Delhi District Court
Shakir vs Akm Motors Private Limited on 10 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS SAVITA RAO, DISTRICT JUDGE
COMMERCIAL COURT-01, SOUTH ,
SAKET COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022
DLST010090152022
In the matter of :
Shakir
Proprietor of M/s Zaara Enterprises
Registered Office At :
L-1, 12/642, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi - 110062
..... Plaintiff
Versus
AKM Motors Private Limited
Having its Registered Office at :
TC-12, Vibhuti Khand,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow- 226010
........ Defendant
Date of Institution : 14.10.2022
Date of Arguments: 20.03.2026 & 08.04.2026
Date of Judgment : 10.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. This is suit for recovery of Rs. 39,00,000/- filed by plaintiff against the defendant on the facts that plaintiff is proprietor of M/s Zaara Enterprises and is running the business for management of Interiors for Turnkey Execution, Furniture Manufacturing, Retailing and Projects Management Consultancy Services etc. Defendant is in business of sale and services of CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 1/32 motor vehicles. Defendant issued the work order in July 2018 for complete interior and exterior work for their Maruti Arena Showroom and True Value Showroom at Lucknow, U.P. During the pendency of the work, plaintiff issued Invoices, upon which defendant made partial payments from time to time in the current account of plaintiff maintained with HDFC Bank, Branch Saket, New Delhi. Last and final invoice was raised upon the defendant on 17.06.2019.
2. Plaintiff, as stated, had completed the entire scope of work of defendant in the month of September 2018 on credit basis and thereafter had been continuously persuading the defendant to clear the payment but defendant kept on delaying the payment. Numerous emails were sent by plaintiff to defendant requesting it to make the payment of outstanding amount, however, instead of doing the needful, defendant made the self contradictory statement by alleging that they had not received the final tax invoices, though the same were repeatedly provided to defendant by plaintiff.
3. Plaintiff had been maintaining the running ledger account in due course of its business with defendant and in terms of ledger account of defendant maintained by plaintiff, sum of Rs. 39,00,000/- was outstanding against defendant. Legal Demand Notice dated 21.11.2020 issued by plaintiff to defendant also yielded no result.
4. Plaintiff initiated "Pre-Institution Mediation" proceedings and filed an application for Mediation before the competent authority under Rule 2 (c) of The Commercial Courts (Pre- Institution) Mediation and Settlement Rules, 2018 wherein Non-
CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 2/32Starter Report dated 08.09.2022 was issued by the concerned authority and the plaintiff was constrained to file the instant suit.
5. In written statement filed on behalf of defendant, it was stated that defendant had given the work order to plaintiff for interior work, at their proposed project site on Turnkey project basis. Defendant had already paid a sum of Rs. 2,65,30,000/- to plaintiff as " Contract Sum" which as per the work order included the component of wages, to be paid to the workers, employed by plaintiff and no other amount was payable by defendant.
6. Defendant also pleaded with regard to institution and pendency of other proceedings between the parties. It was submitted that some of the workers who worked at the defendant's site, had filed the complaint against the plaintiff and vide order dated 30.12.2021, the Additional Labour Commissioner cum Authority under Industrial Peace had directed defendant to pay the due amount to the said workers. Defendant filed writ petition before Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad- Lucknow Bench, wherein plaintiff was also impleaded as party. Vide order dated 07.07.2022, the said order of Additional Labour Commissioner cum Authority under Industrial Peace had been stayed by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad-Lucknow Bench.
7. Defendant thereafter filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the submission of pendency of similar proceedings filed by workers with regard to recovery of the amount before Labour Court and the award passed by Labour Court having been challenged before Hon'ble High Court which was subjudice. Another plea was also taken on behalf of defendant pertaining to territorial jurisdiction of this court. With CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 3/32 disposal of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, since both the issues seemed triable, preliminary issues were framed, pertaining to the territorial jurisdiction of this court and whether the suit filed by plaintiff was barred by Principle of Res- Judicata/Res-subjudice. After parties led their evidence, both the issues were decided in favour of plaintiff vide order dated 30.01.2026.
8. Plaintiff thereafter filed application under Order 13-A of CPC which is now under disposal on the submission that "defendant has failed to clear the balance liability in sum of Rs. 39,00,000/- raised vide tax invoice dated 17.06.2019 Ex. DW1/P2. Defendant vide its email dated 18.09.2019 Ex. DW1/P4 though alleged that it had not received the bill and also attached its ledger account statement for the period 01.04.2018 to 13.08.2019, however, defendant's GSTR-2A and GSTR-2B Ex. DW1/C (colly) reflect that defendant had already taken Input Tax Credit of said Tax invoice on 17.06.2019. Thus, defendant is liable to make the payment of said tax invoice amount to plaintiff, which is unjustifiably being withheld by defendant" . It was submitted that defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim as all the documents have already been exhibited and appreciated. Thus, there is no other compelling reason as to why the claim should not be disposed off without recording of further oral evidence.
9. Reply to application under Order 13(A)CPC was filed alongwith application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Vide application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, defendant sought to insert following additional paragraphs in the written statement:
CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 4/32" (13) The Plaintiff failed to adhere to the contractual timeline of 45 days and abandoned the project without completing the work, thereby causing substantial operational and financial loss to the Defendant.
(14) Due to Plaintiff's failure to complete the work within the stipulated time, the Defendant suffered losses amounting to Rs.1,54,76,250/-, which includes cost incurred in completing the incomplete work through alternate agencies, salary and wages paid to staff for two months during non-operational delay, and consequential loss of profit.
(15) The quality of work executed by the Plaintiff was sub-standard and did not conform to the specifications and quality standards prescribed by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., which were mandatory for showroom approval and audit compliance.
(16) Due to negligent and defective execution by the Plaintiff, the entire ceiling of the Defendant's showroom collapsed, resulting in damage to demo vehicles and further financial loss.
