Delhi District Court
Deepali Goyal vs Sonal Fabricators Pvt Ltd on 20 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-04
DISTRICT WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM) No. 923/2024
CNR No. DLWT01-009311-2024
Deepali Goyal
S/o Sh. Kamal Kishore Goyal,
Flat No. 103, Tower-1,
Beverly Park Apartments,
Sector-22, Dwarka,
New Delhi ........... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Sonal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd.
Flat No. 402, EMAR EMERALD FLOORS PREMIER,
Tower 45, Sector-65,
Near World Mark Shopping Mall,
Gurugram, Haryana -122018
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
Mob:- 9115753555,8265013243, 8059700018 ............. Defendant
Date of Institution of suit : 23.10.2024
Date of reserving judgment : 04.12.2025
Date of pronouncement : 20.12.2025
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 6,85,000/- ALONGWITH
INTEREST @12% P.A. PENDENTELITE AND FUTURE
Appearance
Sh. Sanjay Sehgal, Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff
Sh. Sandeep Khairwal & Sh. Hitesh Bhardwaj, Ld Counsel for
Defendant
JUDGMENT
1. This judgement shall dispose of suit for recovery of Rs.
6,85,000/- filed by plaintiff against the defendant company.
CS(Comm.) 923/2024 Deepali Goyal v. Sonal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. DoJ 20.12.2025 Page No.1 of 17
2. It is stated in the plaint that defendant, a registered company under the Companies Act having its office at A-1/13 A, Double Storey Flats, Major Ashwini Kanav Marg, Near Gurudwara, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, was in dire need of money and approached the plaintiff through its directors for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as loan to meet certain financial exigencies. Plaintiff was not interested in advancing the loan, but after repeated request, the defendant succeeded to manipulate the plaintiff for loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- along with interest of 12% per annum offered by defendant's director with promise to return the amount with interest within a year.
3. Plaintiff transferred the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- through his cheque bearing No. 043403, A/c No. 6478101000452 drawn on Canara Bank. Plaintiff claims to have maintained a ledger account in the defendant name. It has been stated that defendant did not pay a single penny and kept on putting off the payment on one pretext or other. Plaintiff thereafter got issued a legal notice dated 19.06.2024, but defendant avoided to make payment. Plaintiff thereafter preferred pre-litigation mediation, but it remained non-starter due to absence of defendant. Hence, plaintiff was compelled to file the present suit for recovery of Rs. 5,00,000/- along with interest of Rs. 1,85,000/- accrued thereon till the filing of the suit , at the rate of 12% per annum.
4. Defendant in its written statement raised preliminary objection regarding non arising of cause of action in favour of plaintiff, CS(Comm.) 923/2024 Deepali Goyal v. Sonal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. DoJ 20.12.2025 Page No.2 of 17 non-impleadment of directors of the defendant, plaint having not been drafted as per the provisions of commercial courts act, the dispute involved in the present plaint did not fall within the category of commercial dispute and that this court have no territorial jurisdiction. On merits it denied having its office at the address mentioned in the memo of parties. It admitted that plaintiff was having acquainted with the director of the defendant company as she is daughter of Shri Kamal Kishore Goel. It is claimed that defendant was not available on the address given in the memo parties and plaintiff knew that defendant had shifted from Paschim Vihar to Gurgaon. It denied that it had approached the plaintiff for loan to meet the dire need of financial agencies or that it succeeded in manipulating the plaintiff to advance loan by offering 12% interest and promising to return it within a year.
