Delhi District Court
Mbj Creations Pvt Ltd Through Its Ar ... vs Razon Luxury Through Its Proprietor ... on 18 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF Ms. NIRJA BHATIA
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMM-07), DIGITAL
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
CS(COMM) 344/2025
MBJ Creations Pvt. Ltd.
F-53, Okhla Phase-2, New Delhi-110020
M: 8826363007
Plaintiff
VERSUS
RAZON LUXURY
Through its Proprietor Ms. Kalyani Chawla
D-8, Defence Colony NEW DELHI, DELHI-110024
[email protected].
[email protected]
M: 09810024685
....Defendant
Date of Institution: 25.04.2024
Arguments concluded on : 18.03.2026
Date of Judgment: 18.03.2026
(Judgment)
1.This Judgment shall decide the suit for recovery of Rs. 5,84,070/- alongwith interest claimed @ 18 % P.A.
2. Plaintiff M/s MBJ Creations Pvt. Ltd. a private limited company (having its place of work at F-53, Okhla Phase-2, New Delhi-110020) has instituted this suit against Ms. Kalyani Chawla (Defendant no. 2) proprietor of M/s Razon Luxury NIRJA BHATIA Silverware (Defendant no. 1) having the place of work at D-8, Digitally signed by NIRJA BHATIA Date:
2026.03.18 18:47:20 +0545 Defence Colony NEW DELHI, DELHI-110024 (it is observed Page no. 1/10 that a proprietor since does not have separate entity from proprietorship, the defendant no1 and 2 are treated as one and the same entity).
3. Plaintiff a manufacturer of Silver and Brass decorative items claims that the supplies of the above items were made to defendant since 2019. Both parties were engaged into this business. The defendant regularly approached the plaintiff for orders for the purposes of manufacturing certain items. Upon receipt of such orders plaintiff prepared the articles which were manufactured timely and delivered ensuring the highest quality.
4. Plaintiff claims that from the statement of account maintained through ledger w.e.f. 01.04.2021 to 22.02.2022, plaintiff observed that defendant had been in default of payment of Rs. 5,84,070/-. The payments were delayed and amounts were unrealised despite demands.
5. Plaintiff submits that defendant in furtherance of her deceitful intentions manipulated plaintiff's the employees who resultantly quit their jobs and started working with the defendant, as she had started her own factory for manufacturing decorative items of brass and silver. Plaintiff alleges that this intention of defendant to commence her own business/manufacturing unit for carrying out production of Silver/Brass work was concealed from him.
6. Plaintiff claims that Defendant's malafide became apparent from the fact that she successfully took away 26 employees from plaintiff's workforce. The employees left their job with plaintiff without serving any notice period despite such provision being made by the rules of plaintiff company and joined the defendant. NIRJA BHATIA
7. Plaintiff asserts having suffered financial loss as well as Digitally signed by NIRJA BHATIA Date:
2026.03.18 18:47:25 immense mental stress due to the conduct of the defendant. The +0545 Page no. 2/10 business of plaintiff suffered as the plaintiff could not make profits, since, his trained work force suddenly left the job and joined the defendant. Plaintiff claims that the circumstances caused such financial stress that plaintiff could not pay the salaries to the remaining employees and due to the mounted losses was forced to borrow amounts on loans.
8. Plaintiff avers that during a visit made by the Authorized Representative of plaintiff to defendant's showroom regarding the status of payment, no concrete answer was provided. On the other hand, defendant made a false and frivolous complaint with police station, Defence Colony and used abusive language giving threats to plaintiff's AR who visited defendant's place for inquiring about the payment.
9. Plaintiff suffered loss of reputation in society due to false statement of defendant and claims that his creditability is damaged beyond repair. Due to defendant's bogus and utterly vexatious allegations plaintiff claims mental agony and torture, at her hands and states suffering continuous fear and harassment.
10. Plaintiff claims that defendant despite being under legal obligation to make payment of recoverable dues has avoided to pay the amounts. The reply to legal notice has not been received. Plaintiff claims that an amount of Rs. 5,84,070/- till date is recoverable and is showing subsisting cause of action.
11. In the background above, plaintiff claimed a decree of outstanding dues of Rs. 5,84,070/- and prayed for grant of Rs. 5,00,000/- for compensation of mental agony, torture and defamation. Plaintiff demanded compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-
NIRJA against alleged loss suffered due to actions of plaintiff in BHATIA Digitally signed by NIRJA BHATIA Date: manipulating her workers to leave plaintiff company which 2026.03.18 18:47:29 +0545 Page no. 3/10 resulted in employee leaving the factory are the claims made under the suit.
Written Statement
12. Defendant did not file the Written Statement, despite being served on 04.07.2025. As shown on record defendant, represented through counsel Sh. Anurag Andley and Sh. Tanmay Gupta on 04.07.2025. A copy of plaint and documents was provided against acknowledgment. The counsels for defendant marked appearance on 23.07.2025 as well since the presence is recorded in proceedings and sought further time to file the Written Statement. However, despite opportunity no Written Statement was received uptill 25.08.2025, which ultimately led to closing the same in view of law laid in M/s SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2019) 12 SCC 210.