(17) The Plaintiff delayed procurement of materials, failed to complete delivery, and was negligent in supervision, leading to instances of theft, wastage and carelessness at the project site.
(18) The Plaintiff failed to execute the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Work Order and did not adhere to the agreed timeline and contractual standards.
(19) During audit inspection, multiple defects and flaws were pointed out to the Plaintiff and repeated requests were made for rectification; however, the Plaintiff failed to remedy the defects, compelling the Defendant to undertake rectification at its own cost.
(20) The Defendant has demanded an amount of Rs. 1,54,76,250/-
from the Plaintiff towards losses caused due to inability to complete the work within the stipulated time frame and for rectification of defective and incomplete work".
10. It was submitted that Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of pleadings at any stage of proceedings if necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. Ld. counsel for defendant submitted that as the proposed amendment does not change the nature of defence, is consistent with earlier stand disputing completion and quality and merely elaborates consequences of plaintiff's breach, therefore is essential for complete adjudication.
11. In the written statement, the substantial ground/defence taken on behalf of defendant while disputing the claim of the plaintiff was that the defendant had already paid sum of Rs. 2,65,30,000/- as " Contract Sum" as per the work order which CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 5/32 included the component of wages to be paid to the workers employed by the Zaara Enterprises. It was denied that plaintiff had completed the work of defendant in the month of September 2018 on credit basis. It was submitted that plaintiff had never completed the work as alleged and defendant did not owe any amount to the plaintiff. The other ground was pertaining to the pendency of the parallel proceedings before Additinal Labour Commissioner, followed by order of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad- Lucknow Bench in writ jurisdiction.
12. There was no mention in written statement alleging sub- standard quality of work except for fleeting mention of non completion of work by the plaintiff without any supporting documents or any communication to the plaintiff for the above noted. Alongwith amendment application also, defendant does not seek to file any document, whereby it had communicated to the plaintiff at any point of time, during the course of transaction between the parties or even thereafter, with respect to plaintiff having left the work incomplete or the deficiency in work or poor quality of work and the consequent losses to the defendant. Only mention of the abovenoted, is in reply to the legal notice dated 03.12.2020 Ex. DW1/P7.
13. Ld. Counsel for defendant also referred to email dated 17.10.2018 whereby plaintiff was informed with regard to disappointment of defendant for the work at shorwoom which had allegedly not been completed as per the commitment. It was also mentioned that for more than 15 days, plaintiff's team was still struggling to finish the work and despite several deadlines, the work had not been completed. Details of the incomplete work was mentioned in the email calling upon the plaintiff to ensure CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 6/32 that strict action is taken for completion of work by 18.10.2018. Plaintiff though has stated about the completion of work by September 2018 and leaving the project site after completion of snag list in December 2018. Apparently, the email referred by ld. Counsel for defendant is prior to the date of completion of snag list and prior to the date of raising of invoice and settlement of accounts, therefore, does not provide any benefit to the belated plea of defendant being sought by way of amendment in pleadings.
14. No justification is furnished in the application, for non incorporation of above noted at the time of filing of the written statement which even now is not supported with any document or, communication between the parties, corroborating the defence now being introduced. After the preliminary issues were framed, parties led their respective evidence, arguments addressed and after decision of preliminary issues, when plaintiff filed application under Order 13-A CPC, alongwith reply to said application, defendant decided to file application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which apparently is to fill up lacunas.
15. The proposed amendment is not one for incorporation of an omission which was vital, or for incorporation of certain facts by way of explanation or clarification of the pleadings which were already available and foundation of which had already been laid in the written statement. It is not a case that in spite of exercise of due diligence, such facts were not within the knowledge of the defendant and could not have been brought on record at the appropriate stage.. The burden is upon the defendant to show that in spite of due diligence such amendment could not have been prayed for earlier. Nothing of the abovenoted is CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 7/32 explained by defendant. In the catena of judgments, it has been noted that amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right under all circumstances. Though normally, amendments are allowed, in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the court needs to take into consideration whether the application has been made bona fide or mala fide and also whether the amendment would cause prejudice to the other side.
16. In CS(OS) 1678/2012 & I.A. 10771/2012, ANIL THAPAR Vs. MAN SINGH THAPAR & ORS & CS(OS) 3208/2012 & I.A. 12077/2017 KULDIP THAPAR Vs. ANIL THAPAR & ANR while placing reliance upon Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad & Ors, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 256, it was observed that :
"37. The Plaintiffs and Defendant are entitled to amend the plaint, written statement or file an additional written statement. It is, however, subject to an exception that by the proposed amendment, an opposite party should not be subject to injustice and that any admission made in favour of the other party is not but wrong. All amendments of the pleadings should be allowed liberally which are necessary for determination of the real controversies in the suit provided that the proposed amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action on the basis of which the original lis was raised or defence taken.
38. Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment to the pleadings."
..............
71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed ".
17. In CM(M) 2436/2025, CM APPL. 79842/2025, 79843/2025 & CM APPL. 79841/2025 RINAL INVESTMENT PVT. LTD versus M/S OMSONS MARKETING PVT. LTD, it was observed that :
" The stage at which an amendment application is brought cannot be altogether ignored. For, that would indicate the genuineness or lack thereof CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 8/32 on the part of a party seeking amendment. In the present case, as mentioned above, the amendment application was brought on the day when trial was scheduled to begin. Of course, solely on this aspect also, the lack of genuineness cannot be inferred. What would be seen at this stage is as to whether the amendments sought are of such vital nature, which the petitioner/defendant genuinely missed to plead in the written statement. The replication has already been filed. Merely by labelling the proposed amendments as only explanatory one, the party seeking amendment cannot be allowed to derail the trial when the same is scheduled to commence. And this is irrespective of coming into play of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Besides, the very stand taken in the present case on behalf of the petitioner/defendant that the amendments sought are only explanatory in nature, the learned trial court has rightly observed that there is no necessity to allow such amendments at such stage. If the amendments sought are only explanatory and not vital, this would also indicate the intention of the petitioner/defendant to somehow derail the trial. For, once such amendments are allowed,the respondent/plaintiff would be called upon to file replication to the amended written statement, which may or may not follow amendments in the issues. Such protraction of proceedings would militate against the basic purpose of enacting the Commercial Courts Act".
