Delhi District Court
Motiprabha Infratech Pvt Ltd vs Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions on 2 May, 2026
CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools
Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02:
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
CNR No.DLNW01-007330-2023
Civil Suit (Comm.) No.575/2023
In the matter of:
M/s Motiprabha Infractech Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office At: 804, SSR Corporate Park,
13/6, NH-02, Mathura Road,
Faridabad-121003, Haryana.
Through Its Authorized Representative Shri Rajesh Bhardwaj
.....Plaintiff
(Through Shri Sudhir Kumar Ojha, Advocate)
Versus
M/s Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions,
P-2/577, Sultanpuri, Delhi-110086.
Also At:
Plot No.1556, Village Pooth Kalan,
Rohini Sector-20, Near Mother Dairy,
New Delhi-110086.
Through Its Proprietor Shri Abhishek Kumar
.....Defendant
(Through Shri Sahil Vij, Advocate)
Date of Institution of Suit : 09.08.2023
Date of hearing final arguments : 15.04.2026 & 02.05.2026
Date of judgment : 02.05.2026
Digitally signed
VINOD byYADAV
VINOD
YADAV Date: 2026.05.02
16:43:54 +0530
Page 1 of 26
CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools
Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) AND
DAMAGES ALONGWITH INTEREST @ 9% PER ANNUM.
02.05.2026
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff's case:
1. The facts of the case in brief, as borne out from the record are that plaintiff is a private limited company which had approached the defendant firm for supply of rock reamers (hereinafter referred to as "goods") in April' 2022, pursuant whereto the goods were supplied by the defendant which in turn were utilized by the plaintiff, but only part payment was made, which led to the defendant filing a civil suit for recovery against the plaintiff herein on 10.11.2022, being "CS SCJ/1527/2022", titled as, "Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions V/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd.", which is stated to be currently pending disposal in the Court of learned ACJ-cum-ARC (North-West), Rohini District Courts.
2. Whereas, the present suit was filed on 09.08.2023 by the plaintiff against the defendant, seeking damages for supply of defective goods, admittedly after getting served with the summons in the aforesaid civil suit already filed by the defendant. The plaintiff in the present suit has admittedly not disclosed about the receipt of summons in the aforesaid civil suit filed by the defendant against it.Page 2 of 26
CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026
3. It has been claimed by the plaintiff that on 20.04.2022 a Purchase Order was issued by the plaintiff to the defendant for supply of goods with the terms and conditions set out as under:
__________________________________________ xxxxx Purchase Order Ref. No.MIPL/5103-3/0007 Dated 20.04.2022 Terms & Conditions of Order:
1. Tax Invoice is compulsory for the reimbursement of tax benefits.
2. Any another type of retail invoice is not acceptable except Tax Invoice.
3. If Tricone/Reamer will be break under reaming, the piece will be replaced at free of cost.
4. If Tricones/Reamer will be loose after reaming, same will be repaired under warranty.
5. Order acceptance is must before execute the order.
xxxxx
---------------------------------------------------------------
4. It appears that defendant issued a Proforma Invoice on the basis of aforesaid Purchase Order on 21.04.2022, pursuant whereto the supply of goods was made on 29.04.2022 as well as on 19.05.2022. The cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff to file the present suit is that the defendant had supplied the goods which did not perform well as well as that the defendant had supplied painted reamers which got damaged on various fronts. It was claimed that the defendant was required to supply brand new reamers (goods), but the old reamers were supplied which Page 3 of 26 CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026 caused damage to the plaintiff and as such damages @ Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) alongwith interest @9% per annum were claimed in the suit.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to filing of instant suit, plaintiff company had also approached for pre-institution mediation in terms of Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Pursuant to service of pre-institution mediation notice, the defendant filed a written submission, inter alia requesting to close the matter as it was not interested in participating in the mediation process. Accordingly, Certificate of Non- Starter Report dated 11.04.2023 was issued in the matter.
Defendant's case:
6. (i) After getting served with the summons, defendant filed written statement, inter alia taking preliminary objections, viz:
(a) That the suit filed by the plaintiff was not bonafide;
(b) It was a measure of counter-blast to the suit for recovery filed by defendant against the plaintiff in respect of the same transaction;
(c) That the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish defect in the goods and as such was not entitled to claim damages.
