Delhi District Court
City X Ray And Scan Clinic Pvt Ltd vs San Global Hospitality Pvt Ltd on 6 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-04
DISTRICT WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM.) 176/2024
CNR No. DLWT01-001380-2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/s CITY X-RAY AND SCAN CLINIC PVT. LTD.
5A/34, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi-110018.
Through its Accountant
Sh. Ravikant Poddar
M.No. 9718738771
Email Id: [email protected] ... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. M/s SAN GLOBAL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.
B-5, Central Green, B.K. Chowk,
New Industrial Town, Faridabad,
Haryana-121001.
M.No. 9810200260, 9810732415
Email Id: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
2. SH. ANUJ DHINGRA
Director/Authorized Signatory of
M/s San Global Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.
B-5, Central Green, B.K. Chowk,
New Industrial Town, Faridabad,
Haryana-121001.
M.No. 9810200260, 9810732415
Email Id: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] ... Defendants
CS (COMM.) 176/2024 M/s CITY X-RAY AND SCAN CLINIC PVT. LTD. v. M/s SAN GLOBAL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. Pages No. 1 of 23
Date of institution : 06.04.2021
Date of Arguments : 17.02.2026
Date of Judgment : 06.03.2026
COMMERCIAL SUIT UNDER COMMERCIAL COURTS
ACT, 2015 FOR RECOVERY OF RS.4,69,812/-
Appearance:-
Sh. Manish Malhotra, Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff.
Sh. Raghav Saluja, Ld. Counsels for defendants.
JUDGEMENT
1. This judgement shall dispose of the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,69,812/-, filed by plaintiff against the defendants in respect of outstanding service charges.
Summary of Plaintiff's Case
2. The plaintiff claims to be a duly incorporated company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and a leading medical diagnostic and imaging service provider operating multiple NABH and NABL accredited diagnostic centers across the National Capital Region. The plaintiff claims to be empanelled with various Government Organisations, Public Sector Undertakings, Hospitals and Corporate entities for providing diagnostic imaging and laboratory services. The present suit is claimed to have been instituted through Shri Ravi Kant Poddar, Accountant of the plaintiff company, who is stated to be fully conversant with the facts of the case and has been duly authorised by a Board Resolution dated 08.06.2023 to institute and prosecute the CS (COMM.) 176/2024 M/s CITY X-RAY AND SCAN CLINIC PVT. LTD. v. M/s SAN GLOBAL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. Pages No. 2 of 23 present proceedings, including signing and verifying pleadings and appointing counsel.
3. Defendant No.1 is claimed to be an incorporated company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Faridabad, Haryana, and is engaged in the business of providing medical consultation and surgical treatment services. Defendant No.2 is claimed to be the Director of defendant No.1 and was in charge of and responsible for its day-to-day affairs at all relevant times.
4. According to the plaintiff, the defendants were availing diagnostic and laboratory services from the plaintiff in respect of the defendants' patients. Under the arrangement between the parties, diagnostic samples of the defendants' patients were either delivered to the plaintiff or collected by the plaintiff for testing. The defendants collected the entire diagnostic charges from their patients and were required to remit the plaintiff's agreed share of the service charges to the plaintiff.
5. The plaintiff states that services were provided on a 24-hour basis with full patient care facilities. Most diagnostic samples were delivered by the defendants at the plaintiff's Tilak Nagar Diagnostic Centre, which is stated to be the plaintiff's main diagnostic centre, and test reports were also collected by the defendants from the same centre.
6. It is the plaintiff's case that invoices/bills were raised on a monthly basis for services rendered, and payment was required to be made by the defendants within 15 days of receipt of the CS (COMM.) 176/2024 M/s CITY X-RAY AND SCAN CLINIC PVT. LTD. v. M/s SAN GLOBAL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. Pages No. 3 of 23 invoices. Despite this, the defendants failed to make timely payments and, on false assurances, continued to induce the plaintiff to provide services. The plaintiff maintains regular books of accounts in the ordinary course of business, including a computerized statement of accounts covering the period from 01.04.2021 to 03.05.2023, duly supported by a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
7. As per the plaintiff's books of accounts, an outstanding principal amount of Rs. 3,07,435/- is stated to be due from the defendants. The outstanding amount pertains to unpaid invoices raised between June, 2021 and December, 2021. The plaintiff has also claimed interest on the delayed payments calculated up to 31.12.2023 at the rate of 24% per annum, amounting to Rs.1,62,377/-. Thus, the total amount claimed by the plaintiff is Rs.4,69,812/-, comprising Rs. 3,07,435/- as principal and Rs.1,62,377/- as interest upto 31.12.2023.