Hence, the application seeking amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC stands dismissed.
18. Ld. counsel for defendant again raised objection pertaining to territorial jurisdiction of this court while placing reliance upon ONGC Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu (1994) 4 SCC 711 and Union of India Vs. Adani Exports Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 567.
19. It may be reiterated that one of the preliminary issues framed in the matter was pertaining to territorial jurisdiction which was decided in favour of plaintiff vide order dated 30.01.2026 holding that this court has territorial jurisdiction,. Said order has not been challenged by defendant. The issue pertaining to territorial jurisdiction having already been decided and having not been challenged, it is not open for the defendant to reagitate the same issue in response to application under Order under Order 13-A CPC.
20. Ld. counsel for defendant further submitted that "order 13- A CPC sets a conjunctive twin test: the court must be satisfied (i) CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 9/32 that the defendant has no real prospect of defending the claim and (ii) there is no compelling reason for a full trial. Both must be independently satisfied and failure on either is fatal".
Reliance was placed by Ld. counsel for defendant upon Bright Enterprises Pvt. ltd. Vs. MJ Bizcraft LLP, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6394 (DB), wherein it was held that :
" Order XIII-A is exceptional in nature, must be scrupulously followed, and failure to do so ' may result in gross injustice'.
Reliance was further placed upon Surya Food and Agro Ltd. Vs. Om Traders 2023/DHC/000445 (DB), wherein it was held that :
" summary judgment cannot be granted wherever any real triable issue subsists; the defendant need only show the defence is real, not that it will succeed".
21. Grounds for summary judgment -" The Court may give summary judgment against plaintiff or defendant on a claim if it considers that :-
(a) the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, as the case may be; and
(b) there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed off before recording of oral evidence".
22. In A to E Interior Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rahul Bhandari and Ors. CS (COMM) No. 555/2021, following was noted:
16. In the Commercial Suit, while Order XII Rule 6 CPC has been made applicable, Order XIII A Rule 3 CPC titled 'Summary Judgments' has been incorporated. The Legislative intent behind introducing summary judgment under Order XIIIA of CPC is to provide a remedy independent, separate and distinct from judgment on admissions and summary judgment under Order XXXVII of CPC. It empowers the Court to give Summary Judgment against the plaintiff or the defendant on a claim it considers that the plaintiff has no real prospects of succeeding in the claim or the CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 10/32 defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, as the case may be and there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence".
23. In Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. vs Mr. Kunwer Sachdev & Anr. on 30 October, 2019AIRONLINE 2019 DEL 1695, (2019) 264 DLT 326, following was noted:
" 39. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been enacted with the intent to improve efficiency and reduce delay in disposal of commercial cases. The relevant portion of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
―to have a streamlined procedure which is to be adopted for the conduct of cases in the Commercial Courts and in the Commercial Divisions by amending the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, so as to improve the efficiency and reduce delays in disposal of commercial cases. The proposed case management system and provisions for summary judgment will enable disposal of commercial disputes in a time bound manner.‖ (emphasis supplied)
40. Amended Order XIIIA of CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, enables the Court to decide a claim or part thereof without recording oral evidence. Order XIIIA of CPC seeks to avoid the long drawn process of leading oral evidence in certain eventualities. Consequently, the said provision enables disposal of commercial disputes in a time bound manner and promotes the object of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
41. Rule 3 of Order XIII-A of CPC empowers the Court to grant a summary judgment against a defendant where on an application filed in that regard, the Court considers that the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending a claim, and there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence"
49. Consequently, this Court is of the view that when a summary judgment application allows the Court to find the necessary facts and resolve the dispute, proceeding to trial would generally not be proportionate, timely or cost effective. It bears reiteration that the standard for fairness is not whether the procedure is as exhaustive as a trial, but whether it gives the Court the confidence that it can find the necessary facts and apply the relevant legal principles so as to resolve the dispute as held in Robert Hryniak (supra).
24. Ld. counsel for defendant further submitted that:
"The twin test has not been met in the instant proceedings due to existence of triable issues incapable of resolution on affidavit, pertaining to following:CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 11/32
(a) Quality and Completion of works at Lucknow showrooms - categorically denied ; site execution record and completion certificates must be tested by cross examination.
(b) Payment account - defendant has paid over Rs. 2.65 Crores; the claimed balance of Rs. 39 lacs is arithmetically contested and unsupported . Bank statements and vouchers are on record.
(c) Ledger suppression - the plaintiff's accounts omit credit notes and returns evidenced by e-way bill dated 17.03.2023, distorting the closing balance.
(d) Parallel Labour Authority proceedings (Lucknow, award dated 30.12.2021), now under challenge before the Allahabad High Court, arising from the same transaction - their pendency alone constitutes a compelling reason for full trial".
25. To establish that there was deficiency on the part of plaintiff in quality and in completion of work, defendant ought to have filed the documents, reflecting communication of the said concern to the notice of plaintiff at any point of time. It is not disputed that the defendant had paid Rs. 2,65,30,000/- while the balance outstanding amount according to plaintiff remained at Rs. 39,00,000/-. On behalf of defendant, it was stated that defendant had conveyed to plaintiff vide emails about deficiency in the work. In the documents filed alongwith the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, in response to MSERC letter dated 10.12.2020, defendant vide reply dated 24.12.2020 stated as follows:
" 5.... A brief summary of the deficiencies in the work carried by M/s Zaara Enterprises which were reported to them vide email at the worksite is as under:CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 12/32
(a) Computer and Network Setup (via email dated 29/ Sep/2018)
(b) Lighting Issues (via email dated 29/Sep/2018, 18/Nov/2018)
(c) Durlum (via email dated 03/Nov/2018, 18/Nov/2018)
(d) Late Delivery of Ipad (via email dated 28/08/2018)
(e) Speakers (via email dated 10/Oct/2018)
(d) Falling of Ceiling (via email ated 20/Aug/2020) It was also mentioned in said reply that despite various reminders and requests as indicated by various emails, M/s Zaara Enterprises failed to take corrective actions and remove the deficiencies in time. Above noted stand was not taken in the written statement filed before this court nor the emails, as mentioned above, vide which the deficiencies were allegedly reported to plaintiff.