(ii) On merits, it was claimed that the Purchase Order dated 20.04.2022 was not accepted by the defendant as such, it did not culminate into a binding contract; whereas, the Proforma Invoice dated 21.04.2022 Page 4 of 26 CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026 was duly acted upon between the parties and as such, it led to a concluded contract between the parties.
7. Plaintiff did not file any replication in the matter.
8. It is relevant to note that all the documents filed by the plaintiff alongwith the suit were digital documents, however, neither any application under Order XI Rule 6 CPC nor Affidavit/Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [now Section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023] has been filed on record.
9. With these pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 24.03.2025, following issues were settled for trial in the matter:
Issues:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of the suit amount, as prayed for? OPP.
(ii) If answer to aforesaid issue is in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest thereupon. If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
(iii) Relief.
10. Pursuant to framing of issues, vide order dated 24.03.2025 itself, Shri Ranjan Kumar, Advocate, was appointed as "Local Commissioner" to record evidence in the matter.Page 5 of 26
CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026 Plaintiff's evidence:
11. (a) In order to discharge the onus of proving issues put upon it, plaintiff company examined its Account Administrator/Authorized Representative namely Shri Arif Khan as PW-1, who in his evidence by way of Affidavit Ex.PW1/A has reiterated the averments made in the plaint and proved on record the following documents:
(i) Copy of E.Mail dated 24.05.2022, sent by plaintiff to the defendant as Ex.PW1/1;
(ii) Copy of E.Mail dated 18.04.2025 regarding Tax Invoice ITTS/89/2022-23, sent by plaintiff company as Ex.PW1/2;
(iii) Copy of E.Mail dated 24.05.2022, regarding Tax Invoice ITTS/89/2022-23, sent by plaintiff company as Ex.PW1/3;
(iv) Copy of E.Mail dated 18.04.2025, sent by plaintiff company as Ex.PW1/4;
(v) Copy of E.Mail dated 08.08.2022, sent by plaintiff company as Ex.PW1/5;
(vi) Copy of E.Mail dated 20.04.2022, sent by plaintiff company as Ex.PW1/6;
(vii) Copy of Purchase Order No.MIPL/5103-3/0007, dated 20.04.2022 as Ex.PW1/7;
(viii) NB: The copy of Invoice dated 22.04.2022 which was initially marked as Ex.PW1/8 was de-exhibited;
(ix) Copy of Tax Invoice No.ITTS/87/2022-23, dated 29.04.2022, raised by defendant upon the plaintiff, for a sum of Rs.9.20,400/- as Page 6 of 26 CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026 Ex.PW1/9;
(x) Copy of E.Way Bill thereto as Ex.PW1/10;
(xi) Copy of ledger account maintained by the plaintiff in respect of the transactions done with the defendant for the period w.e.f 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 as Ex.PW1/11;
(xii) Copy of Tax Invoice No.ITTS/89/2022-23, dated 19.05.2022, raised by the defendant upon the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.6,490/- as Ex.PW1/12.
(b) PW-1 was thoroughly cross-examined by learned counsel for the plaintiff, which I will advert to during the course of rendering my findings on the issues.
Defendant's evidence:
12. (a) Per contra, defendant firm examined its proprietor namely Shri Abhishek Kumar as DW-1, who in his evidence by way of Affidavit Ex.DW1/A has reiterated the averments made in the written statement and proved on record the following documents:
(i) Copy of E.Mail dated 20.04.2022, sent by the plaintiff company to defendant as Ex.DW1/1;
(ii) Copy of E.Mail dated 21.04.2022 as Ex.DW1/2;
(iii) Copies of various Tax Invoices against whom goods were delivered to the plaintiff as Ex.DW1/3 (Colly) (page 30 to 36 of the documents filed by defendant);
(iv) Copy of ledger account maintained by the defendant in respect Page 7 of 26 CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026 of the transactions done with the plaintiff for the period w.e.f 01.05.2020 to 28.10.2022 as Ex.DW1/4;
(v) Copies of E.Mails dated 09.08.2022 and 21.09.2022, sent by defendant to the plaintiff as Ex.DW1/5 (Colly);
(vi) Copy of legal notice dated 06.10.2022, sent on behalf of plaintiff to the defendant as Ex.DW1/6;
(vii) Copy of reply dated 12.10.2022, sent on behalf of defendant to the legal notice of plaintiff as Ex.DW1/7;
(viii) Certificate/Affidavit under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act/63(4)(C) Part-A of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, issued under the signatures of DW-1 as Ex.DW1/8; and
(ix) Statement of Truth, issued under the signatures of DW-1 as Ex.DW1/9.
