Delhi District Court
Lalit Kumar Tatar vs Gill Agricultural Implements Pvt Ltd on 22 January, 2026
CNR No. DLCT01-001591-2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)- 03: CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURT (EXTENSION BLOCK) : DELHI.
CS (COMM) No. 130/2025
In the matter of :-
Lalit Kumar Tatar
Proprietor of M/s India Trade Centre
Having office at
1520/21, Shop No.1, 1st Floor,
Sham Market, Farashkhana,
Shradhanand Marg, Delhi-110006 ......Plaintiff
Versus
Gill Agricultural Implements Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director
At Danewala G.T. Road, Malout,
Punjab-152107. .....Defendant
Date of Institution : 27.01.2025
Date on which Judgment reserved : 13.01.2026
Date on which judgment pronounced : 22.01.2026
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
JUDGMENT
1. Before this Court set to adjudicate on myriad issues flagged on either side, let the Court to spell out laconically the landscape of the pleadings.
CS (COMM) No.130/2025 Pg. 1 / 21 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: Sharma 2026.01.22 14:31:35 +0530
2. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.11,32,844.04 filed by plaintiff against the defendant.
(A) Pleadings of the Parties:-
3. Succinctly stated facts of the case as set out in the plaint are that the plaintiff is proprietor of the firm M/s India Trade Centre having its registered office at 1520/21, Shop No.1, 1st Floor, Sham Market, Farashkhana, Shradhanand Marg, Delhi-110006 and is engaged in the business of trading of bearings (hereinafter referred to as goods) whole sale.
4. It has been further averred in the plaint that the defendant is a Private Limited Company duly registered under the Companies Act having its office at Danewala, G.T. Road, Malout, Punjab.
5. It has been further averred in the plaint that the defendant came into the contact of the plaintiff and apprised the plaintiff about its business and requested the plaintiff for supply of bearings on credit basis at its office and the plaintiff had agreed to supply the same to the defendant. It has been further averred that some time, the employee of defendant used to visit the office of plaintiff at Delhi and after selecting the goods, the defendant orally placed orders for supply of goods against invoices and some time, the defendant placed orders telephonically. It has been further averred that as per the demand raised and orders placed by the defendant from time to time, the plaintiff had supplied the goods to the defendant at their above mentioned address and raised Tax Invoices against such supplies.
CS (COMM) No.130/2025 Pg. 2 / 21 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: Sharma 2026.01.22 14:31:45 +0530
6. It has been further averred that the defendant had never made any communication/complaint after receipt of goods in regard to any defect or discrepancy in the goods. The details of opening and closing balance, transactions took place between the parties and payments made by defendant during the year 2017-18 till 2022-23 are given in paras 6 to 11 of the plaint. It has been further averred that all the invoices raised up by the plaintiff were accepted by the defendant without any objection and protest.
7. It has been further averred that as per the statement of account/ledger account maintained by the plaintiff, an amount of Rs.11,32,844.04/- is due upon the defendant as on 04.02.2023. It has been further averred that on various occasion, the plaintiff approached the defendant for the said due payment but the defendant avoided the same on one pretext or the other and lastly, the plaintiff had approached the defendant on 03.07.2024 and demanded the due payment but the defendant had flatly refused to make any payment. Thus, left with no other option, plaintiff had sent a legal notice dated 06.07.2024 to the defendant through speed post on 11.07.2024 calling upon it to make the payment of Rs.11,32,844.04/-, however, despite receiving the notice, the defendant had not paid any amount to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff had approached the District Legal Services Authority, Central District for initiating pre-institution mediation proceedings which resulted in issuance of non-starter report dated 24.12.2024. Thus aggrieved by the act of the defendant, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit praying for a decree in sum of Rs.11,32,844.04/- alongwith pendente lite and CS (COMM) No.130/2025 Pg. 3 / 21 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.22 14:31:51 +0530 future interest @ 24% per annum.
8. The defendant has contested the matter by filing a detailed written statement. By way of preliminary objection, the maintainability of the suit has been challenged inter-alia on the grounds that the certificate by way of affidavit U/o XI Rule 6(3) of CPC as applicable to the commercial disputes by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 63 of BSA filed alongwith the plaint is not as per the prescribed format; that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit in terms of Section 20 of CPC; that the plaintiff has failed to disclose the cause of action to institute the present suit; that the suit amount is neither due nor payable by the defendant as the defendant have liquidated the entire liability towards the plaintiff on 04.02.2023 in full and final settlement; that the goods mentioned in certain bills supplied by the plaintiff were returned by the defendant as the same were found to be defective which were collected and taken back by the plaintiff himself and that the plaintiff also included the amount of bills which got rejected due to defects in them. The details of the goods returned by the defendant is given in para 9(c) of the written statement.