8. The plaintiff asserts that all invoices were sent to the email address provided by the defendants and that despite repeated demands, the defendants failed and neglected to clear the outstanding dues. It is further stated that although the defendants collected full diagnostic charges from their patients, they did not remit the plaintiff's share, which according to the plaintiff amounts to dishonest conduct and wrongful gain at the plaintiff's expense.
9. Owing to non-payment, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 10.07.2023 demanding payment of the outstanding amount along CS (COMM.) 176/2024 M/s CITY X-RAY AND SCAN CLINIC PVT. LTD. v. M/s SAN GLOBAL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. Pages No. 4 of 23 with interest. The notice was duly served, but no reply was received and no payment was made by the defendants.
10. The plaintiff further states that, in compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, it initiated pre-institution mediation before the West District Legal Services Authority, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, on 08.08.2023. Due to the non-cooperative attitude of the defendants, the mediation resulted in a non-starter report dated 22.09.2023.
11. Consequently, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking recovery of Rs.4,69,812/- along with pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of 24% per annum from January 2024 till realization, as well as costs of the suit.
Summary of defendants' Defence and Objections
12. Upon service of summons, the defendants filed their written statement. The defendants denied all allegations and averments made in the plaint, except those specifically admitted. Defendant No.1 stated that it was represented in the present proceedings through Shri Anuj Dhingra, one of its Directors, duly authorised by a Board Resolution dated 08.03.2024.
13. The defendants raised several preliminary objections. It was contended that the suit was without cause of action and was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It was further pleaded that the suit suffered from mis-joinder of parties, as no cause of action ever arose against defendant No.2, who was merely one of the Directors of defendant No.1. According to the defendants, all transactions were exclusively with defendant CS (COMM.) 176/2024 M/s CITY X-RAY AND SCAN CLINIC PVT. LTD. v. M/s SAN GLOBAL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. Pages No. 5 of 23 No.1, there were no allegations of fraud against defendant No.2, nor any pleading that the corporate structure was a sham or facade. Consequently, it was contended that defendant No.2 could not be held jointly or severally liable for any alleged dues.
14. The defendants also challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, asserting that no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. Another objection was raised regarding the authority of Shri Ravi Kant Poddar to institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff, alleging that the Board Resolution relied upon was defective, not signed by all Directors, and unsupported by minutes of the alleged meeting dated 08.06.2023. It was further contended that the plaint contained false averments and was not maintainable.
15. On merits, the defendants denied knowledge of the plaintiff's incorporation and credentials. They specifically denied that Shri Ravi Kant Poddar was authorised or competent to file and prosecute the suit. The defendants admitted the incorporation and business of defendant No.1 but denied that defendant No.2 was solely responsible for its day-to-day affairs, reiterating that he had been unnecessarily impleaded without any personal role or liability.
16. While admitting that diagnostic services were availed, the defendants disputed the scope and manner of services alleged by the plaintiff. According to them, the plaintiff's role was limited to collecting patient samples from defendant No.1 and delivering CS (COMM.) 176/2024 M/s CITY X-RAY AND SCAN CLINIC PVT. LTD. v. M/s SAN GLOBAL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. Pages No. 6 of 23 test reports. The defendants denied that testing material was provided by the plaintiff or that services were rendered on a 24- hour basis from the plaintiff's Tilak Nagar Diagnostic Centre. It was asserted that all dealings were conducted by one Shri Dharmender, a representative of the plaintiff, who collected samples, delivered reports, and collected cheques from the premises of defendant No.1. The defendants alleged that the plaintiff provided exceptionally poor services, including delayed, faulty, and erroneous reports, and unjustifiably blocked access to the online reporting portal.