(b) DW-1 was thoroughly cross-examined by learned counsel for the plaintiff, which I will advert to in the later part of this judgment.
13. This is all as far as evidence recorded in the matter is concerned.
14. I have heard arguments advanced at Bar by Shri Sudhir Kumar Ojha, Advocate, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Shri Sahil Vij, Advocate, learned counsel for the defendant and gone through the entire material on record. I have also considered the written synopsis/ submissions filed on behalf of plaintiff.
Page 8 of 26CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026
15. A query was posed to learned counsel for the plaintiff at the time of hearing final arguments as to how the digital documents are proposed to be proved by the plaintiff in the matter to which it was responded by learned counsel for the plaintiff that all the documents in the matter are admitted by defendant and as such, the application under Order XI Rule 6 CPC as well as Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [now Section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023] is not required and the documents filed by plaintiff are deemed to the admitted. It is relevant to note here that even no Affidavit of admission/denial of documents on behalf of defendant has been filed on record. My issue wise findings in the matter are as under.
16. Issue No.(i):
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of the suit amount, as prayed for? OPP.
The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. In order to succeed to prove this issue in its favour, the plaintiff was required to place on record the material to substantiate the quantum of damages claimed in the matter. The plaintiff has not placed on record any audited accounts, balance-sheet(s), profit and loss account, project report, invoices or any other financial document(s) to demonstrate that any actual loss was suffered by it on account of supply of alleged defective goods by the defendant. There is further no material on record to show that the plaintiff had incurred any additional expenditure, suffered any delay, penalty or other adverse contractual consequences on account of supply of defective goods by the defendant.Page 9 of 26
CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026
17. It is settled position under the law that the damages must not only be pleaded, but must also be strictly proved through cogent and credible evidence. Mere allegations, without proof cannot entitle a party to any monetary decree. In this regard, reference could be had to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case reported as, "(1999) 7 SCC 435", titled as, "Ravinder Kumar Sharma V/s The State of Assam & Ors." (DOD: 14.09.1999), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that claim for damages which are not supported by evidence cannot be granted merely on the basis of averments.
18. In case reported as, "AIR 1962 SC 366", titled as, "Murlidhar Chiranjilal V/s M/s Harishchandra Dwarkadas & Anr." (DOD:
29.03.1961), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the damages cannot be awarded on speculation and must be proved with reasonable certainty.
19. Further, in case reported as, "AIR 1984 SC 1703", titled as, "A.T Brij Paul Singh & Ors. V/s State of Gujarat" (DOD: 25.07.1984), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to reiterate the settled position in law that a party claiming damages must prove actual loss suffered and cannot rely upon hypothetical or exaggerated claims.
20. A perusal of the material on record reveals that there is not only complete absence of documentary proof, but even the basic Page 10 of 26 CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026 ingredients necessary to sustain a claim for damages are missing. The plaintiff has not led evidence to establish the nature of alleged loss, the casual connection between the alleged defect and the purported damages and the method on the basis of which the figure of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) has been arrived at.
21. In the cross-examination PW-1 has admitted having retained the supplied goods and taken no steps to return the same or to mitigate the alleged loss. A party cannot retain the goods, continue to enjoy their benefits and at the same time claim damages without any proof. PW-1 in his cross-examination has made material admission in this regard, which go to the root of the matter as he has categorically admitted that no document has been filed to substantiate the alleged damages and more specifically no project report from Rajasthan where the supplied goods had been used and the alleged damages in respect whereof have been claimed were ever assessed. In this regard, reference can be had to the Question Nos.27 to 30, put to PW-1 in his cross-examination, which for ready reference are re-produced hereunder:
xxxxx Q27: Have you shown in your books of account any loss incurred to the plaintiff company as a result of sub-standard goods received from the defendant?