9. On merits, each and every averments made in the plaint has been controverted. It has been reiterated that the defendant has already cleared the outstanding due of the plaintiff and the defective goods were delivered back to the plaintiff which were never used/utilized by the defendant and in fact the defendant has suffered losses due to those defects. It has been further averred that the defendant has not received the alleged legal notice dated 06.07.2024 and therefore, the contents of the CS (COMM) No.130/2025 Pg. 4 / 21 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.22 14:31:58 +0530 said legal notice have been vehemently denied. It has been further submitted that the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action and same is liable to the dismissed. Rest of the averments made in the plaint have also been controverted on merits and it is prayed that suit of plaintiff be dismissed.
10. The plaintiff had filed the replication after framing of issues and same was ordered to be taken off the record vide order dated 26.09.2025.
11. The plaintiff as well as defendant have filed their respective affidavits of admission/denial of the documents.
(B) Issues :-
12. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 25.08.2025:-
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Rs.11,32,844.04/- as prayed? (OPP)
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest, if so, at what rate and for what period? (OPP)
3) Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit, as claimed? (OPD)
4) Whether the defendant has made full and final payment on 04.02.2023, as claimed? (OPD)
5) Whether the goods mentioned in the bills supplied by the plaintiff were returned by the defendant being defective, specially due to faults in the ball bearings as per details given in the WS amounting to Rs.11,31,687/-? (OPD)
6) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present CS (COMM) No.130/2025 Pg. 5 / 21 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.22 14:32:04 +0530 form? (OPD)
7) Relief.
(C) Evidence :- (a) of Plaintiff
13. In order to prove his case, proprietor of plaintiff firm/Lalit Kumar Tatar has examined himself as PW-1. He reiterated the averments made in plaint in his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and relied upon following documents:-
S.No. Details of documents Exhibit No.
1. Computer generated copy of account Ex.PW1/1 ledger of the plaintiff
2. Tax invoices Ex.PW1/2 (colly)
3. Bilties/ transport receipts Ex.PW1/3 (colly)
4. Computer generated copy of e-way bills Ex.PW1/4 (colly)
5. Legal notice dated 06.07.2024 Ex.PW1/5
6. Postal receipt dated 11.07.2024 Ex.PW1/6
7. Computer generated copy of tracking Ex.PW1/7 report
8. Computer generated copy of GST details of Ex.PW1/8 the plaintiff
9. Computer generated copy of GST details of Ex.PW1/9 the defendant
10. Computer generated copy of Master Data Ex.PW1/10 of defendant company
11. Non-Starter Report dated 24.12.2024 Ex.PW1/11
12. Affidavit under Order XI Rule 6 of Ex.PW1/12 Commercial Courts, Commercial Division & Commercial Appellate Division of High Court Act, 2015 and Section 63 of BSA, 2023
14. During his cross-examination, the PW-1 has testified that the trade between him and defendant was from the year 2010-12 and voluntary stated that it was from last about 10 years CS (COMM) No.130/2025 Pg. 6 / 21 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.22 14:32:11 +0530 and further testified that he used to contact Mr. Balkaran, Mr. Vijay and Mr. Gill (one of the Directors) about the trade. He has further testified that he had placed on record the invoices of the year 2020 and not of past years because the payment of previous invoices were already made. He has further testified that he had not placed on record the contract which was executed between him and the defendant and further testified that as per the said contract, the defendant was obliged to make the invoice payments within 60 days. He has further testified that upon the failure of the due payment after 60 days, he did not take any steps for the same and voluntary stated that he demanded the money from the defendant several times and in return the defendant asked him to deliver more goods. He has further testified that the goods were delivered from the transport company in Delhi, Punjab Goods Carrier Pvt. Ltd. and after the delivery of the goods, the defendant used to call him for the same but no conversation regarding the quality of goods had taken place. He has further testified that he had visited the office of the defendant for the payment only and further denied the suggestion that the defendant had duly informed him about the delivery of defective goods or that the account between him and the defendant had already been settled as the payment has already been made and the defective goods have been taken by him.