17. The defendants denied the existence of any agreement regarding monthly billing or payment within 15 days. According to them, the parties worked together from January 2021 to December 2021 on a credit basis. At the inception of the arrangement, the plaintiff provided a list of diagnostic tests along with agreed B2B charges, which were mutually accepted. However, the plaintiff raised invoices at rates higher than the agreed charges. The defendants claimed that repeated objections were raised with Shri Dharmender, who assured rectification but later on stated that invoices could not be issued below MRP and advised the defendants to ignore the invoice amounts.
18. Relying on these assurances, the defendants paid a sum of Rs.
2,53,925/- on 11.06.2021 for services rendered between January 2021 and May 2021 at the agreed rates, which payment was accepted without objection. The defendants denied any agreement requiring payment within 15 days and asserted that all CS (COMM.) 176/2024 M/s CITY X-RAY AND SCAN CLINIC PVT. LTD. v. M/s SAN GLOBAL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. Pages No. 7 of 23 payments were made as per mutual understanding, without protest from the plaintiff.
19. The defendants categorically denied that any amount of Rs.
3,07,435/- or any other sum remained outstanding. They provided a detailed account of payments made between June and December 2021 and asserted that all dues stood fully settled by 27.12.2021. According to them, the plaintiff accepted all payments without objection and there was no correspondence between the parties for over 18 months thereafter. The defendants stated that they were surprised to receive a legal notice only in July 2023.
20. It was further contended that the invoices relied upon by the plaintiff were arbitrary, not supported by any agreed pricing document, and reflected a practice of inflating invoice amounts while accepting payments at agreed rates, followed by filing recovery suits to extort money.
21. The defendants denied that any demands were made prior to July 2023 or that they failed or neglected to make payments. They denied all allegations of dishonesty, criminal breach of trust, cheating, or wrongful gain, asserting that no amount whatsoever was due.
22. The issuance of the legal notice was claimed to be part of a coercive and unlawful attempt to extract money. The defendants denied liability for any interest, including interest at 24% per annum, contending that since all dues were cleared in December 2021, no question of interest arose. The defendants also denied CS (COMM.) 176/2024 M/s CITY X-RAY AND SCAN CLINIC PVT. LTD. v. M/s SAN GLOBAL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. Pages No. 8 of 23 that they were non-cooperative during pre-institution mediation or that any non-starter report was attributable to them. Territorial jurisdiction of this Court was again specifically denied. On the basis of the above submissions, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit as being without cause of action, false, vexatious, and untenable, with exemplary costs.
Summary of Plaintiff's Replication to the Written Statement
23. The plaintiff has filed replication denying each and every allegation, contention, and averment made in the written statement, except those specifically admitted. The plaintiff reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint and asserted that the defence raised was false, misleading, and an afterthought to evade liability.
24. In response to the objection regarding absence of cause of action, the plaintiff contended that the objection was misconceived and false. It asserted that a clear cause of action had arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, and that it was the defendants who had raised frivolous and misleading allegations.
25. With respect to mis-joinder of defendant No.2, the plaintiff denied the defendant's contention and asserted that defendant No.2 actively negotiated and entered into the business dealings on behalf of defendant No.1 and was in charge of and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of defendant No.1 at the relevant time. The plaintiff pleaded that wrongful acts, including cheating and criminal breach of trust, were committed by both defendants, making defendant No.2 a proper and necessary party.
CS (COMM.) 176/2024 M/s CITY X-RAY AND SCAN CLINIC PVT. LTD. v. M/s SAN GLOBAL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. Pages No. 9 of 23
26. The objection relating to territorial jurisdiction was denied, and it was asserted that this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The challenge to the authority of Shri Ravi Kant Poddar to institute the suit was also denied, the plaintiff reiterating that the suit had been filed through a duly authorised representative pursuant to a valid Board Resolution dated 08.06.2023 already on record. All remaining preliminary objections were stated to be vague, baseless, and untenable.
27. On merits, the plaintiff reiterated the averments of the plaint and denied the contrary assertions of the defendants. Admissions made by the defendants in their written statement were treated as requiring no further traverse, while all remaining allegations were denied.