Ans.: It is correct that no loss was shown in the books of account. However, it is mentioned in the Rajasthan Project Report.Page 11 of 26
CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026 Q28: It is correct that the said Rajasthan Project Report is not filed on record by the plaintiff?
Ans.: Yes, I have not filed.
Q29: Have you filed any document reflecting the loss of Rs.10,00,000/-, as claimed by you in your suit for damages?
Ans.: No, I have not filed any document reflecting the loss of Rs.10,.00,000/-. Vol. It is mentioned in the Rajasthan Project Report.
Q30: Is it correct that the damages which you have claimed of Rs.10,00,000/- have been evaluated in thin air and without any substantive proof and documents?
Ans.: It is wrong.
xxxxx
22. The plaintiff is a private limited company which is entitled to authorize a person acquainted with the facts to sign, verify and institute a suit on its behalf or depose in the Court on the basis of a Board Resolution having been passed after recording the Minutes of Meeting. PW-1 has not proved any such Board Resolution in his favour for deposing in the matter. The relevant part of his cross-examination in this regard is re- produced hereunder:
xxxxx Q1: What is your position in plaintiff company?
Ans.: I am Account Administrator.Page 12 of 26
CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026 Q2: Can you tell the date of Board Meeting held wherein you were appointed as the A.R of the company?
Ans.: I do not know the exact date. Vol. About 3-4 months ago.
Q3: Whether you were present at the time of Board Meeting?
Ans.: No. Vol. The meeting was held by the Directors of the company, later on they informed us the appointment of the A.R in any case.
Q4: Have you brought the original books of Board of Meeting?
Ans.: No. Q5: Who have you the brief of this present case? Ans.: Erstwhile A.R Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj gave me the briefs of the present matter.
xxxxx
23. Therefore, PW-1 cannot be treated to be an authorized person to depose in the matter.
24. It is evident that the entire foundation of plaintiff's case rests upon the alleged Purchase Order dated 20.04.2022 (Ex.PW1/7), which is sought to be projected as the "binding contract" between the parties; whereas, it is further evident that the Proforma Invoice dated 21.04.2022 (Ex.PW1/8) was admittedly acted upon between the parties. Let us see the position in this regard in the evidence. Questions No.9 to 14 put to Page 13 of 26 CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026 PW-1 in his cross-examination in this regard are very relevant, which for ready reference are re-produced hereunder:
xxxxx Q9: Whether any acceptance/acknowledgment was sent by the defendant to the Purchase Order dated 20.04.2022 sent via e.mail to the defendant, wherein terms and conditions were stipulated?
Ans.: I do not remember.
It is wrong to suggest that the quotation and terms and conditions dated 20.04.2022 mentioned in the email dated 20.04.2022 were never acknowledged and accepted by the defendant in any manner whatsoever.
Q10: I put it to you that the defendant has sent email dated 21.04.2022 to the plaintiff thereby citing the guarantee and warranty of the goods alongwith his quotation with proforma invoice which were intended to be purchased by the plaintiff. What do you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct.
Q11: I put it to you that the invoices generated by the defendant against the plaintiff company were in accordance with the email dated 21.04.2022 which were sent by the defendant to the plaintiff company. What do you have to say?
Ans.: Yes, it is correct that the invoices generated by the defendant against the plaintiff company were in accordance with the email dated 21.04.2022 which were sent by the defendant to the plaintiff company.
Page 14 of 26CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026 Q12: I put it to you that you had impliedly agreed to the guarantee and warranty of the goods alongwith the defendant's quotation with Proforma Invoice which were intended to be purchased by the plaintiff. What do you have to say?
Ans.: I do not remember.
Q13: Can you tell when did you receive the first order which was placed by the plaintiff to the defendant?
Ans.: It may be received in May/June' 2022.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the plaintiff is whispering to his witness which has been objected to by learned counsel for the defendant.
It is objected to by learned counsel for the plaintiff that he was talking about something personal with the witness.
Q14: I put it to you that terms and conditions mentioned in para 9 were not agreed by the defendant at any point of time as it was part of email dated 20.04.2022. What do you have to say?