15. No other witness was examined on behalf of plaintiff. Therefore, PE was closed.
(b) of Defendant :-
16. In order to prove its defence, the defendant has examined Sh. Bharat Bhushan, its AR as DW1. He reiterated the CS (COMM) No.130/2025 Pg. 7 / 21 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.22 14:32:19 +0530 facts averred in the written statement in his affidavit Ex.DW-1/A and relied upon the certified true copy of Board Resolution dated 19.07.2025 passed by the defendant company in his favour as Ex.DW-1/A.
17. During his cross-examination, the DW1 has testified that he had been working with the defendant company since the year 2022 as a Manager. He has admitted that the ball bearings were being supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant. He has denied the suggestion that the plaintiff used to supply the goods as well after his joining in the defendant company. He was unable to tell without checking the accounts as to whether any payment was made on behalf of the defendant company to the plaintiff after his joining in the year 2022. He has further testified that no credit note was raised nor any receiving was taken while returning the goods and voluntary stated that he had to check the store. He has further admitted that no written document had been placed on record regarding the return of the goods to the plaintiff by the defendant company and voluntary stated that only verbal communication took place between the parties. He has further testified that no written communication was made regarding defective goods and voluntary stated that only telephonic conversation was made regarding the defective goods. He has further admitted that no ledger account has been placed on record nor any document of settlement in writing has been placed on record nor any document pertaining to payments towards full and final settlement had been placed on record. He has further denied the suggestion that there was never defective supply of goods by the plaintiff or that no written communication CS (COMM) No.130/2025 Pg. 8 / 21 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.22 14:32:29 +0530 regarding the defective supply was made as there was no such defective supply of goods or that no document pertaining to settlement has been placed on record as no settlement has taken place or that there is outstanding balance of Rs.11,32,844.04 upon the defendant company of the plaintiff. He has further denied the suggestion that the goods supplied were of the standard quality or that goods were never returned by the defendant to the plaintiff.
18. No other witness was examined on behalf of defendant . Therefore, DE was closed.
(D) Final Arguments :-
19. Arguments were addressed by Sh. Anil Kumar Singh, Counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. Lakshay Raj Bhardwaj and Sh. Ritik Mittal, Counsels for defendant. Written submissions have also been filed on behalf of parties.
20. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted on the lines of the pleadings that the defendant had taken a false defence in its written statement and that the DW1 has testified in his cross examination that the ball bearings were being supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant and that no credit note was raised nor any receiving was taken while returning the goods. It has been further submitted that DW1 has admitted in his cross examination that no written document has been placed on record regarding the return of the goods to the plaintiff by the defendant company and that no written communication was made regarding defective goods. It has been further submitted that DW1 has admitted that no ledger account nor any document of settlement CS (COMM) No.130/2025 Pg. 9 / 21 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.01.22 Sharma 14:32:36 +0530 in writing nor any document pertaining to payments towards full and final settlement has been placed on record. It has been further submitted that in view of above admissions made by DW1, the defendant had admitted the relationship between the parties as well as supply of goods by the plaintiff to the defendant and the defendant has taken false plea of defective goods without any cogent proof of the same.
21. It has been further submitted that the defendant has failed to file any documentary evidence to prove its defence and also failed to lead any trustworthy evidence to prove its defence. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff has sent a legal notice dated 06.07.2024 through speed post on 11.07.2024 at the address of the defendant but despite service of said legal notice, the defendant did not bother to reply the same and therefore, adverse inference is bound to be drawn against the defendant. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff has placed and proved on record all the necessary documents which a businessman ordinarily maintains in such like transactions of trading of goods viz. GST registration, GST paid invoices, goods delivered under endorsement, Ledger Accounts, duly maintained ledgers etc.
22. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff has categorically stated about the supply of goods to the defendant and that the defendant has only made part payment and still an amount of Rs.11,32,844.04 is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. It has been further submitted that the office of the plaintiff is situated at 1520/21, Shop No.1, 1st Floor, Sham Market, Farashkhana, Shradhanand Marg, Delhi-110006 and the CS (COMM) No.130/2025 Pg. 10 / 21 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.22 14:32:42 +0530 employee of the defendant used to visit the said office and defendant used to place the orders to the plaintiff and invoices were raised from the said office and the goods were supplied to the defendant through various means of transportation from the said place. It has been further submitted that the part payments made by the defendant to the plaintiff were also received in the account maintained by the plaintiff which is situated in Central District, Delhi and therefore, the cause of action arose at District Central, Delhi within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, it is prayed that the suit may kindly be decreed.