28. The plaintiff specifically denied allegations of poor quality services, delay or withholding of reports, issuance of erroneous reports, or blocking of portal access. It also denied that all dealings were carried out by one Shri Dharmender from the defendants' premises. The plaintiff asserted that Shri Dharmender Singh joined the plaintiff company only in June 2022 and thereafter pursued the recovery of outstanding dues from the defendants. It contended that the defendants' version regarding his role was false and misleading.
29. Regarding pricing and billing, the plaintiff asserted that prior to commencement of services, a detailed rate list was provided to the defendants specifying diagnostic tests, MRP charged to patients, and special B2B rates applicable to the defendants. Bills CS (COMM.) 176/2024 M/s CITY X-RAY AND SCAN CLINIC PVT. LTD. v. M/s SAN GLOBAL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. Pages No. 10 of 23 for January 2021 to April 2021 were raised strictly as per the agreed B2B rates. The plaintiff contended that payments were contractually due within 15 days, but the defendants avoided payment and, in May 2021, insisted on a reduction of agreed rates as a pre-condition for clearing outstanding dues. The defendants allegedly supplied a revised rate list with handwritten alterations.
30. According to the plaintiff, since substantial outstanding dues exceeding Rs.3 lakhs was stuck, it agreed to revise the bills for January to April 2021 as per the revised rates furnished by the defendants. Thereafter, all subsequent bills, including those forming the subject matter of the present suit, were raised strictly in accordance with the revised rate list. The plaintiff relied upon email communications dated 11.05.2021 and 11.10.2021 and denied the authenticity of the rate list relied upon by the defendants, terming it forged and fabricated.
31. The plaintiff denied that invoices were raised at rates higher than those agreed, denies that repeated objections were raised by the defendants, and denied any assurance allegedly given by Shri Dharmender to ignore invoice values. The plaintiff further denied that the payment of Rs.2,53,925/- was accepted as full and final settlement or without protest. It asserted that the defendants' narrative regarding settlement was a concoction devised to evade liability.
32. The plaintiff also denied the detailed payment calculations put forth by the defendants for the period June to December 2021. It CS (COMM.) 176/2024 M/s CITY X-RAY AND SCAN CLINIC PVT. LTD. v. M/s SAN GLOBAL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. Pages No. 11 of 23 specifically denied that all dues were cleared, that accounts were settled in December 2021, or that there was no correspondence thereafter. The plaintiff asserted that it continuously pursued recovery of outstanding dues and that the defendants deliberately ignored communications. Reliance was placed on email correspondence supported by certificates under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
33. Allegations that the suit had been filed to extort money or that the plaintiff follows a modus operandi of filing false recovery cases were categorically denied. The plaintiff denied all allegations of mala fides, frivolousness, and abuse of process.
34. The plaintiff further reiterated denial of all assertions relating to absence of demand, absence of liability, non-cooperation in mediation proceedings, non-existence of dues, denial of interest, and lack of cause of action. All averments in paragraphs 11 to 14 of the written statement were denied, and the corresponding pleadings in the plaint were reaffirmed.
Issues
35. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed vide order dated 23.07.2024 by Ld. Predecessor of this Court:-
1. Whether the suit is without any cause of action? OPD
2. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of defendant no.2? OPD
3. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD CS (COMM.) 176/2024 M/s CITY X-RAY AND SCAN CLINIC PVT. LTD. v. M/s SAN GLOBAL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. Pages No. 12 of 23
4. Whether the suit has not been filed by an authorized person? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount along with interest, as prayed for? OPP