5. Defendant further submitted that plaintiff had presented twisted facts in order to mislead the court. It is stated that father of the plaintiff Shri Kamal Kishore is the real uncle of defendant's director Shri Rohit Arya and Vikas Arya from the mother side and Shri Kamal Kishore Goel was involved in transportation of LPG, commonly known as cooking gas in LPG tanker for leading oil companies of the country like IOCL, HPCL and BPCL. It has been stated that father of the plaintiff Shri Kamal Kishore Goel was accused in numerous fraudulent activities and had spent a good amount of time in jail and was out on bail and to make a living and to run household, the defendant's CS(Comm.) 923/2024 Deepali Goyal v. Sonal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. DoJ 20.12.2025 Page No.3 of 17 director Shri Rohit Arya had been helping the plaintiff's father in their for business, and for that very purpose this amount was received by the defendant in its Bank as it was mutually decided that the father of the plaintiff through plaintiff would pay an amount of Rs.12,50,000 /- plus GST for LPG vessels of 21 MT and Rs. 6,50,000/- plus GST for the running gear of one set. In order to execute the same, the father of the plaintiff through the plaintiff's account deposited five lakh each in defendant's account for the LPG vessels of 21 MT as advance and in M/s Cryolin Private Limited for the running gear as advance. With a view to help out a person who had been running in such stress, the defendant with its own resources invested heavily on the tank and upon asking for the remaining payment, the defendant always got false hopes of the payment. The tanks had been lying in the factory of the defendant since the last three years which resulted in huge losses of interest on the defendant. Hence, defendant had denied its liability either to pay the alleged principal amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- lacs or the interest accrued thereon amounting to Rs.1,85,000/-.
6. Plaintiff in its replication reiterated the contents of the plaint while denying the allegation made by the defendant in its written statement.
7. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed vide order dated 03.04.2025:-
1. Whether the dispute involved in the present suit does CS(Comm.) 923/2024 Deepali Goyal v. Sonal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. DoJ 20.12.2025 Page No.4 of 17 not fall under the category of commercial dispute? Onus on parties.
2. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount along with interest, as prayed for? OPP
4. Relief
8. In order to prove her case, plaintiff examine her attorney (her father) Shri Kamal Goel as PW1 who filed his affidavit in examination-in-chief Ex PW1/A wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint while relying upon SPA in his favour, Ex. PW1/1, ledger account Ex. PW1/2, legal notice Ex. PW1/3, postal receipts Ex. PW1/4 and Ex. PW1/5, email Ex. PW1/6, non-starter report Ex. PW1/7 and certificate under section 65B of Evidence Act Ex. PW1/8. He was duly cross examined by the counsel for defendant. Thereafter plaintiff closed her evidence.
9. In order to prove its case, defendant examined Shri Pritam Kumar Senior manager, Canara Bank as DW1. He sought to prove the notice under Section 13(2) SARFAESI Act along with schedule A, B & C issued to the defendant company and its director Mark A (colly) running into six pages, copy of possession letter dated 25.04.2023 Mark B, copy of attested copy of notice issued under section 13(4) SARFAESI Act to the defendant Company and its directors running into six pages CS(Comm.) 923/2024 Deepali Goyal v. Sonal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. DoJ 20.12.2025 Page No.5 of 17 along with postal receipts Ex. DW1/A (colly) and copy of confirmation notice dated 21.08.2023 Mark C running into 4 pages. Defendant further examine Shri Rakesh Kumar JA/Ahlmad in the court of Ms. Vineeta Goyal, who brought the judicial record of case bearing CS(Comm.) No. 916/2024 titled as "Deepali Goyal v. Cryolin Private Limited" and copy of order dated 14.11.2024 Ex. DW2/1, copy of the plaint of the said case Ex. DW2/2.
10. At final arguments, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff contended that defendant had not disputed that it received the payment but had offered a different version regarding payment received towards tank manufacturing etc. but did not lead any evidence to prove that father of the plaintiff was into any such business and had placed any order for manufacturing tank as pleaded and therefore defendant was under obligation to return this amount along with interest as claimed for. He further contended that defendant had miserably failed to prove that the dispute involved was not a commercial dispute or that it did not have register office within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. He contended that even till date in the records of ROC the registered office of the defendant Company was shown to be at Paschim Vihar which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Hence he pleaded for granting the relief as claimed for.