Ans.: I do not remember.
xxxxx
25. The tenor of the witness/PW-1 is very clear and categorical that he pleaded ignorance to the questions with regard to the Proforma Invoice and acting upon thereof by the parties.
Page 15 of 26CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026
26. Therefore, it can be safely held that the Purchase Order dated 20.04.2022 (Ex.PW1/7) never crystallized into a binding contract and on the contrary on account of subsequent conduct of the parties, it was the Proforma Invoice dated 21.04.2022 (Ex.PW1/8) which became a binding contract and as such the plaintiff cannot rely upon the terms and conditions contained in Purchase Order Ex.PW1/7.
27. The learned counsel for the plaintiff very voiceforcily argued that the goods supplied were second hand goods and not fresh one, which had been agreed to be supplied by the defendant. Let us see whether the plaintiff has been able to prove the defect in goods. It is evident that the plaintiff had received goods on 21.04.2022 and it had made part-payment in respect thereof, however, after August' 2022 for the first time plaintiff raised the issue of defect in goods. In this regard, Question No.18 of the cross-examination of PW-1 is very important which shows that after Proforma Invoice was acted upon between the parties, subsequent Purchase Order was also issued by the plaintiff to the defendant and goods in respect thereof were also received. As if this was not enough, later on PW-1 in his cross-examination stated as under:
xxxxx Q17: Can you tell the date of email when the objections qua the quality of the goods were communicated to the defendant?
Ans.: I do not remember. Vol. I do not remember the exact date, however, it started from May' 2022 itself.Page 16 of 26
CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026 It is wrong to suggest that no objections qua the quality of the goods were communicated to the defendant post the receipt of goods against the first purchase order.
Q19: How was the objection qua the quality of goods was communicated to the defendant?
Ans.: Firstly, in the month of May' 2022 via telephonically and later on in the month of August' 2022 via email regarding the quality of goods.
Q20: Is it correct that the alleged substandard goods are still in your possession?
Ans.: Yes, it is correct.
Q21: Have you ever made any communication to the defendant to take back the alleged substandard goods? If yes, then when?
Ans.: Yes, I communicated to the defendant to take back the alleged substandard goods via email on 08.08.2022.
.............
Q24: Is it correct that the defendant sent you emails for making the remaining payment of Rs.1,90,000/- approx?
Ans.: Yes, it is correct. Vol. It was informed to the defendant that the goods were substandard, but despite that the defendant demanded the balance payment of Rs.1,90,000/-.
xxxxx Page 17 of 26 CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026
28. A careful reading of the aforesaid cross-examination of PW-1, as appearing in the aforesaid questions reveals that almost after four months of the receipt of the goods, for the first time alleged defect in the goods were pointed out that too not with regard to the efficacy of the material, but to the extent that it was a second hand material. There is clearly no contemporaneous complaint or notice raised by the plaintiff at the time of receipt of goods or after lapse of reasonable time thereof. It has only been stated that the objection with regard to the defect in goods was raised telephonically and later on via email, but no such e.mail(s) have been proved on record by the plaintiff. It is also evident that the plaintiff had received the notice of balance due to the defendant, which was informed to it through e.mail by the defendant.
29. Even there is no notice worth the name contemplated under Section 42 of Sales of Goods Act, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") placed on record by the plaintiff to substantiate that the material/goods supplied by the defendant were sub-standard/defective in nature. Section 42 of the "Act" for ready reference is re-produced hereunder:
xxxxx
42. Acceptance.--
The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them, or when the goods have been delivered to him and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller, or when, after the lapse of a reasonable time, he retains Page 18 of 26 CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026 the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them.
xxxxx
30. Thus, Section 42 of the "Act" creates a deeming fiction where the goods are deemed to have been accepted when the buyer intimates to the seller that he has accepted them or when the goods have been delivered to the buyer, who acts in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller, or when the buyer retains the goods without issuing intimation of rejection after lapse of "reasonable time".