6. Relief.
Evidence
36. In support of its case plaintiff examined its AR/Accountant Mr. Ravi Kant Poddar as PW-1, who sought to prove incorporation certificate of plaintiff company Ex.PW1/1, copy of board resolution Ex.PW1/2, copy of computer master data of defendant no.1 company and GST details of defendant no.1 Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4, computerized statement of accounts maintained by plaintiff for the period 01.04.2021 to 03.05.2023 Ex.PW1/5, other e-data/e-evidence of plaint Ex.PW1/6, bills/invoices were raised by plaintiff on email address provided by defendant to plaintiff and copies in relation thereto along with relevant email Ex.PW1/7 (colly), copy of legal notice dated 10.07.2023 along with postal and courier/tracking report Ex.PW1/8 (colly), Non starter report dated 22.09.2023 Ex.PW1/9, copy of email dated 11.05.2021 sent by plaintiff to defendant demanding the payment of above said bills of plaintiff for January, 2021 to April 2021 Ex. PW1/10 and copy of revised rate list Ex.PW1/11, copy of email dated 11.10.2021 along with accompanying rate list Ex. PW1/12, copies of some of relevant emails of the plaintiff along with certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act qua the aforesaid emails and other e-data Ex. PW1/13 & Ex. PW1/14 respectively. PW1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for CS (COMM.) 176/2024 M/s CITY X-RAY AND SCAN CLINIC PVT. LTD. v. M/s SAN GLOBAL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. Pages No. 13 of 23 defendants. Thereafter, PE stood closed vide separate statement.
37. On the other hand, defendants sought to examine defendant no.2/AR of defendant no.1 as DW-1, who tendered his affidavit Ex DW1/A in examination-in-chief and sought to prove original board resolution dated 08.03.2024 Ex.DW1/1, list given by plaintiff to defendant no.1 consisting of pathological/diagnostic tests specified by plaintiff and B2B charges payable by defendant no.1 to plaintiff Ex. DW1/2, invoices issued by plaintiff for period from January 2021 till May 2021 Mark X, ledger maintained by defendant no.1 Mark Y. DW1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. Thereafter, DE stood closed vide separate statement.
Contentions and Findings
38. Having heard rival submission of the parties, file perused.
Pleadings, documents, material, testimonies of the witness, contention of the Ld. Counsel for parties and written submissions filed on behalf of defendant taken into consideration. Issue No.1 has been taken up along with issue No.5. Issue-wise findings follows hereinafter.
ISSUE No.2:- Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of defendant no.2? OPD
39. Onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. There is no dispute that defendant No.1 is a private limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act. It is also not in dispute that defendant No.2 is its director. Ld. Counsel for the defendant drew attention of the court to paragraph No. 3 of the plaint to CS (COMM.) 176/2024 M/s CITY X-RAY AND SCAN CLINIC PVT. LTD. v. M/s SAN GLOBAL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. Pages No. 14 of 23 show the averment qua defendant No.2. In paragraph No.2 plaintiff has pleaded that defendant No.2 "is the person in-charge and responsible for day to day functioning and affairs of defendant No.1 including at the time of transaction forming the subject matter of present suit".
40. When defendants raised objection of impleadment of defendant No.2, plaintiff in replication pleaded that the " dealings forming the subject matter of the present suit were negotiated and entered into by the defendant No.2 being director of defendant No.1 is the person in-charge and responsible for day-to-day functioning and affairs of defendant No.1 including at the time of transactions forming the subject matter of present suit. The plaintiff has been subjected to wrongful acts at the hands of both the defendants losses to the plaintiff. As such, the defendant No.2 is proper and necessary party in the present case".
41. Perusal of the pleading of the plaintiff itself shows that defendant No.2 was acting for and on behalf of defendant No.1. There is no pleading that defendant No. 2 was acting for himself for his benefit/objective or defendant No.1 disowned the authority of the defendant No.2 to act in its behalf. Therefore, in this circumstance, defendant No.2 was not required to be impleaded as party.