26. Series of email communication Ex. DW1/P1 (colly) was admitted by DW1 during the course of his cross examination on the preliminary issues. DW1 admitted that the documents from page no. 1 to 52 were the emails and BOQ, which were exchanged between the parties. Reference by Ld. Counsel for defendant to the emails as above noted, is much prior to the resolution of snag list submitted by defendant. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff referred to the emails which were exchanged after completion of the work and post resolution of the snag list, wherein defendant had not raised any objection nor pointed out any deficiency in the work performed by plaintiff. Plaintiff raised final invoice dated 17.06.2019 for the amount which is claimed to be outstanding against defendant i.e. in sum for Rs. 39,00,000/-.
27. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff was put query with regard to date of raising of invoice which was in June 2019, whereas the CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 13/32 plaintiff claimed to have completed the work by September 2018 and leaving the site by December 2018. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff himself referred to the emails dated 21.6.2018 and 17.10.2018 filed on record by the defendant whereby plaintiff was directed to take strict action for completion of work as per the details given in both the emails. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff explained that though the work was completed by September 2018, however there were certain defects in the work as well as some minor works were pending from the side of plaintiff which took some time after September 2018 to be completed/got rectified. Also after the work was completed, there was account reconciliation work between the parties, which also took sometime. Further, plaintiff was required to cure the defects, if any, during the defect liability period of one year as per the business practice. Therefore, after all the defects having been cured and the accounts reconciled, final invoice was raised in June 2019.
28. Contention of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff is corroborated by the email communication between the parties. Vide email dated 19.03.2019, plaintiff sent proforma invoice and requested defendant to clear the payment. Vide email dated 10.4.2019, plaintiff conveyed that the acceptance was not received after raising ther proforma invoice and they were trying to reconcile the accounts and followed up for their payment but did not recieve any reply. Plaintiff thereby requested defendant to update the ledger and book the final settlement invoice so that they could raise the final invoice. It was also mentioned that account team of the plaintiff shall keep in touch with defendant for reconciliation of accounts and for outstanding payments. Vide email 29.4.2019, defendant informed plaintiff, the following:
CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 14/32" Mr. Arif as per our telephonic discussion we are sending you the invoice copies received from your company and we have taken in our books of accounts but as per your ledger these invoices are missing.
Please provide all the tax invoices (not Proforma invoices) of the balance amount which is outstanding in the name of AKM Motors P. Ltd. as soon as possible because we are facing difficulties in our income tax and GST audit".
29. Responding to the email trail, plaintiff vide email dated 14.05.2019 informed defendant that they had sent the ledger for the balance and reconciliation. Defendant was also asked to process the payment so that plaintiff could close the same after raising the invoice. In view of the above, plaintiff thereby sufficiently explained on record with regard to belated raising of the invoice after the reconciliation of accounts between the parties.
30. Thereafter, vide email dated 18.06.2019, defendant was informed about its non compliance of the commitment to release the payment. Following was conveyed:
" It has been almost more than 3 month from your commitment to release our payment after all the things were mutually agreed and commitment was made from your end with the signing of bill and promisiong the releasing the payment.
We are continuously making followup with calling to every one Mr. Ajit Maurya, Miss Ekta Maurya and Mr. Rajendera Verma but out calls are not attending at all & No reply is received.
The last discussion was held on 18 Feb 2019.
After finishing our job, whatever problem has occurred in Mega Motors, we have solved it from our end. The handover document was also submitted to Mr. Rajendra Verma but he has not returned the document.
The Zaara Team had send the Activation Pictures on 21.9.2018 of Mega Motors Arena and on 28.9.2018 of Mega Motors True Value but our team has left the site on 18.12.2018 where all the Arena and True Value points were covered including the Audit Report.
Now after passing 9 months from the day of handover of the site, we request you to please release our pending payment. Sir there are many vendors which are working for us and they are small scale vendors they cannot suffer without getting their payments on time. Sir we are struggling from the bad time and we do not have fund to pay out the vendors. Please pay our dues on time so that we can pay the vendors.CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 15/32
Our details of outstanding amount is as follows which has to be paid by you:-
Total Billing = Rs. 3,04,00,000/-.
Received Amount = Rs. 2,65,00,000/-
Due Amount, yet not received = Rs. 39,00,000/-
We request you to please release the payment without delay"
31. Plaintiff sent the final invoice to the defendant, sent the updated ledger statement to defendant and also mentioned about the balance outstanding in sum of Rs. 39 lacs and defendant thereafter was called upon to clear the payment without delay. Plaintifff repeatedly sent emails to the defendant requesting to clear the outstanding payment including emails dated 20.06.2019, 05.07.2019, 11.07.2019, 19.07.2019, 30.07.2019, 08.08.2019, 24.08.2019 and 05.09.2019, all part of Ex. DW1/P1 (colly), receipt of which was admitted by DW1 during cross examination on preliminary issues. Any reply sent to these emails on behalf of defendant neither is forming part of record nor filed on record on behalf of defendant even alongwith the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
32. Apparently, despite receipt of so many reminders from the plaintiff and despite desparation of the plaintiff to receive its payment, defendant did not even bother to reply to these emails, much less to communicate about alleged deficiencies in the work performed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff thereafter sent email dated 17.09.2019 with reference to the trailing mails and visit fo the showrooms team of defendant. Plaintiff informed that they had visited the showroom of defendant, talked to the accounts team and tallied the ledger. They also submitted their tax invoices. Plaintiff called upon defendant to take it in serious note and release the payment as earliest as possible. After all these emails, CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 16/32 first response on behalf of defendant is vide email dated 18.09.2019 vide which defendant conveyed to plaintiff that they had not received the bills for amount of Rs. 30,29,999/-. It was stated that the ledger had been shared with plaintiff multiple times and defendant had made payment in last financial year for which defendant had not got any bills . Alongwith the said email Ex. DW1/P4 (part of Ex. DW1/P1), ledger details were attached, reflecting payment to the plaintiff in sum of Rs. 2,65,30,000/-.