Note of Proceedings
13. The suit is received on 25.04.2024. Upon the receipt of report from the Reader regarding the compliance to Commercial Courts Act, process was directed to the defendant. Defendant appeared through counsel on 04.07.2025 and 23.07.2025, however, avoided to file the Written Statement which opportunity was closed. Matter was listed for Plaintiff's Evidence. On 18.09.2025, the examination affidavit of Sh. Subhash Sharma is received. However witness did not appear and adjournment was requested. The witness is examined on 28.10.2025 and plaintiff made final arguments during which it was noticed that suit is based only on strength of ledger. Plaintiff's counsel then requested for grant of more time for NIRJA moving application for filing the documents which opportunity BHATIA Digitally signed by NIRJA BHATIA was allowed in the interest of justice. However, plaintiff Date:
2026.03.18 18:47:33 +0545 Page no. 4/10 application U/o VI Rule 17 CPC moved later was found not confirming to requisite provision and was dismissed. Plaintiff's other application U/o VI Rule 17 CPC and U/s 151 also met with rejection vide detailed separate order of 16.03.2026.
14. The matter today is listed for final arguments, however, appearance from plaintiff is not received despite calls and waiting, forcing the court to proceed with the judgment as the trial proceedings are complete.
15. Before adverting further, a brief note be made on the statements received through evidence. Plaintiff's Evidence
16. Evidence is received by way of affidavit. Statement of PW1-
Sh. Subhash Sharma, is recorded who tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit and exhibited the following documents:-
1. Copy of ledger account dated from 01.04.2021 to 22.02.2022 is Ex.PW1/1.
2. Copy of the list of the employees who left the company without serving the notice period is Ex.PW1/2.
3. Copy of the list of employees whose salaries are yet unpaid is Ex.PW1/3.
4. Copy of legal notice dated 20.05.2022 is Ex.PW1/4.
5. Postal receipt of Legal Notice is Ex. PW1/5.
6. Reminder Letter dated 08.06.2022 is Ex.PW1/6.
7. Authority letter dated 02.09.2022 is Ex.PW1/7. Reasons for decision
17. Based on the pleadings and evidence presented above, strength of plaintiff's claim is now being assessed. Plaintiff's claim is arising out of debt shown under the ledger account Ex.PW1/1. Plaintiff submits that the parties were continuously NIRJA BHATIA Digitally signed maintaining businesses transactions since 2019 resulting in by NIRJA BHATIA Date: 2026.03.18 18:47:37 +0545 Page no. 5/10 unpaid dues from 01.04.2021 to 22.02.2022 as is observed from the accounts maintained. Plaintiff besides claiming the above amount also prayed for compensation of loses @ 5,00,000/- qua mental agony and for compensation against losses caused due to sudden leaving of his employees for which another amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- is claimed.
18. I now proposed to deal with each relief separately. The plaintiff's first relief, for amount of Rs. 5,84,070/- is based upon the transactions pertaining to sale purchase and delivery. Plaintiff claims that plaintiff being a manufacturer of silver and brass artifacts, was receiving consistent demands from defendant. The defendant served plaintiff with purchase order, against which purchase orders plaintiff made the demanded articles ensuring the best quality and provided the timely deliveries. However to utter dismay of this court the plaint is observed bereft of the said facts as were claimed during final arguments. The pleadings find no mention of any particulars of purchase orders, invoices and delivery notes. The entire plaint is silent qua stated business transaction. There is no detail pertaining to any purchase orders having been issued by defendant and or any invoices being issued against such purchase orders. Plaintiff only proposed to establishes the claim against alleged outstanding from the ledger Ex.PW1/1. At the stage of arguments as well plaintiff's counsel was inquired about the premise on which the entries in the ledger has been incorporated. The counsels claimed that the plaintiff is holding the purchase orders as well as invoices and delivery challan. Admittedly, despite holding possession of such material plaintiff was detaining the same showing no genuine intention NIRJA BHATIA behind the trial. The subsequent efforts by plaintiff to forward the Digitally signed by NIRJA BHATIA Date: 2026.03.18 18:47:41 +0545 documents with application U/o VI Rule 17 CPC was again Page no. 6/10 observed deficient to meet with the rigors of procedure and was dismissed. Plaintiff hence miserably failed to avail the opportunities and one after the other applications containing half hearted pleas showing no cause, least a reasonable ground to deprive the plaintiff from drafting a proper claim in corporating the requisite detail, were rejected.
19. The erstwhile section 34 of Indian Evidence Act provided the entries maintained in ledger during course of regular business as evidence. However, it is settled law that the mere ledger entries itself would not be sufficient to prove the claim and the ledger must be supported with the due material against invoices and proofs of delivery etc, to show the completion of transaction of sale purchase for entitlement. The sale of good act provides the relevant provisions for sale, purchase, acceptance and deliveries.