42. In view of the facts and circumstances of the judgement passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of "Mukesh Hans and Ors. V. Uma Bhasin & Ors.", RFA 14/2010 and CM No. 495/2010, date of decision:-16.08.2010, MANU/DE/2160/2010 CS (COMM.) 176/2024 M/s CITY X-RAY AND SCAN CLINIC PVT. LTD. v. M/s SAN GLOBAL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. Pages No. 15 of 23 as well as in the case of 'Sanju Batla & Anr. Vs. Manu Maheshwari & Anr.', C.R.P. No. 166/2018, decided on 12.04.2021, defendant no. 2 Sh. Anuj Dhingra is neither necessary nor a proper party merely on the ground that he had acted as Director on behalf of defendant no.1, while transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 company were carried out. Hence, issue no. 2 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
ISSUE No. 3:- Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD
43. Onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. Even though defendants have raised this issue but have not followed up to its logical end. No argument was addressed and no serious cross questioning was done during evidence. Even otherwise there is no dispute that tests were conducted at plaintiff's center which as per plaintiff was within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and which fact was not disputed in evidence. Hence, irrespective of question whether the samples were either collected by plaintiff from Faridabad or sent from Faridabad to plaintiff, this court does have jurisdiction in the fact and circumstance of the present case. Accordingly, issue No.3 is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE No.4: - Whether the suit has not been filed by an authorized person? OPD
44. Onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. Even though defendants have raised objection about this but did not seriously pursue the same. Not a single question was asked to PW1 about his authorisation to institute the present suit. Even a contrary CS (COMM.) 176/2024 M/s CITY X-RAY AND SCAN CLINIC PVT. LTD. v. M/s SAN GLOBAL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. Pages No. 16 of 23 suggestion was not given to PW1. PW1 in his examination in chief deposed that he was authorised vide Board resolution dt. 08.06.2023 Ex PW1/2. Nothing has come on record that other directors or share holders have objection to the filing of the present suit by the plaintiff nor is there any prayer in the suit that amount to be recovered from defendants be credited into account other than the plaintiff. Hence, the person who has filed the suit is acting for the benefit of the company and not against the interest of the company. In view of the above discussion and defendants' half hearted objection, issue No.4 is decided against the defendants and in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE No.1:-Whether the suit is without any cause of action? OPD ISSUE No.5:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount along with interest, as prayed for? OPP
45. Onus to prove issue No.1 is upon defendant whereas onus to prove issue No.5 is upon plaintiff. Both issues are taken up together as they are interlinked. Business relation between the plaintiff and defendant is not in dispute. Duration of business relation between the parties is also not in dispute. Plaintiff is in the business of conducting medical diagnostic and imaging in its diagnostic center/laboratory and defendant No.1 is running a hospital is also not in dispute.
46. Plaintiff had claimed that before start of the business B2B rate for various medical diagnosis/tests was agreed between the parties and plaintiff accordingly raised bills/invoice for each CS (COMM.) 176/2024 M/s CITY X-RAY AND SCAN CLINIC PVT. LTD. v. M/s SAN GLOBAL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. Pages No. 17 of 23 month from Jan, 2021 to Dec, 2021 at the said agreed rates. In the present case plaintiff is seeking recovery of invoice amounts for the month June, 2021 to Dec, 2021. It is the case of the defendant, plaintiff had raised bills/invoice at increased rate and not at the rate agreed upon and it is further its case that it had paid for all the invoices at agreed rate.
47. In this circumstance, in order to be able to claim the principal outstanding amount plaintiff is required to prove that it had computed the amounts of subject bills according to the agreed rates. Perusal of the plaint nowhere shows that there was any dispute qua the rates. Plaintiff is silent about the same in its plaint. Reading of the plaint gives an impression that plaintiff raised the bills as per agreed rates and defendant defaulted in making the payments but when defendant raised the issue of overcharging, plaintiff came up with a version which as per this court should have been pleaded at first instance in the plaint itself as admittedly it revised the bills for the months of Jan, 2021 to April, 2021. In replication plaintiff pleaded under "Rejoinder to Parawise Reply on Merits" as under:-