31. (i) On the aspect of "reasonable time" regarding intimation of defect in goods by a buyer to the supplier, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case reported as, "RFA (OS) No.65/2015", titled as, "M/s S&S Technocarft (P) Ltd. V/s Rathi Steel Limited" (DOD: 17.08.2015) has been pleased to lay down as under:
xxxxx
15. The only issue which would arise would be as to what would be the reasonable time to intimate rejection of the goods. The goods, as to be noted from the supply order and the bills raised pursuant thereto, are MS bars of different diameters. The inspection of the said goods would at best require a week's time and since it is not the case of either party that the appellant had previously examined the goods and thus giving the appellant the right under Section 41 of the Sale of Goods Act, to a reasonable opportunity to examine the goods, the time for the reasonable opportunity would be at best a week. If within said reasonable time the appellant Page 19 of 26 CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026 did not intimate rejection of the goods, as per the mandate of Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, the goods would be deemed to be accepted. The rejection of the goods on the allegation of the same not being of good quality on November 27, 2009 is sans any particulars of how the goods were not of good quality. The rejection has thus to be treated as a sham and a pleading relating thereto has to be treated as a moonshine.
xxxxx (underlining which is mine emphasized)
(ii) On somewhat similar aspect, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case reported as, "RFA Nos.1007/2017 & 1014/2017", titled as, "M/s KCL Limited V/s Thomson Press India Limited" (DOD: 06.12.2017) has been pleased to observe as under:
xxxxx
8. In my opinion even if this clause of four days for raising a grievance was not there, yet, the appellant/defendant was bound by virtue of Section 42 of the Sales of Goods Act, 1930. As per this provision once no objection is raised within a reasonable period of time with respect to alleged defects in the goods, then, the buyer cannot thereafter object to any defect in the goods. Trial court has in this regard referred to this provision of the Sales of Goods Act in para 55 of the impugned judgment and this para 55 reads as under:-
"55. In case of sales of goods, as per provisions of Sales of Goods Act 1930, under the provisions of section 41 and 42, it is the responsibility of buyer to examine the goods before accepting the delivery.Page 20 of 26
CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026 Section 41 clearly mandates that where goods have been delivered to buyer which have not been previously examined, buyer will not deem to have accepted the same unless he has reasonable opportunity of examining the goods to ascertain whether goods are in conformity with contract. However, Section 42 mandates that buyer will deem to have accepted the goods when he either actually intimates to the seller regarding acceptance of goods or where he does any act in relation to those goods which is in consistent to the ownership of seller or when after lapse of a reasonable time buyers retains the goods without intimation of rejection of the same. In the present case also, when there were already expressed conditions of sale for inspection of the goods, still there being no communication from defendant for period of about two months since the lastly accepting of goods of printed inlay cards and folders to the effect that there is any defect in the printing work, in view of the conditions of sale and the provisions of section 42 as discussed above, defendant company will deem to have accepted the material without there being any defects."
9. A reading of the aforesaid discussion as also the relevant paras of the impugned judgment of the trial court show that the trial court was justified in arriving at a finding that no objection was raised with respect to invoices upto 31.10.2001. Once never any objection was raised with respect to defective work thus this lack of challenge to Page 21 of 26 CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026 defective work became final as against the appellant/defendant by virtue of Section 42 of the Sales of Goods Act.
xxxxx (underlining which is mine emphasized)
(iii) In case reported as, "RFA No.478/2007", titled as, "Charlie Creations Pvt. Ltd. V/s Chahat Creations Pvt. Ltd." (DOD: 06.02.2009), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to lay down as under:
xxxxx
8. The trial court on issue No.2 observed that the liability of six bills came to Rs.19,21,180.78. The payment of Rs.16,67,775/- was made by the defendant, therefore, only a sum of Rs.2,53,405.78 was due and payable by the defendant. It was observed by the learned trial court that under the Sales of Goods Act, the presumption is that if there did not exist any defect in the goods, no counter claim has been set up by the defendant claiming damages to supply defects, it cannot be presumed that deductions are made on the ground of infirmities in the goods.