23. Per contra, Counsel for defendant has submitted on the lines of the pleadings that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff has supplied the defective goods to the defendant vide six different invoices amounting to Rs.11,31,687/- which were returned by the defendant to the plaintiff. It has been further submitted that in his cross examination, PW1 has admitted that there was no pending dues before the year 2020 and that he has placed on record the invoices of the year 2020 and that he has not placed on record the invoices of the past years because the payment of previous invoices were already made. It has been further submitted that it is to be inferred from the cross examination of PW1 that primarily he has accepted that no pending dues were there before the year 2020 and on the contrary, he has placed on record the ledger account through which he is seeking recovery of the already admitted payments of Rs.19,77,010/- for all the previous years before 2020. It has been further submitted that for the CS (COMM) No.130/2025 Pg. 11 / 21 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.22 14:32:48 +0530 recovery of amount due before the year 2020, the plaintiff has not placed on record any material evidence against his false and frivolous claim against the defendant. It has been further submitted that the payment for the goods received after the year 2020 has been duly made to the plaintiff by the defendant which is also reflected in the ledger account placed on record by the plaintiff. Thus, it is prayed that the suit filed by plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Reliance is placed on behalf of the defendants upon the following judgments:-
(i) In case titled as Chandradhar Goswami vs. Gauhati Bank Ltd., (1967) 1 SCR 898;
(ii) In case titled as CBI vs. V.C. Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 410.
(E) Analysis of Evidence and Findings:-
24. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and have also perused the record as well as the written submissions and case laws filed on behalf of the parties and my issue-wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE No.3:-
Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit, as claimed? (OPD)
25. Onus of proving this issue was on defendant. This is a legal issue. Though the defendant in para 4 of the preliminary objections of the W.S. has challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit of plaintiff in terms of Section 20 of CPC, however, no specific averment has been pleaded on merits.
26. On the other hand, it is the case of the plaintiff that office of the plaintiff is situated as well as it works for gain at CS (COMM) No.130/2025 Pg. 12 / 21 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.22 14:32:57 +0530 1520/21, Shop No.1, 1st Floor, Sham Market, Farashkhana, Shradhanand Marg, Delhi-11006 and the employee of the defendant used to visit at the said office of the plaintiff for placing the orders and the orders were processed and invoices were raised from the said address and the goods were also supplied to the defendant through various means of transportation from the said address and part payments made by the defendant to the plaintiff were also received in the account maintained by the plaintiff which is situated in Central District, Delhi.
27. In the entire cross-examination of PW1, not a single question has been put regarding the objection raised in the pleadings in relation to jurisdiction of this Court nor even there is any averment in the entire affidavit filed in examination-in-chief of DW1 regarding the jurisdiction. Thus, though the jurisdiction of this Court has been disputed in the pleadings but there is nothing on record to suggest that the part cause of action has not arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court on account of part payments, placing of orders and delivery of the goods. The defendant has, thus, failed to discharge the onus of proving that the Court at Delhi does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit of plaintiff. On the other hand, from the testimony of its witnesses and documents placed on record by it, plaintiff has succeeded in proving that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by it. In view of the abovesaid discussion, it is held that the defendant has failed to prove this issue on preponderance of probability. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
CS (COMM) No.130/2025 Pg. 13 / 21 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: Sharma 2026.01.22 14:33:05 +0530 ISSUE No.1:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Rs.11,32,844.04/- as prayed? (OPP) AND ISSUE No.4:-
Whether the defendant has made full and final payment on 04.02.2023, as claimed? (OPD) AND ISSUE No.5:-
Whether the goods mentioned in the bills supplied by the plaintiff were returned by the defendant being defective, specially due to faults in the ball bearings as per details given in the WS amounting to Rs.11,31,687/-? (OPD) AND ISSUE No.6:-
Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? (OPD)
28. All these issues are inter-connected and therefore, being taken up together.
29. Onus of proving the issue no.1 was on the plaintiff whereas onus of proving the issues no.4, 5 and 6 was on defendant. In its pleadings in W.S. the defendant has averred that there are few invoices on which the plaintiff is relying in the present suit are the ones for which the goods were delivered back to the plaintiff due to the defects in goods supplied by the plaintiff and this fact was not deliberately disclosed by the plaintiff with the specific defence that the accounts between the parties were liquidated on 04.02.2023 in full and final settlement and the details in para 9(b) of the W.S. in preliminary objections CS (COMM) No.130/2025 Pg. 14 / 21 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.22 14:33:13 +0530 of those bills have been given from the period 2017 to period 03.07.2020 for an amount of Rs.11,31,687/-.