33. Vide return email dated 18.09.2019, plaintiff sent the invoices again. Vide email dated 28.09.2019, plaintiff again informed defendant the following:
" To the reference of the trailing mail and last visit at your showroom. We had submitted and explained our ledger with invoices to your accounts team.
Thereafter next day we have talked to the accounts team and explained the same, on the same time they asked us to resend the ledger then we sent the same.
But 10 days have been gone but no reply yet received regarding the payment.
We request to take it on your priority list to the pending payment on urgent basis since long period has been passed and we suffered a lot due from this.
Hope to the best on earliest as we are not in good position to payout the vendor and material payments".
34. Above noted email dated 28.09.2019 was followed by further emails dated 22.10.2019, 19.11.2019, 06.12.2019, 14.12.2019, 01.01.2020 and 07.01.2020. After all these emails, defendant vide email dated 08.01.2020, again conveyed to plaintiff the following:
" I am made to understand that the bills have not been provided to Mega Motors".
35. Vide return email of even date, plaintiff informed defendant that they had sent the bills many times and again attached the invoices and ledger. Plaintiff thereafter vide email CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 17/32 dated 01.02.2020, again requested defendant to clear the payment, "informing that they were in critical situation, suppliers and vendors were at their doors always for their payments and were not able to survive any more" , which was followed by email dated 25.01.2020. Thereafter vide email dated 12.08.2020, plaintiff with reference to the earlier email reminders again informed defendant that total outstanding as on that date was Rs. 39,00,000/-. Updated ledger account maintained by plaintiff was again enclosed while informing that the last invoice was raised on 17.06.2019.
36. Ld. counel for defendant submitted that defendant has demanded an amount of Rs. 1,54,76,250/-from the Plaintiff towards losses caused due to inability to complete the work within the stipulated time frame and for rectification of defective and incomplete work. It was also submitted that site execution record and completion certificate must be tested by cross examination.
37. Pertaining to the alleged demand in sum of Rs. 1,54,76,250/- , no such amount was claimed by defendant during the course of entire email communication between the parties nor even the counter claim has been filed by defendant. Plaintiff claimed about completion of work by Septemebr 2018 and after completion of snag list, leaving the site by December 2018. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that no objection had been raised by defendant pertaining to the performance of work by plaintiff till December 2020 i.e. even after expiry of more than two years.
38. After raising of invoice by plaintiff, after reconciliation of ledger statement, defendant in the written submissions stated CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 18/32 about site execution records and completion certificates, which are not forming part of record. Ld. counsel for defendant submitted that plaintiff was required to file on record the site execution records and completion certificate, however, conceded that defendant had not issued any notice upon the plaintiff or sought directions from the court to the plaintiff for production of these documents on record. Although for not raising any objection for a period of more than two years after completion of the work by plaintiff, defendant at this stage, cannot belatedly plead with regard to the requirement for site execution record and completion certificate.
39. After no response had been issued to the plaintiff's previous email communications, plaintiff finally called upon the defendant to clear the payment within seven days in order not to escalate the matter further, since plaintiff had been waiting patiently. Desparate attempts of the plaintiff vide all these emails as well as repeated requests and reminders made by plaintiff for release of the payment, seem to have not been given any heed by the defendant.
40. Plaintiff vide legal notice dated 21.11.2020 Ex. PW1/1 called upon the defendant to clear the payment alongwith interest, failing which plaintiff shall have to take appropriate legal action. For the first time in response to the legal notice vide reply dated 03.12.2020 Ex. DW1/P7, defendant informed plaintiff with regard to deficiency in services and the consequent losses caused to the defendant. It was also mentioned that the work was never completed in financial year 2018-2019 and Mega Motors Showroom and True Value Show became operational in October 2018, whereas the bill was raised on CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 19/32 17.06.2019. This court has already noted that the plaintiff sufficiently and successfully explained the reasons for raising of invocie on 17.6.2019 though the work had been completed much earlier. Ld. Counsel for plaitniff reiterated that after successful reconciliation of the payments for financial year 2018-2019 with respect to the job performed and also only after the payment was intended to be released by defendant, as per the mutual understanding between the parties, that the invoice was raised.
41. Submission of Ld. counsel for defendant that the matter requires oral evidence between the parties is not tenable in view of the documenrary evidence available on record. In commercial cases, based upon the written documents and communication, the purpose of oral testimony is limited to providing context, identifying documents or explaining ambiguity. When key documents are admitted by both the parties, oral testimony can be dispensed with, within the framework of summary judgment under Order 13-A of CPC . In the instant matter, documents are admitted and there is no triable issue, therefore, the court can pass summary judgment without recording oral testimony.
