received from the defendant were credited with the last payment made being adjusted with the longest outstanding bill. That as on 13.06.2019, an amount of Rs.2,22,025/- was outstanding in the name of defendant no.1 in the said statements of account maintained by the plaintiff.
That the said outstanding relates to the following transportation charges relating to the goods transported and delivered to the defendant in safe and sound condition, the details of which are given below:-
CS No. 1164/2020 M/s Jivmon Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Vinay Marwah Page 3/19Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.09 16:29:00 +0530 Sr. Truck G.R. G.R. Date Bill Bill Date Amount Consignor Consignee No. No. No. No. 1 HR-55-T- 2222 18.03.2019 272 19.03.2019 Rs. Ambica Corporation Ltd. Paul Brothers, 2725 40,000/- B2-501, Boomerang, Sadar Bazar Chandivali Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-
400072.
2 HR-55- 2244 04.05.2019 308 07.05.2019 Rs. Ambica Corporation Ltd. Paul Brothers, U-1055 72,150/- B2-501, Boomerang, Sadar Bazar Chandivali Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-
400072.
3 HR-55- 2245 04.05.2019 309 07.05.2019 Rs. Ambica Corporation Ltd. Paul Brothers, U-1055 13,875/- B2-501, Boomerang, Sadar Bazar Chandivali Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-
400072.
4 HR-38- 2408 15.05.2019 322 25.05.2019 Rs. Daksh India Pvt. Ltd., Paul Brothers,
Z-2400 36,000/- Sarla Software Park, Sadar Bazar,
Fantree Building Plot Dhirpur
No. 369, Marol Maroshi
Road, Sankasth Pada
Welfare Society, Marol
Andheri East, Mumbai-
400059.
5 HR-38- 2409 15.05.2019 322 25.05.2019 Rs. Daksh India Pvt. Ltd., Paul Brothers,
Z-2400 36,000/- Sarla Software Park, Sadar Bazar
Fantree Building Plot
No. 369, Marol Maroshi
Road, Sankasth Pada
Welfare Society, Marol
Andheri East, Mumbai-
400059.
6 HR-384- 2377 21.05.2019 323 25.05.2019 Rs. Ambica Corporation Ltd. Paul Brothers,
0605 40,000/- B2-501, Boomerang, Sadar Bazar
Chandivali Road,
Andheri East, Mumbai-
400072.
7 HR-382- 2381 29.05.2019 341 13.06.2019 Rs. Vinayaka Polymers, B- Paul Brothers,
9888 20,000/- 17, Devka Palace, Sadar Bazar
Mamlatdarwadi Road
No.1, Malad (West),
Mumbai-400064
1.2 It is further submitted that the plaintiff had been following up
CS No. 1164/2020 M/s Jivmon Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Vinay Marwah Page 4/19 Digitally
signed by
AAKASH
AAKASH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.09.09
16:29:04
+0530
with the defendant no.1 both by telephone and by written communications but the defendant no.1 had refused and neglected to pay the same. That the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 02.03.2020 to the defendant by properly addressing, preparing and posting by speed post to pay the outstanding of Rs.2,22,025/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the respective dates of the invoices within 15 days of the receipt of the said legal notice.
That the said notice was duly served as are evident from the tracking reports with the endorsement delivery confirmed on 04.03.2020 downloaded from the respective website of India Post. That after the receipt of the said legal notice, the defendant gave a frivolous and false reply dated 17.03.2020 and did not make any payment.