30. There is no denial nor there is any defense that the goods vide invoices Ex.PW1/2 (colly) were never supplied by the plaintiff in the entire pleadings. Thus, in absence of specific defense it can be safely held that there is admission on the part of the defendant regarding the supply of the goods vide invoice Ex.PW1/2 (colly). In this regard, the relevant provisions of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are reproduced for the ready reference:-
3A. Denial by the defendant in suits before the Commercial Division of the High Court or the Commercial Court -
(1) Denial shall be in the manner provided in sub-rules (2),(3), (4) and (5) of this Rule.
(2) The defendant in his written statement shall state which of the allegations in the particulars of plaint he denies, which allegations he is unable to admit or deny, but which he requires the plaintiff to prove, and which allegations he admits.
(3) Where the defendant denies an allegation of fact in a plaint, he must state his reasons for doing so and if he intends to put forward a different version of events from that given by the plaintiff, he must state his own version. (4) If the defendant disputes the jurisdiction of the Court he must state the reasons for doing so, and if he is able, give his own statement as to which Court ought to have jurisdiction.
(5) If the defendant disputes the plaintiff's valuation of the suit, he must state his reasons for doing so, and if he is able, give his own statement of the value of the suit.
4. Evasive denial. - Where a defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plant, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. Thus, if it is alleged that he received a certain sum of money, it shall be sufficient to deny that he received that particular amount, but he must deny that he received that sum or any part thereof, or else set out how much he received. And if an allegation is made with diverse circumstances, it shall not be sufficient to deny it along with those circumstances.
CS (COMM) No.130/2025 Pg. 15 / 21 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: Sharma 2026.01.22 14:33:19 +0530
5. Specific denial. - Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability:
Provided that the Court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission.
31. In the present case, there is general denial with the defense of settlement of account but in the entire pleadings there is no denial of the delivery of the goods. Therefore, in absence of any specific denial, the delivery of the goods vide invoices Ex.PW1/2 (Colly) stands admitted by the defendant.
32. In the cross-examination of PW1, it has come on record that the trade between the parties were since the year 2010/12 and the plaintiff has placed the invoices of the year 2020 and not of the previous past years as the payment were already made. This testimony of the PW1 has been argued on behalf of the defendant to be an admission that there was no dues for any amount prior to the year 2020.
33. In order to prove its case, plaintiff has placed on record the invoices Ex.PW1/2 (colly) alongwith the transport receipts Ex.PW1/3 (colly) and e-way bills Ex.PW1/4 (colly). He has also proved on record the statement of account Ex.PW1/1 for the period from 01.04.2014 to 12.05.2024. As per ledger account, the last payment has been made on 04.02.2023 and the closing balance remains to be Rs.11,32,844.04. In the entire cross-
examination of PW1, not a single question has been put in order to dispute the ledger account, tax invoices or transport receipts. There is nothing suggested to this witness/ PW1 that the alleged CS (COMM) No.130/2025 Pg. 16 / 21 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.22 14:33:27 +0530 goods detail of which has been given in the W.S. were returned to the plaintiff on which date or through which mode. Except the suggestion that the defendant has duly informed about the delivery of the defective goods nothing has been brought on record in the testimony of PW1 that the goods were ever returned.
34. When the DW1 was cross-examined about the returns of the goods, he has testified that no credit note was raised nor any receiving was taken while returning the goods. He has also admitted that no written document has been placed on record regarding the return of the goods to the plaintiff by the defendant company. He has further admitted that no written communication was made regarding the defective goods. Here the question arises when according to his voluntarily statements that all these communications were oral through telephone, then as to why the ledger account in order to substantiate the claim has not been placed on record.
35. The DW1 has also admitted that no ledger account has been placed on record nor any document of settlement in writing has been placed on record nor any document pertaining to payment towards the full and final settlement has been placed on record. Thus, in absence of ledger account, it can not be ascertained as to when full and final payments were made or that the goods were returned with credit entry.
36. As per the mandate of Section 41 of the Sale of Goods Act, the purchaser not having inspected the goods in question prior to delivery, has a right to inspect the same on CS (COMM) No.130/2025 Pg. 17 / 21 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.22 14:33:34 +0530 delivery and report defects within a reasonable time of delivery. If not rejected within reasonable time, mandate of Section 42 stipulates that the purchaser would be deemed to have accepted the goods. Section 41 and Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act read as under:-
"41. Buyer's right of examining the goods.-
(1) Where goods are delivered to the buyer which he has not previously examined, he is not deemed to have accepted them unless and until he has had a reasonable opportunity of examining them for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract.