xxxxx
(iv) Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case reported as, "RFA No.479/2006", titled as, "M/s Kumar Industries V/s Suresh Kumar Mittal" (DOD: 10.10.2018) has been pleased to lay down as under:
xxxxx
6. The trial court has rejected the defence of the appellant/defendant, praying for dismissal of the suit, while holding that the appellant/defendant has failed to prove that the said defective goods were Page 22 of 26 CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026 returned as the Challan documents/Ex.DW1/1 and Ex.DW1/2 did not bear any signatures on the receipt of the respondent/plaintiff of the alleged defective materials which were claimed to have been returned by the appellant/defendant, owing to the fact that Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 provides that goods are deemed to be accepted if rejection of the goods is not communicated in reasonable period of time. It is noted that for the first Bill no.01 dated 15.05.2000, the reasonable period would be one month i.e. up to 15.06.2000, and for the Bill no.07 dated 10.07.2000 the period of one month would expire on 10.08.2000 and for the third Bill no.011 dated 30.9.2000 the period would expire on 30.10.2000. Admittedly, in these periods of 30 days after receipt of the goods, no intimation has been proved by the appellant/defendant which they have served upon the respondent/plaintiff in terms of Section 42 of Sale of Goods Act about the goods supplied by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant of being defective. Even the so-
called Challans Ex.DW1/1 and Ex.DW1/2 which in any case have not been proved to show the return of goods by the appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff with the fact that these Challans are dated 30.03.2001, and the date of 30.03.2001 is not a reasonable period as per Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, and therefore, the trial court in my opinion has rightly held that the appellant/defendant is deemed to have accepted the goods.
xxxxx
32. In the end, whether non-filing of application under Order XI Rule 6 CPC or Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [now Section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023], the Page 23 of 26 CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026 electronic evidence can be deemed to be admitted merely for non-filing of Affidavit of admission/denial of documents or the defendant itself having filed some of the said documents.
33. The admissibility of electronic evidence is a critical aspect of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA) and the Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam (BSA). The admissibility of electronic evidence determines whether it can be presented in court as evidence to prove or disprove a fact in issue. It is noteworthy that the subject matter of Section 65-A & 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 is a proof of information contained in the electronic records. The marginal note to Section 65-A indicates that "special provisions" as to evidence relating to electronic records are laid down in this provision. The marginal note to Section 65-B then refers to "admissibility of electronic records".
34. Under Sub-section (4) of Section 65-B, a Certificate is to be produced that identifies the electronic record containing the statement and describes the manner in which it is produced, or gives particulars of the device involved in the production of the electronic record to show that the electronic record was produced by a computer, by either a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device; or a person who is in the management of "relevant activities", whichever is appropriate. What is also of importance is that it shall be sufficient for such matter to be stated to the "best of the Page 24 of 26 CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026 knowledge and belief of the person stating it". Here, "doing any of the following things..." must be read as doing all of the following things, it being well settled that the expression "any" can mean "all" given the context. This being the case, the conditions mentioned in Section 65-B(4) must also be interpreted as being cumulative
35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as, "Civil Appeal Nos.20825-20826 of 2017", tilted as, "Arjun Panditrao Khotkar V/s Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal And Ors." (DOD: 14.07.2020), has been pleased to observe in para 61 as under:
xxxxx "61. We may reiterate, therefore, that the certificate required under Section 65-B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record, as correctly held in Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer [(2014) 10 SCC 473], and incorrectly "clarified" in Shafhi Mohammad Vs. State of H.P. [(2018) 2 SCC 801]. Oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice as Section 65-B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law."
xxxxx
36. It is settled principle of law that an electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65-B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc. the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65-B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is Page 25 of 26 CS (Comm) No.575/2023: M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Indian Trenchless Tools Solutions: DOD: 02.05.2026 inadmissible. If any electronic record as such is used as primary evidence, then the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance with the conditions in Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.
37. Considering the matter from all possible angles, the plaintiff has miserably failed in proving damages claimed in the matter. The Issue No.(i) is accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
38. Issue No.(ii):
If answer to aforesaid issue is in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest thereupon. If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
Since, issue No.(i) has already been decided against the plaintiff and this issue being consequential to issue No.(i), the same has been rendered infructuous and is accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
Relief
39. In view of my specific findings on issue No.(i), suit of the plaintiff being without any merits stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
40. Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly.
41. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities. Digitally signed VINOD byYADAV VINOD YADAV Date: 2026.05.02 16:44:04 +0530 Dictated & Announced in the (Vinod Yadav) open Court on 02.05.2026 District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 North-West/Rohini Court Page 26 of 26