1.3 It is further submitted that it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,22,025/- of the transport charges. That the defendant is also liable to pay a sum of Rs. 46,625/- as interest @18% p.a. from 13.06.2019 to 12.08.2020, thus, totaling Rs.2,68,650/-. That the defendants are further liable to pay pendente-lite & future interest @18% p.a. from the date of the filing of the present suit till its realization. That cause of action to file the present suit arose on 29.05.2019 when an amount of Rs.2,22,025/- was outstanding against the defendant. That it again arose on various occasions when the amount was demanded but no payment was made. That it lastly arose on 02.03.2020 when the legal notice was sent to the defendant but the defendant gave a frivolous reply dated 17.03.2020 instead of making the payment. That the suit is within limitation. That the defendant works for gain in Delhi at the CS No. 1164/2020 M/s Jivmon Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Vinay Marwah Page 5/19 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.09 16:29:07 +0530 abovementioned address, request for services was made at Delhi, the payments were liable to be made at Delhi, which falls within the Central District and amount claimed is below Rs.3 Lakh and hence, this Hon'ble Court has pecuniary & territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the present suit. That the suit has been valued at Rs.2,68,650/- for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction and the appropriate court fees has been affixed on the plaint. Hence, it is prayed that a decree for recovery of Rs. 2,68,650/- with pendente-lite and future interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of its realization be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. Cost of the suit is also prayed.
DEFENDANTS' VERSION
2. Summons for settlement of issues were issued to the defendant.
Thereafter, Ld. Counsel for the defendant had appeared on 21.02.2021 as observed in the order dated 21.01.2021. Thereafter, written statement has filed on behalf of the defendant on 08.03.2021 as observed in the order dated 25.10.2021.
2.1 In written statement, it is submitted on behalf of defendant that this Court does not have the subject matter jurisdiction to try this suit as the nature of the suit filed by the plaintiff is of commercial nature and is covered by Commercial Courts Act. That no pre-institution mediation and settlement was got conducted by the plaintiff as per Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act and as such this suit could not be instituted in this Digitally signed by CS No. 1164/2020 M/s Jivmon Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Vinay Marwah Page 6/19 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.09 16:29:11 +0530 Court as same was covered as a transaction of commercial nature as prescribed Section 2(f)(v) of the Commercial Courts Act. That the defendant is not the proprietor of the firm M/s Paul Brothers though has been looking after its affairs since long. That the present suit filed by the plaintiff is barred as the plaintiff herein is a Carrier and is in the business of carrying of goods of chemical goods having special natures which requires special manpower, special vehicle and special protection to protect the chemical items from sun, dust, moisture etc. while carrying them from one place to another. That the plaintiff and defendant have been in this business for long and the plaintiff used to carry chemical named SBC (Styrene Butadiene Copolymer) granules from different places of India and deliver to defendant and defendant thereafter used to distribute the same among its ends suppliers being defendant's customers. That defendant is in the business of import and trade of SBC Granules and is in the regular business with defendants no.2, 3 & 4 and has been taking services of plaintiff for transporting the said goods from defendants no.2, 3 & 4 to defendant in perfect condition. That SBC Granules are used for various purposes including but not limited to manufacturing of screw drivers. That SBC Granules during transportation should not be exposed to dust, sunlight, otherwise moisture will be created in the material and will damage the material. That plaintiff has tried to mislead this Court by hiding the fact that the plaintiff took the SBC Granules in sack (bag) form from other defendants from Mumbai in perfect condition on 21.05.2019 (400 bags), but could not protect and save the material from exposure to dust, sunlight etc. properly on its way and till the time of delivery of SBC Granules to CS No. 1164/2020 M/s Jivmon Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Vinay Marwah Page 7/19 AAKASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AAKASH SHARMA Date: 2025.09.09 16:29:15 +0530 defendant in perfect condition and due to careless attitude and unethical act of the plaintiff, the defendant received the transported SBC Granules in pack (bag) in damaged conditions on 25.05.2019 having moisture which led to damage and blackened the SBC Granules which can be seen from the fact that on 25.05.2019 immediately upon receiving the goods from plaintiff's truck no. HR-384-0605, an employee of defendant namely Mr. Rajesh checked the condition of SBC Granules material received and immediately informed to driver of the plaintiff about its damaged condition. That Mr. Rajesh also mentioned the condition of the goods on the concerned