"6. That......................... It is submitted that prior to entering into business relations between the parties rate list of various diagnostics/ health checks was provided to the defendant wherein the details/names of the said various diagnostics/health checks, amounts charged by the plaintiff in normal course from the respective patients and special amounts (B2B charges) to be charged by the plaintiff from the defendant were specified. Accordingly, the defendant started availing services of the plaintiff from January, 2021 and the plaintiff raised bill as per the abovesaid list to the defendant qua the said services. Bills for the period January, 2021 to April, 2021 qua the services rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant were raised by the plaintiff with the defendant in its CS (COMM.) 176/2024 M/s CITY X-RAY AND SCAN CLINIC PVT. LTD. v. M/s SAN GLOBAL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. Pages No. 18 of 23 regular course of business as per the special/B2B rates specified in the aforesaid list. Although the defendants were to make payment of the said bills within 15 days from the date of said bills but the defendant kept evading the same on one pretext or the other. In May, 2021 when the plaintiff started pressing hard with the defendants qua their bills for the period January, 2021 to April, 2021, the defendants persisted for reduction in aforesaid special/B2B charges as a pre-condition for releasing the abovesaid outstanding bills for January, 2021 to April, 2021 and supplied the plaintiff with a revised rate list (with hand written cuttings therein). Copy of an email dated 11.05.2021 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant demanding the payment of the abovesaid bills of the plaintiff for January, 2021 to April, 2021 is attached herewith as ANNEXURE A-10. Copy of aforesaid revised rate lists is attached as ANNEXURE A-11. As substantive amount i.e. more than Rs. 3 lac was due from the defendants, the plaintiff agreed to the said precondition of the defendant and reduced the bills for January, 2021 to April, 2021 as per the revised list supplied by the defendant. It is important to mention here that not only the bills for January, 2021 to April, 2021 were revised as per the revised rates of the defendants but as all subsequent bills (including the bills forming the subject matter) were raised by the plaintiff as per the said revised rates. It is further apposite to mention here that the said revised list was also shared with the defendants vide email dt. 11.10.2021 along with accompanying rate list thereof is attached as ANNEXURE A-12. Alleged rate list placed on record by the defendant alongwith their written statement is forged and fabricate. ......"
48. Aforesaid stand of the plaintiff shows that rates were revised. In this circumstance plaintiff has got to justify that invoices particularly from June, 2021 to Dec, 2021 were raised as per the revised rates either as allegedly proposed by defendant or as agreed to by the parties. Perusal of Annexure A-12 Ex PW1/12 shows that an email was sent to defendants on 11.10.2021 enclosing a revised rate list and an MoU while asking the defendant to sign and send it back. Plaintiff though filed the print out of revised rate list which plaintiff attached with this email but did not file the print out of MoU and therefore this court was deprived of knowing what precise terms were intended to be CS (COMM.) 176/2024 M/s CITY X-RAY AND SCAN CLINIC PVT. LTD. v. M/s SAN GLOBAL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. Pages No. 19 of 23 agreed upon by the parties or at least by the plaintiff. Non- production of such important material without any explanation invites adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act.
49. Further bills for the month of June, July, August and September, 2021 does not bear any date of issuance and therefore, court is rendered incapacitated to confirm if bills for the month of June to Sept, 2021 were raised according to rate list allegedly shared on 11.10.2021 with defendants. It has been pleaded that the rate list shared on 11.10.2021 was as per rate list (with hand written cuttings therein) agreed to by the defendant. In this circumstance, the contention of the defendants that bills for earlier months could not have been based on a rate list proposed subsequently, cannot be brushed aside lightly, particularly when it is kept in mind that plaintiff pleaded to have raised bill every month and when plaintiff is silent about the time when the rate list (with hand written cuttings therein) was supplied by defendants to the plaintiff.
50. Plaintiff in its replication claimed that subject bills (June, 2021 to Dec,2021) were raised as per the rates list (with hand written cuttings therein) Ex PW1/11 allegedly supplied to the plaintiff. This court cursorily compared the rate list Ex PW1/11 with the revised rate list sent with mail Ex PW1/12 and found that many of the rates were according to the rate allegedly agreed to by the defendant but there were many tests whose rates were not as per CS (COMM.) 176/2024 M/s CITY X-RAY AND SCAN CLINIC PVT. LTD. v. M/s SAN GLOBAL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. Pages No. 20 of 23 the rates as allegedly agreed to by the defendants. For example for the test CPK-MB plaintiff prescribed Rs. 150/- whereas defendant had allegedly agreed at Rs. 100/-; for the test HBA1c plaintiff prescribed Rs. 150/- whereas defendant had allegedly agreed at Rs. 100/-; for the test RA FACTOR plaintiff prescribed Rs. 150/- whereas defendant had allegedly agreed at Rs. 100/-; for the test FERRATIN plaintiff prescribed Rs. 200/- whereas defendant had allegedly agreed at Rs. 150/-; for the test FREE PSA plaintiff prescribed Rs. 300/- whereas defendant had allegedly agreed at Rs. 200/-; for the test CA 19.9 (Pancreas Cancer Marker) plaintiff prescribed Rs. 500/- whereas defendant had allegedly agreed at Rs. 300/- and for the test ANA plaintiff prescribed Rs. 300/- whereas defendant had allegedly agreed at Rs. 250/-. This at least does show that plaintiff did not revise the rate list as per the rate allegedly agreed to or proposed by the defendant. Ld. Counsel for defendant has also pointed out such rate discrepancy from the invoices about some tests.