42. It was noted in Bhima Tima Dhotre vs The Pioneer Chemical Co. (1968)70BOMLR683 that:
" 4. In my opinion, to hold that a document is not admissible for proof of its contents unless the writer is called, is to denude documentary evidence of all its value and is clearly contrary to certain express statutory provisions to be found in the Evidence Act to which I will presently refer. Documentary evidence becomes meaningless if the writer has to be called in every case to give oral evidence of its contents. If that were the position, it would mean that, in the ultimate analysis, all evidence must be oral and that oral evidence would virtually be the only kind of evidence recognised by law. That, however, is not the position under the Evidence Act. The definition of the term "evidence" in Section 3 of the Evidence Act lays down that evidence means and includes statements made by witnesses, which are called oral evidence, and documents produced before the Court, which are called documentary evidence. Section 59 of the said Act enacts that all facts, except the "contents" of documents, may be proved by oral evidence. This CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 20/32 provision would clearly indicate that to prove the contents of a document by means of oral evidence would be a violation of that section, and Section 91 expressly prohibits that being done in the case of contracts, grants or other dispositions of property which have been effected in writing. That, however, is not all. Section 61 of the said Act lays down in unambiguous terms: ' 'The contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence", and Section 62 makes it clear that primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court. Needless to say, in view of the provisions of Section 67 of the Evidence Act, a document must, however, be proved in the manner provided by Sections 45, 47 or 73 of the said Act, or by the internal proof afforded by its own contents as laid down in Mobarik Ali's case, What is important to note is the use of the word "contents", both in Sections 59 and 61 of the Evidence Act, which leaves no room for doubt that when a document is proved in the manner laid down by the Evidence Act, the contents of that document are also proved.
.............
What is, however, overlooked is that a contemporaneous record is often much safer and has more probative value than oral evidence led at the trial, even though that oral evidence may have been given on the most solemn oath and subjected to the most rigorous cross-examination. It is for that reason that the Evidence Act advisedly lays down that the contents of a document can be proved by proving the document in the usual manner, a proposition that emerges unequivocally from a combined reading of Sections 59, 61 and 62 of that Act. To require that the writer of the document should be called is, in my opinion, to import in regard to documentary evidence the rule laid down in Section 60 of the Evidence Act which, in terms, applies only to oral evidence, and to ignore the several statutory provisions set out above".
43. Instant suit is based upon the documents. Parties particularly in the commercial proceedings, are required to file Affidavit of admission and denial of documents. In the instant matter, defendant has not filed Affidavit of Admission/Denial of documents of plaintiff. Non filing of affidavit of admission/denial of documents leads to non consideration of written statement on record, as per the observation in Sudhakar Singh Vs. Webkul Softward Pvt. Ltd. 2020 SCC Online Del 436 and Unilin Beheer B.V. Vs. Balaji Action Buildwell 2019, SCC Online Del 8498 and Mayank Gupta Vs. M/s Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited, Civil Misc (Main ) No. 178 of 2023, wherein interalia it was noted that:
CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 21/32" In the event of written statement being filed without affidavit of admission/denial of documents, not only shall the written statement be not taken on record but the documents filed by the plaintiff shall also be deemed to be admitted ".
44. However, the instant matter since has already reached to the stage of disposal of application seeking summary judgment and the contents of written statement have already been considered, therefore, at this stage, court is not passing any order for non consideration of written statement for want of filing of Affidavit of Admission/Denial of documents.
45. DW1 nevertheless during the course of cross examination on the preliminary issues has admitted the email communication between the parties as recorded above, therefore, no further oral evidence can negate the documentary evidence available on record. It appears that despite the repeated and desparate requests made by plaintiff, defendant failed to clear the outstanding balance, did not even bother to respond to emails and the concern of the plaintiff. Despite plaintiff having raised invoice and having sent the ledger details, plaintiff was informed again and again that defendant was not in receipt of invoice and ledger details, upon which plaintiff sent them many times, as is reflected from the email communication on record.
46. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that no deficiency in the work of the plaintiff or plaintiff having left the work incomplete was ever conveyed to the plaintiff during the process of entire communication between the parties till the sending of the legal notice by plaintiff. Deficiencies mentioned in reply to legal notice, sent to plaintiff, apparently, was an attempt on the part of defendant, to wriggle out all the responsibilities, that too CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 22/32 without any supporting documents or evidence to the alleged plea of deficiency in services by the plaintiff.
47. Not only defendant did not point out any deficiency in the work of the plaintiff, did not clear the payment of the plaintiff, yet obtained input tax credit as appears on record. As reflected in defendant's Form GSTR-2A, defendant had taken the input tax credit of said unpaid tax invoice. DW1 was put question whether defendant company had received tax invoice dated 17.06.2019 Ex. DW1/P2 and had availed the Input Tax Credit in respect of Ex. DW1/P2 to which DW1 answered that it was matter of record. Since defendant's witness had failed to answer pertaining to the invoices in cross examination, upon the application moved on beahalf of plaintiff under order Order 16 Rule 1 & 6 r/w section 151 CPC, defendant was directed to produce GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B which were produced and exhibited as Ex. DW1/C (colly).
48. Ld. counsel for defendant submitted that " Plaintiff's reliance on GSTR-3B filings and ITC entries as 'admissions' of liability is legally untenable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Bharti Airtel Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1006 has held that Form GSTR-3B is a summary self-assessment compliance return - a statutory stop-gap under Rule 61(5) CGST Rules. It is not a 'return' in the true statutory sense and constitutes no admission of civil or contractual liability. The GST portal is a compliance facilitator only. At most, an ITC entry confirms goods were received. It is silent on quality, completion, returns, and price accuracy all of which are live disputes. No court has ever treated a GST compliance return as a signed acknowledgment of a private civil debt".
CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 23/3249. Contention of Ld. counsel for defendant though is correct that ITC confirms that the goods were received or the services were provided and it does not specify with regard to quality, completion, returns and price accuracy , therefore is not termed as signed acknowledgment of a private civil debt, however if defendant was disputing the invoice mentioned in the GSTR for lack of liability to pay due to alleged deficient service, option was available with the defendant to seek reversal of the same in GST documents. In terms of the documents, plaintiff had deposited GST in 2019. Defendant accepted the tax invoice, availed input tax credit but did not seek reversal of the same at any point of time if the entry was not correct or the plaintiff was not eligible to raise invoice.