transport bilty dated 21.05.2019 as "400 bags received, note- ye maal sara kala hai, maal nahi chalega, bori kali hai 25.05.2019 (Rajesh Transporter Sahab)". That the present suit is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff supplied the goods in damaged condition and hidden the information that Mr. Rajesh, employee of the defendant had immediately informed and written about the bad condition of the goods. That defendant called plaintiff numerous times over telephone and plaintiff assured the defendant to sell the material in market to its customers and plaintiff will compensate the defendant. Plaintiff also requested defendant not to file a case under the Carriage by Road Act, 2007 to claim liabilities for damage of material assuring that plaintiff will provide appropriate compensation for damaged goods but the plaintiff did not compensate the defendant. That the suit is liable to be dismissed for supressio veri and suggestio falsi. That before the incident of 25.05.2019, all the due payments were made by defendant timely to the plaintiff. That the defendant suffered substantial loss due to unethical act and improper handling of the goods by the CS No. 1164/2020 M/s Jivmon Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Vinay Marwah Page 8/19 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.09 16:29:20 +0530 plaintiff. That the value of the goods got wasted due to assurance of the plaintiff not to raise the question before any Court including under the Carriage by Road Act, 2007 and distribute the damaged material among its customers which the defendant did and due to which the valuable customers of defendant withheld its payments and due to which the loss of the defendant is more than Rs.50,00,000/-. That the defendant had been requesting the plaintiff to remove the entries of freight charges amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- from its book due to the damaged goods delivered by the plaintiff and the plaintiff assured to compensate the defendant but failed to keep its promise. That the defendant received the legal notice dated 02.03.2020 but the defendant is not liable to make any such payment of Rs.2,22,025/- with interest to the plaintiff as the defendant received the goods in damaged condition from plaintiff on 25.05.2019, and thereafter plaintiff assured to compensate the defendant to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- in freight charges, but the plaintiff has sent legal notice which is acknowledged by the defendant but defendant specifically denies any liability towards payment of Rs.2,22,025/- to the plaintiff considering the damaged material delivered by the plaintiff and assurances made thereof. It is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
2.2 In replication, the plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff has the latest vehicles to deliver the goods in safe and sound condition and special protection to protect the chemical/goods. That defendants no.2, 3 & 4 were the consignors to defendant no.1/defendant. That goods were loaded by the consignors and unloaded at the destination by the consignee i.e. Digitally signed by CS No. 1164/2020 M/s Jivmon Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Vinay Marwah Page 9/19 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.09 16:29:24 +0530 manpower of defendant. That it is itself admitted by the defendant that plaintiff is carrying the goods for the defendant since long time. It is submitted that the goods under the GR bearing no. 2377 dated 21.05.2019 (400 bags) from Mumbai to Delhi for defendant were delivered at his address on 25.05.2019 in safe and sound condition which were duly received by the employee of the defendant and allegation of the defendant that the goods were not in good condition is forged and fabricated. In fact the remarks made by the employee of the defendant on the transporter's GR copy is "400 bags received. Note- 02 bags fatte hain" and the same original documents were also handed over to defendant at the time of claiming the freight charges by plaintiff. It is denied that the defendant contacted the plaintiff after receiving the goods or that the plaintiff gave assurance to compensate the defendant for any damaged goods. As such no material was damaged at the time of delivery, in fact only two bags were torn as per remarks made by Mr. Rajesh, employee of defendant. The plaintiff never promised to compensate the defendant for upto Rs.2,50,000/- as freight charges which has been alleged by the defendant. That defendant gave no information to the plaintiff about any kind of damaged goods. Plaintiff reiterated the allegations made in the plaint.
3. From the pleadings of the parties i.e. plaint, written statement and replication, issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 18.07.2023 and an additional issue was framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 21.09.2024:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.2,68,650/-
Digitally CS No. 1164/2020 M/s Jivmon Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Vinay Marwah Page 10/19 signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.09 16:29:28 +0530 alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @18% per annum, as prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff due to its negligence destroyed the goods and materials in transit and did not deliver the goods to the defendant in perfect and sound condition? OPD.
Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
4. In support of its case, the plaintiff got examined Sh. Vijay Monga, Director of plaintiff company who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. PW-1 relied upon the following documents:-
i) Ex.PW1/1 is the copy of the Incorporation Certificate (OSR).
ii) Ex.PW1/2 is the Board Resolution dated 07.08.2020.
iii) Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/9 (7 Pages) are the G.Rs.
iv) Ex.PW1/10 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 02.03.2020.
v) Ex.PW1/11 to Ex.PW1/18 are the postal receipts.
vi) Ex.PW1/19 is the reply dated 17.03.2020 to the legal notice.
vii) Ex.PW1/20 is the photocopy of the GR bearing No. 2377 dated 21.05.2019.
viii) Ex.PW1/21 and Ex.PW1/22 (Colly.) are the notices U/o 12 Rule 8 CPC dated 06.01.2022 and 29.03.2022 along with their returned envelopes.
The right of the defendants to cross-examine PW-1 was closed vide order dated 27.10.2023 as opportunity was not availed on behalf of the CS No. 1164/2020 M/s Jivmon Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Vinay Marwah Page 11/19 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.09 16:29:31 +0530 defendant.
4.1 In support of its case, the plaintiff got examined Sh. Trilochan Mishra as PW-2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A. PW-2 relied upon the following documents:-
i) Ex.PW2/1 is the computer generated statement of account between the parties.
ii) Ex.PW2/2 is the Certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The right of the defendants to cross-examine PW-2 was closed vide order dated 27.10.2023 as opportunity was not availed on behalf of the defendant.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
5. Despite several opportunities on 17.04.2025 & 10.06.2025, no steps were taken by the defendant to conduct defence evidence, accordingly, defence evidence was closed vide order dated 10.06.2025.
FINDINGS
6. I have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and carefully perused the record. Issues as stated hereunder are discussed hereafter: -
Digitally CS No. 1164/2020 M/s Jivmon Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Vinay Marwah Page 12/19 signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.09 16:29:36 +0530
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.2,68,650/-
alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @18% per annum, as prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff due to its negligence destroyed the goods and materials in transit and did not deliver the goods to the defendant in perfect and sound condition? OPD.
Relief.
7. Firstly, the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court has been brought into question by the defendant. It has been submitted on behalf of the defendant that this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction to try the present suit as same is barred by Section 2(f)(v) of the Commercial Courts Act and in view of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, no pre- institution mediation and settlement was resorted to before filing the present suit which is required since the suit is of commercial nature. Whereas, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that this court had the subject matter jurisdiction as per the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
8. It has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pankaj Ravjibhai Patel Trading as Rakesh Pharmaceuticals Vs. SSS Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd. 2023 SCC Online Del 7013, " para 25,...... a suit is liable to be placed before the notified commercial court only if it relates to a commercial disputes and crosses the threshold of Rs.3 Lacs as the specified value when determined in accordance with CS No. 1164/2020 M/s Jivmon Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Vinay Marwah Page 13/19 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.09 16:29:40 +0530 Section 12. Undisputedly, unless the twin factors of 'commercial dispute' and 'specified value' are met, a matter cannot be placed before or be taken cognizance of by commercial court."
9. In the view of this Court, the present suit is not a commercial dispute covered by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as the specified value of the present suit is below Rs.3 Lacs. Accordingly, this court has the subject matter jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present suit as the specified value of the present suit is below Rs. 3 Lacs. Accordingly, the contention of the defendant that this court has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present suit holds no water.