51. Plaintiff admitted to have revised the bills for Jan, 2021 to April, 2021 and during the cross examination of the DW1 it had suggested that bill for Jan, 2021 for Rs. 41,775/ - was reduced to Rs. 34,280/-, for Feb, 2021 for Rs. 58,845/- was reduced to Rs. 49,480/-, for March, 2021 for Rs. 53,870/- was reduced to Rs. 43,270/- and for April, 2021 for Rs. 2,07,860/-. was reduced to Rs. 1,70,070/-. There is no suggestion that bill for the month of May was also reduced, however perusal of statement of A/c shows that it had raised bill for the month of May for Rs.
CS (COMM.) 176/2024 M/s CITY X-RAY AND SCAN CLINIC PVT. LTD. v. M/s SAN GLOBAL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. Pages No. 21 of 23 1,58,690/- and had reduced it only by Rs. 1,865/- which does not appear to be correct given the pattern of substantial reduction for the earlier months i.e. for Jan, 2021 to April, 2021.
52. In the aforesaid circumstances it appears very doubtful that plaintiff raised the bills as per agreed rates or at least as per rates mentioned in the list Ex PW1/11 allegedly agreed to by the defendants themselves. Rendering of service by the plaintiff is not in dispute but plaintiff failed to prove that it raised bills for the subject months as per the agreed rates or at least at the rates mentioned in the list Ex PW1/11 allegedly proposed by the defendants.
53. Further defendants specifically pleaded about the role of one Dharmender who had allegedly assured the defendants to ignore the invoices raised at MRP and continue to pay at the agreed rates. Plaintiff denied his role and specifically pleaded that he was appointed only in June, 2022 and pursued the defendant for the claim of the outstanding. It was also claimed that he was still in employment with plaintiff yet plaintiff did not choose to examine him nor did it produce any record to show that he was employed with plaintiff only in June, 2022. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that plaintiff pursued its demand between end of Jan, 2022 and before issuance of legal notice Ex. PW1/8. Failure to examine said Dharmender and silence between the aforesaid period has lent further dent to the credibility of the claim of the plaintiff.
CS (COMM.) 176/2024 M/s CITY X-RAY AND SCAN CLINIC PVT. LTD. v. M/s SAN GLOBAL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. Pages No. 22 of 23
54. Once the plaintiff has failed to establish that the amounts claimed in the invoices were computed in accordance with the agreed rates, it cannot be said that a legally recoverable debt/outstanding, in the sum claimed, has been proved. Consequently, the plaintiff has failed to prove its entitlement to recovery of the suit amount along with interest. Had plaintiff been successful in proving that it raised the bills computing according to rates allegedly handwritten by the defendant in Ex PW1/11, this court would have examined if the agreed rates were in accordance with Ex DW1/2 as pleaded by defendant.
55. Hence, in view of the above discussion and reasoning both issue No.1 and 5 are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.
Relief
56. In view of the findings recorded on all issues particularly on issue No. 1 & 5, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost of litigation.
57. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
58. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
HARISH Digitally signed by
HARISH KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2026.03.06
15:48:53 +0530
(HARISH KUMAR)
Announced in the Open Court District Judge (Commercial)-04
(Judgement Contains 23 pages) District West, Delhi/06.03.2026
CS (COMM.) 176/2024 M/s CITY X-RAY AND SCAN CLINIC PVT. LTD. v. M/s SAN GLOBAL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. Pages No. 23 of 23