50. In terms of section 16 (2b) of Central Goods and Services Act, whereby the registered person is deemed to have received the goods and further, section 16 (2b) proviso prescribes that if the payment is not made by the receipent within 180 days from the date of issue of invoice from the supplier, an amount equal to the input tax credit availed by the recipient shall be added to its output tax liability along with its interest thereon. Section 37 (2) of CGST Act mandates that the registered person who has been supplied with details of inward supplies may either accept or reject the details on or before 17th day but not before the 15th day of the month succeeding in tax period and shall pay short payment of tax which may be found due to discovery of any error or ommission as per section 37 (3) of CGST Act.
51. GSTR-1 is statement of outward supplies to be furnished by all registered tax payers making outwards supplies of goods and services. GSTR 2A is purchase related dynamic tax return that is CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 24/32 automatically generated for each business by the GST portal, when a seller files its GSTR-1, the information is captured in GSTR-2A . It takes the information of goods which have been purchased in a given month from the seller's/service provider's GSTR-1. As GST registered buyer/receipient, it has to refer to the GSTR-2A for input tax credit detail while filing GSTR-3B. Invoices uploaded by the seller/service provider in GSTR-1 can be viewed by the purchaser/receipient in its GSTR-2B form. GSTR-2B is auto generated input tax credit statement, whereas GSTR-3B is self declared summary GST return whereby tax payer is required to report the summary figures of sales, ITC claimed and net tax payable . The purchaser/receipient of services can claim an input tax credit in the GSTR- 3B form based on the tax invoices by the seller/service provider as reflected in its GSTR-2B. Invoices uploaded by the corresponding suppliers/service providers are auto populated for inward supplies of the recipient on real time basis and recipient is able to view these invoices in the 'viewing facility' enabled on the portal. Recipient is able to take specific action against the invoices available in viewing facility i.e. (i) to accept, if it wants to avail the credit (ii) to reject, if it does not want to avail the credit or the transaction does not belong to them . Credit with respect to inward supplies accepted by the recipient shall be posted in the relevant field of the input tax credit table of the return to be filed by the recipient.
52. GSTR-2A, GSTR-2A Statement Reconciliation Summary, GSTR-3B are Ex. DW1/C (colly). GSTR-2A Reconciliation Summary refers to the invoice dated 17.06.2019 with invoice value at Rs. 39,00,000/- and taxable value of Rs. 3305084.74 and IGST at Rs. 594915.25, with status as "Filed". All these details refer to the CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 25/32 invoice dated 17.06.2019 raised by the plaintiff in sum of Rs. 39,00,000/- with reflection of input tax credit paid by plaintiff to the credit of defendant. In case of dispute, it was obligatory upon the defendant to reject the same. After acceptance by the defendant only, credit could be posted in the relevant field of the input tax credit table of the return to be filed by the defendant. Failure of the defendant to act accordingly, in terms of GST rules is deemed to be acceptance of the services in case of non objection put forth by the defendant.
53. In written submissions filed on behalf of defendant, it was mentioned that the plaintiff's account omits credit notes and returns evidenced by e-way dated 17.3.2023 distorting the closing balance. No such mention was in the written statement or in any other document available on record. It may be noted that plaintiff had repeatedly sent ledger statement to the defendant, upon which no objection was ever raised till the sending of reply to the legal notice. Plaintiff filed the suit in October 2022 and for the first time, this objection of credit notes and return evidenced by e-way bill dated 17.3.2023 has been incorporated in the written submissions. In the desperation to contest the matter at any cost, defendant seems to be relying upon the non existent e-way bill dated 17.3.2023 which does not accompany any pleadings or reply to the summary judgment application or to application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Defendant otherwise cannot seek the liberty of importing the unfounded, after thought existence of some e-way bill dated 27.3.2023 which is much after filing of the suit and crystallizing of the liability.
54. Accordingly, it stands established on record that plaintiff provided services to defendant, raised invoices, defendant cleared CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 26/32 the substantial payment, leaving the balance outstanding at Rs. 39 lacs, claimed input tax credit, did not raise objection pertaining to quality or incomplete work, to the plaintiff till the date of issuance of legal notice by plaintiff. Deficiencies noted and conveyed to plaintff in reply to legal notice without any supporting documents or any previous communication in this regard has already been held to be after thought, resultantly making defendant liable to clear the amount in favour of plaintiff. Consequently, in opinion of this court, there shall be no real prospect of defendant, successfully defending the claim when the Court has been able to reach a fair and just determination on the merits of the application for summary judgment.
55. As noted in judgment (supra), "Amended Order XIIIA of CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, enables the Court to decide a claim without recording oral evidence and seeks to avoid the long drawn process of leading oral evidence in certain eventualities. Consequently, the said provision enables disposal of commercial disputes in a time bound manner and promotes the object of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015". In this matter, this court has opined that the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, and there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence particularly when the suit is based upon the documentary evidence and admitted email communication between the parties. Plaintiff accordingly is held entitled for recovery of amount of Rs. 39 lacs alongwith interest .
56. Plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18% per annum on the outstanding amount from the date of raising of last invoice dated 17.06.2019. There was no specific agreement between the parties CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 27/32 for payment of interest at the said rate, which even otherwise in considered opinion of this court, is on the higher side, considering the prevailing banking rates and market condition. Therefore, this court is inclined to grant interest @12% p.a. w.e.f. the date of raising of invoice i.e. 17.06.2019.
57. In the proceedings before Labour Commissioner, workers employed at the project site of defendant, had filed complaint pertaining to non receipt of the wages against plaintiff as Contractor and Defendant as Principal Employer. Defendant (as respondent no.1 in those proceedings) had disputed its liability submitting that the claimant/workmen had never been appointed nor were called for work by defendant nor defendant directly paid wages to them or issued directions to workers to work at showroom, therefore there was no relationship of employer and employee between claimants and Defendant. Any liability of defendant towards payment of wages or any other amount towards alleged claim was denied.