10. Secondly, it has been further contended on behalf of the defendant that plaintiff has tried to mislead this Court by hiding the fact that the plaintiff took the SBC Granules in sack (bag) form from other defendants from Mumbai in perfect condition on 21.05.2019 (400 bags), but could not protect and save the material from exposure to dust, sunlight etc. properly on its way and till the time of delivery of SBC Granules to defendant in perfect condition and due to careless attitude and unethical act of the plaintiff, the defendant received the transported SBC Granules in pack (bag) in damaged conditions on 25.05.2019 having moisture which led to damage and blackened the SBC Granules which can be seen from the fact that on 25.05.2019 immediately upon receiving the goods from plaintiff's truck no. HR-384-0605, an employee of defendant namely Mr. Digitally CS No. 1164/2020 M/s Jivmon Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Vinay Marwah Page 14/19 signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.09 16:29:44 +0530 Rajesh checked the condition of SBC Granules material received and immediately informed to driver of the plaintiff about its damaged condition. That Mr. Rajesh also mentioned the condition of the goods on the concerned transport bilty dated 21.05.2019 as "400 bags received, note- ye maal sara kala hai, maal nahi chalega, bori kali hai 25.05.2019 (Rajesh Transporter Sahab)". That the present suit is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff supplied the goods in damaged condition and hidden the information that Mr. Rajesh, employee of the defendant had immediately informed and written about the bad condition of the goods. That defendant called plaintiff numerous times over telephone and plaintiff assured the defendant to sell the material in market to its customers and plaintiff will compensate the defendant. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the defendant is deemed to have accepted the goods as he further sold the same to his customers.
11. Section 42 of the Sale Of Goods Act, 1930 provides:-
42. Acceptance.-- The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them, or when the goods have been delivered to him and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller, or when, after the lapse of a reasonable time, he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them.
12. Admittedly, as per para no. 4 of the preliminary objections of the written statement and para no.5 of the reply on merits of the written statement, the defendant has categorically admitted that the defendant has after the receipt of the goods from the plaintiff, further distributed those CS No. 1164/2020 M/s Jivmon Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Vinay Marwah Page 15/19 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.09 16:29:48 +0530 goods including the said damaged goods among its customers and the valuable customers of the defendant have withheld the payments. This goes to show that the defendant chose to retain the goods and failed to intimate the plaintiff that he had rejected the goods for their damaged condition, and further the defendant did an act of distributing those goods among its customers which is an act inconsistent with the ownership of the seller. Accordingly, the defendant is deemed to have accepted the goods as per Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
13. The plaintiff witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 were not cross- examined on behalf of the defendant. The testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 has remained unrebutted. It has to be taken note of the fact that the defendant admittedly received the goods on 25.05.2019 which were delivered by the plaintiff but failed to make the payment qua the same. The defendant further distributed those goods among its customers which is deemed acceptance of the goods delivered by the plaintiff. The defendant has not examined any witness in its defence evidence to prove the defence that the goods of the plaintiff were delivered in damaged condition and were rejected. The defendant has not examined its employee Mr. Rajesh who allegedly made the remarks regarding the condition of the goods on the concerned transport bilty dated 21.05.2019 as "400 bags received, note- ye maal sara kala hai, maal nahi chalega, bori kali hai 25.05.2019 (Rajesh Transporter Sahab)" in its defence evidence. The defendant has not led any evidence at all or even taken steps to discredit the version of the plaintiff by conducting any cross-examination. Also, the defendant has not proved any AAKASH CS No. 1164/2020 M/s Jivmon Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Vinay Marwah Page 16/19 SHARMA Digitally signed by AAKASH SHARMA Date: 2025.09.09 16:29:52 +0530 document to show the rejection of the goods delivered by the plaintiff by proving any notice to this effect. Thus, the defence of the defendant that the goods delivered by the plaintiff had been rejected by the defendant for their damaged condition is not proved.