20. The dereliction with which the claim is presented is apparent as it reflects the fact that neither the verification at its end bears plaintiff signatures or stamp. The plaint hence itself does not confirm to the provisions of commercial courts act.
Validity of such institution itself is to be doubted hence. Moreover the plaintiff's lack of diligence in pursuing the suit become further evident from the fact even the ledger Ex.PW1/1 which is filed as the only proof against the outstanding is also an unsigned document. From the nature of the document it is doubted that it is a ledger as the heading over it states "reconciliation as on dated 02.02.2022". Sh. Shubash Sharma, AR/Accountant who exhibited the document made no details in his statement qua the document. He made no discloser as who Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.03.18 prepared the ledger and whether the account of defendant which 18:47:46 +0545 Page no. 7/10 was kept in continuity for almost three years was ever subjected to audit.
21. It is noted that the Law in respect of tendering a document in evidence is well narrated. In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P.Temple, (2003) 8 SCC 752, by the hon'ble Supreme Court, has clearly laid that mere exhibition of document would not tentamount to its proof as the parties proving the document shall be burdened to establish veracity of its content. The ledger which seems to be an extract of accounts is a photocopy. It does not bear the signature of the author of the document. Plaintiff nowhere states that the reconciliation as submitted through Ex.PW1/1 is in furtherance of the establish accounting standards or practices. Random entries are mentioned in the document which only reflects difference and is accompanied with unverified printouts devoid of any signatures, making it impossible to assume that document is generated based on entries kept during regular course of business and are not interfered with. Alongwith these 15 pages of comprising unverified entries. Plaintiff has filed a hand written document captioning rough estimate for Razon outstanding account below which exists a pencil note with and encircled cross with remark "need to remove this page". The documents shows calculation of claim probably made at the stage of drafting/filing the plaint. It reads an outstanding of Rs. 5,84,070/-
from which plaintiff made discount of 20% since the products are shown against sampling orders. Plaintiff deducts Rs. 1,99,220/- as is shown from total outstanding. Besides Rs. 1,10,762/- are further discounted to defendant, plaintiff makes another entry NIRJA towards certain invoice MBOL2122510160 for Rs. 62,720/- BHATIA Digitally signed by NIRJA BHATIA against date of 12.02.2022 as the goods were never delivered. At Date:
2026.03.18 18:47:51 +0545 Page no. 8/10 the end, computation of Rs. 2,11,368/- as balance in plaintiff's favour is depicted which indicates that the entire ledger entries are to doubted towards their correctness since are not showing any genuine amounts recoverable which is stated as outstanding in plaint.
22. In order to seek the claim, plaintiff must have proved each/above elements specifically. Plaintiff has avoided to detail any material showing purchase orders having been placed. The sale by way of invoices having been effected and or acceptance of delivery by way any challan/ delivery note having been executed by the defendants.
23. Plaintiff then filed the list of the employees and exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 however, the document Ex.PW1/2 and PW1/3, showing pending salaries to employees fails to prove any favourable contention, rather it shows an admission of default in payment of admitted salaries to its own employees, attributed to plaintiff.
24. It is noted that merely because the employees of plaintiff have left and joined the defendant, would not itself tentamount to have caused financial loss and mental trauma to plaintiff. The statements of such nature which are proposed to be stressed through legal notice dated 20.05.2022 (Ex.PW1/4) are not substantiated by any cogent evidence as no proof of attendance sheet, payment of salaries or vouchers or losses incorporated in account books are filed, which shows that plea is based on an emotional outburst and not on genuine facts. The same is also the fate of legal notice Ex.Pw1/6 dated 08.06.2022. Merely that, the defendant chose not to reply the notice, plaintiff would not NIRJA BHATIA automatically become entitled to the claim on mere strength of Digitally signed by NIRJA BHATIA Date: 2026.03.18 sending the notices.
18:47:55 +0545 Page no. 9/10
25. At this stage, it is observed that since, the suit is neither signed properly, nor verified the rigors of provisions of order VI Rule 15 A must apply. Further, plaintiff was under the burden to establish that being a private limited company it can claim a compensation on account of mental trauma. Moreover the claim of plaintiff for grant of relief against pain & suffering due to trauma caused by defendant is to be viewed in light of observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sikka Papers Ltd Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 29.05.2009, AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2834 where in the hon'ble court noted below:
19. By way of footnote, we may observe that claim of Rs.10,00,000/- made by the complainant for mental harassment is wholly misconceived and untenable. The complainant is a company and, therefore, claim for mental harassment is not legally permissible. It is only the natural person who can claim damages for mental harassment and not the corporate entity.
26. In view of the above discussion as the plaintiff has not discharged the burden even in preponderance to claim the relief. The suit of plaintiff is dismissed with no orders to cost. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities.
Digitally signed by NIRJANIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.03.18 18:47:59 +0545 Announced in open Court (Nirja Bhatia) today on 18th March, 2026 District Judge (Comm. Court) (Digital-07) South-East, Saket Court, New Delhi (A) Page no. 10/10