58. Zaara Enterprises i.e. Proprietorship concern of plaintiff herein was respondent no.2 in those proceedings. In reply filed on behalf of Zaara Enterprises, plaintiff had taken the stand that "Zaara Enterprises was awarded work for showroom by defendant herein. Plaintiff had contacted workers who were sent by him to work with defendant. The contractual amount including the wages was Rs. 3,04,00,000/- , out of which defendant had paid sum of Rs. 2,65,00,000/- and had withheld amount of Rs. 39,00,000/- for payment to workers. Plaintiff had never withheld any amount of workers nor had ever refused to make payment to the workers. Since defendant had undertaken to pay wages directly to the workers, therefore had withheld the CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 28/32 amount, however after completion of work, defendant was refusing to make payment to the workers and if defendant made payment to plaintiff, then plaintiff shall clear the payment of the workers" .
59. It was reiterated that Principal Employer had not made the payment of wages and rather withheld the amount payable to them for which plaintiff had repeatedly sent reminders to defendant. It was also mentioned that "claim made by workers was correct and outstanding payment of Zaara Enterprises against defendant was Rs. 48 lacs, however after mutual discussion, plaintiff had agreed to receive Rs. 39 lacs, which amount had also been withheld by defendant and if defendant paid amount of Rs. 39 lacs to plaintiff, it shall pay the said amount immediately to workers".
60. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that the instant claim of plaintiff is independent to the claim of workers and none of the workers were the employees of the plaintiff. With regard to objection of the defendant under section 11 CPC with regard to applicability of the provision of res sub-judice/res sub-judicata in the instant proceedings, due to pendency of the proceedings before Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, this court vide order dated 30.1.2026, had noted that:
" The proceedings before Ld. Labour Commissioner were initiated based upon the claim made by workers with regard to non payment of wages. Defendant disputed its liability for payment of wages. Defendant in the instant matter also, disputes its liability for payment of alleged outstanding dues of the plaintiff. Award was passed by Ld.Labour Commissioner only based upon submission of plaintiff that Labour was deployed by him and money was withheld by defendant on the pretext and assurance of payment to be made directly to workers . Plaintiff however is required to establish its entitlement for payment and corresponding liability of defendant towards plaintiff, be it towards unpaid dues of workers or non payment of outstanding dues against performance of work by plaintiff. Similarly, if defendant is able to disprove assertion of CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 29/32 plaintiff with regard to any amount of money withheld by it, defendant still would be required to establish its reason for non payment of alleged balance dues of plaintiff or poor/non performance of work by plaintiff and consequent lack of any liability towards alleged unpaid dues. None of the above noted was directly or substantially under consideration before Ld. Labour Commissioner."
61. Now at this stage with the disposal of application under section 13-A CPC, plaintiff has been held to have established its entitlement for the payment and the corresponding liability of defendant towards plaintiff. Defendant has not been able to demonstrate on record poor/non performance of work or incomplete work by plaintiff and the consequent lack of any liability towards unpaid dues. Defendant has been held liable to clear the outstanding balance amount of plaintiff. In this scenario, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff unsuccessfully claims that the claim of plaintiff is independent to the claim of workers and none of the workers were the employees of plaintiff, contrary to its own admission before Ld. Labour Commissioner that defendant had withheld amount of Rs. 39 lacs against the wages of the claimants/workers.
62. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff further unsuccessfully sought to submit that the workers in proceedings before Ld. Labour Commissioner had filed claim in sum of Rs. 44,46,277/- which was allowed in sum of Rs. 39,27,877/- whereas the liability in the instant matter is only in sum of Rs 39 lacs. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff nevertheless failed to answer with regard to the stand taken in the proceedings before Ld. Labour Commissioner with regard to the contract value amount of Rs. 3,04,00,000/- out of which defendant had paid Rs. 2,65,00,000/- , leaving outstanding amount at Rs. 39 lacs. It was also mentioned in reply filed before Ld. Labour Commissioner that the balance outstanding amount CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 30/32 was Rs. 48 lacs which was reduced to Rs. 39 lacs after the mutual settlement but had been withheld by the defendant on the pretext of direct payment to the workers.
63. Instant matter is also for recovery of Rs. 39 lacs out of the total contractual invoiced amount of Rs 3,04,00,000/-. Defendant admittedly has paid rest of the amount. If reference to the deployment of workers in the proceedings before Ld. Labour Commissioner is not pertaining to the subject contract of the instant proceedings, then for which other assignment plaintiff had deputed the workers at the project site of defendant. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff failed to answer with regard to existence of any other assignment between the parties for which the labour/workers were deputed by plaintiff at the project site of defendant. Ld. counsel for plaintiff submitted that this was grey area.
64. This court is conscious of the fact that award by Ld. Labour Commissioner was predicated solely upon the submission of the plaintiff regarding its liability of payment towards workers, for the services provided at defendant's site, while submitting that defendant was the actual custodian of the funds as defendant had withheld the said amount. As the validity of said award is subjudice and under challenge before Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad-Lucknow bench. Therefore, payment of decreetal amount by defendant in execution proceedings, may constitute risk of double jeopardy on defendant. It is therefore directed that any amount deposited by defendant in pursuance to the execution of the instant judgment shall be maintained in form of FDR and shall not be released in favour of plaintiff until and subject to final adjudication and disposal of writ petition before Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad-Lucknow bench.
CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 31/3265. Relief: Instant suit is accordingly decreed with cost in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs. 39,00,000/- (Rs. thirty nine lacs only) alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. with effect from 17.06.2019, till realization, subject to the condition that any amount deposited by defendant in pursuance to the execution of the instant judgment shall be maintained in form of FDR and shall not be released in favour of plaintiff until and subject to final adjudication and disposal of writ petition before Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad-Lucknow bench.
66. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. After completion of formalities, file be consigned to record room.
Digitally
signed by
savita savita rao
Date:
rao 2026.04.10
15:35:03
+0530
Announced in the open (SAVITA RAO)
court on 10.04.2026 DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT)-01
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM) No. : 588/2022 32/32