14. The plaintiff during the pendency of the suit served the notice U/o 12 Rule 8 CPC vide notices dated 06.01.2022 & 29.03.2022 for producing in court the original GR No. 2377 dated 21.05.2019 sent to the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff at the time of demanding the payment which is in the custody of the defendant, but even after service of the notice, defendant has not supplied the original GR No. 2377. It was prayed therefore, that the plaintiff may be permitted to lead secondary evidence of the aforesaid GR. Vide order dated 16.12.2024, this Court observed that since the original document which the plaintiff was seeking from the defendant was not available with the defendant, the application U/s 65 Indian Evidence Act r/w Sec, 151 CPC for leading secondary evidence filed on behalf of the plaintiff was allowed.
15. This secondary evidence filed on behalf of the plaintiff is Ex.PW1/20 which is the photocopy of the GR bearing no. 2377 dated 21.05.2019 which mentions the remarks made by the employee of the defendant on the transporter's GR copy as "400 bags received. Note- 02 bags fatte hain". There is no mention of goods being received in damaged condition upon Ex.PW1/20.
CS No. 1164/2020 M/s Jivmon Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Vinay Marwah Page 17/19AAKASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AAKASH SHARMA Date: 2025.09.09 16:29:56 +0530
16. Whereas the defendant had also filed copy of the GR on page no.24 of the list of documents of the defendant which has not been proved by the defendant by conducting any evidence. It is pertinent to observe that on the copy of the GR on page no.24 of the list of documents of the defendant instead of the remarks "400 bags received. Note- 02 bags fatte hain", there appear to be the remarks "400 bags received, note- ye maal sara kala hai, maal nahi chalega, bori kali hai 25.05.2019 (Rajesh Transporter Sahab)". However, since defendant has not proved the document i.e. copy of the GR on page no.24 of the list of documents of the defendant, same is held not proved and hence no reliance is placed upon it.
17. On a preponderance of probabilities, the plaintiff has discharged its burden of proof by duly proving its case by examining PW-1 and PW-2 whose testimony have remained unrebutted. The plaintiff has duly proved Ex.PW1/1 which is the copy of the Incorporation Certificate (OSR); Ex.PW1/2 which is the Board Resolution dated 07.08.2020; Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/9 (7 Pages) which are the G.Rs.; Ex.PW1/10 which is the office copy of the legal notice dated 02.03.2020; Ex.PW1/11 to Ex.PW1/18 which are the postal receipts; Ex.PW1/19 which is the reply dated 17.03.2020 to the legal notice; Ex.PW1/20 which is the photocopy of the GR bearing No. 2377 dated 21.05.2019; Ex.PW1/21 and Ex.PW1/22 (Colly.) which are the notices U/o 12 Rule 8 CPC dated 06.01.2022 and 29.03.2022 along with their returned envelopes; Ex.PW2/1 which is the computer generated statement of account between the parties and Ex.PW2/2 which is the Certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
AAKASH CS No. 1164/2020 M/s Jivmon Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Vinay Marwah Page 18/19 SHARMA Digitally signed by AAKASH SHARMA Date: 2025.09.09 16:30:00 +0530 The defendant neither cross-examined PW-1 and PW-2 nor conducted any defence evidence. The long and short of it is that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving the liability of the defendant for the outstanding principal amount of Rs.2,22,025/- as reflected in the ledger/account statement Ex.PW2/1. However, the interest of Rs. 46,625/- @18 % per annum as claimed by the plaintiff beginning from 13.06.2019 to 12.08.2020 against the defendant is highly exorbitant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice will be served, if the plaintiff is awarded interest @ 6% per annum on the due amount of Rs. 2,22,025/- from 13.06.2019 till the date of realization.
18. Relief.
In view of the above discussion, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant, the due amount of Rs. 2,22,025/- with interest @ 6% per annum calculated from 13.06.2019 onwards till the date of realization.
Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. Digitally signed by File be consigned to Record Room as per rules. AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.09 16:30:07 Announced in the open (Aakash Sharma) +0530 court today on 09.09.2025 Civil Judge -02 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.CS No. 1164/2020 M/s Jivmon Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Vinay Marwah Page 19/19