(2) Unless otherwise agreed, when the seller tenders delivery of goods to the buyer, he is bound, on request, to afford the buyer a reasonable opportunity of examining the goods for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract.
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."
37. In the instant case also defendant failed to prove that he had communicated to plaintiff regarding the supply of defective goods. Though defendant had taken this plea in his W.S. but the same is also devoid of any details of the defective material, date when defendant discovered the alleged defect and if, it was before filing of the present case, whether the defendant had communicated to plaintiff in any manner about the alleged defective material. In its written statement also, the defendant failed to clarify as to how and through which mode the goods were returned. The steps taken by defendant to precipitate the issue when plaintiff failed to take note of oral requests made by CS (COMM) No.130/2025 Pg. 18 / 21 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.22 14:33:40 +0530 defendant to take back defective goods is also not specified. Even the date when the defective goods were discovered and factum thereof was communicated by defendant to plaintiff has not been specified. In these facts and circumstances, defence of defective goods taken by defendant is without any basis and appears to be an afterthought.
38. Admittedly, no communication has been placed on record by defendant from which it can be concluded that defendant had ever communicated to the plaintiff regarding defective products, if any, supplied by plaintiff. The testimony of the witness examined by defendant namely DW1 is also not sufficient to bring out that the plaintiff had supplied sub-standard products to the defendant.
39. Moreover, during his cross-examination, the DW1 admitted that no document has been placed on record by the defendant company pertaining to substandard supply of the goods or its return. Though he has stated that it was conveyed telephonically to the plaintiff but admitted that no proof or evidence in support of the same had been placed on record. Nothing had been produced on record by defendant/DW1 from which it can be ascertained as to on how many occasions defendant returned goods, alleged to be of defective and inferior quality, to plaintiff and quantum thereof.
40. Further, the plea of defective goods taken by defendant is even otherwise not maintainable in view of judgment in case of 'Lohmann Rausher Gmbh vs Medisphere Marketing Pvt. Ltd.' 117 (2004) DLT 95 wherein it was held by CS (COMM) No.130/2025 Pg. 19 / 21 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.22 14:33:47 +0530 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi:-
"......21. As per the mandate of Section 41 of the Sale of Goods Act, the defendant not having inspected the goods in question prior to delivery, had a right to inspect the case on delivery and report defects within a reasonable time of delivery. If not rejected within reasonable time, mandate of Section 42 stipulates that the defendant would be deemed to have accepted the goods."
41. In the instant case besides failing to specify and quantify the damaged goods, defendant has also failed to clarify at what point of time after delivery of goods by plaintiff, the alleged damage in the goods was detected. Hence unsubstantiated plea of damaged goods raised by defendant is not maintainable.
42. The nutshell of foregoing discussion is that defendant has failed to prove that the goods supplied to defendant by plaintiff were of sub-standard quality.
43. On the other hand, plaintiff has proved on record the invoices Ex.PW1/2 (colly), transport receipts Ex.PW1/3 (colly) and e-way bills Ex.PW1/4 (colly) vide which the goods were supplied to the defendant. He has also proved the ledger account, Ex.PW/1/1 showing the balance amount of Rs.11,32,844.04.
44. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that plaintiff has proved his case on the preponderance of probability that he is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.11,32,844.04 from the defendant. All the above issues are decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
CS (COMM) No.130/2025 Pg. 20 / 21
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.22
14:33:53
+0530
ISSUE No.2:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest, if so, at what rate and for what period? (OPP)
45. The plaintiff has prayed for grant of pendent lite and future interest @ 24% per annum on the suit amount. However, the interest claimed by plaintiff appears to be on higher side considering the prevailing repo rate for lending money as fixed by the RBI. Therefore, the ends of justice would be met if the plaintiff be awarded simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of last payment i.e. 04.02.2023 till the realization of the decreetal amount.
R E L I E F:-
46. In view of the above, the suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.11,32,844.04 (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Four and Four Paisa only) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of last payment i.e. 04.02.2023 till the realization of the decreetal amount.
47. Plaintiff is also held entitled to the costs of the suit and additionally the amount of Rs.1,000/- spent by the plaintiff in DLSA for invoking pre-institution mediation proceedings.
48. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
49. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Dictated and announced Kumar Kumar Sharma Date:
in the open Court on Sharma 2026.01.22 14:34:00 +0530 22nd January, 2026.
(DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-03 Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
CS (COMM) No.130/2025 Pg. 21 / 21