11. Ld. Counsel for defendant contended that the dispute as pleaded by the plaintiff was not a commercial dispute and was not CS(Comm.) 923/2024 Deepali Goyal v. Sonal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. DoJ 20.12.2025 Page No.6 of 17 covered under the definition of commercial dispute and therefore this court have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim of the plaintiff. He further contended that even otherwise this Court had no territorial jurisdiction as the defendant had shifted from Paschim Vihar to Gurgaon and this fact was within the knowledge of the plaintiff. He therefore contended that this court had no territorial jurisdiction. He further contended that plaintiff did not examine herself and the attorney whom plaintiff examine did not have personal knowledge of the alleged transaction and it had been held repeatedly by Hon'ble Supreme Court that an attorney could depose only about those fact which he dealt with himself as an attorney of the principal. He therefore contended that testimony of the AR of the plaintiff was of no value and consequently plaintiff miserably failed to prove her case and therefore suit is liable to be dismissed.
12. Having heard rival submissions of the parties, judicial file perused. Pleadings, testimonies, material on record and respective contention of the parties taken into consideration. Issuewise findings are as under:
ISSUE No.1:- Whether the dispute involved in the present suit does not fall under the category of commercial dispute? Onus on parties.
13. Onus of this has been placed on both parties meaning thereby that plaintiff is required to convince the court that the dispute is commercial as defined in the Commercial Courts Act and defendant has got to convince that the dispute is not CS(Comm.) 923/2024 Deepali Goyal v. Sonal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. DoJ 20.12.2025 Page No.7 of 17 commercial. The issue has to be decided with reference to case set up by the plaintiff assuming it to be true. The case of the plaintiff is that she has advanced loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest of 12% p.a. to the defendant to help it meet its dire financial exigencies. Plaintiff has claimed to have maintained ledger account.
14. Section 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015, defines the expression "commercial dispute" comprehensively. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Meena Vohra v. Masters Hosts Pvt. Ltd.
2025:DHC:1795 (decided on 18.03.2025) took extensive discussion to explained what "commercial dispute" stand defined in CC Act, 2015 and after enumerating Section 2(1)(c) of the CC Act, 2015 it held as under:-
"23. This provision sets forth an exhaustive enumeration comprising twenty two specific categories of disputes that qualify as commercial disputes. By providing this exhaustive list, the legislature has unequivocally articulated the scope and extent of matters falling within the definition of "commercial dispute" thereby ensuring clarity, precision, and predictability in its application. The exhaustive nature of the enumeration underscores the legislative intent to prevent ambiguity and arbitrariness by way of over-breadth or under- reach, thereby facilitating a clear demarcation of the jurisdictional boundaries of commercial courts. Consequently, disputes falling squarely within any of these stipulated categories can readily be identified and addressed under the special mechanisms envisaged by the Act of 2015, thereby streamlining litigation and enhancing judicial efficiency in commercial matters.
24. The Supreme Court in the case of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP (2020) 15 SCC 585, explained the provisions of the Act of 2015 and held that merely on account of high value, a suit cannot be filed before a Commercial Court, particularly where it does not relate to a "commercial dispute" and held as under:-
CS(Comm.) 923/2024 Deepali Goyal v. Sonal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. DoJ 20.12.2025 Page No.8 of 17 "13. The learned Senior Advocate for the appellant would however, contend that a strict interpretation as in the case of taxing statutes would not be appropriate in the instant case where the issue relates to jurisdiction. In that regard, the learned Senior Advocate has referred to the Statement of Objects and Reasons with which the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is enacted so as to provide speedy disposal of high value commercial disputes so as to create the positive image to the investors world about the independent and responsive Indian legal system. Hence, he contends that a purposive interpretation be made. It is contended that a wider purport and meaning is to be assigned while entertaining the suit and considering the dispute to be a commercial dispute. Having taken note of the submission we feel that the very purpose for which the CC Act of 2015 has been enacted would be defeated if every other suit merely because it is filed before the Commercial Court is entertained. This is for the reason that the suits which are not actually relating to commercial dispute but being filed merely because of the high value and with the intention of seeking early disposal would only clog the system and block the way for the genuine commercial disputes which may have to be entertained by the Commercial Courts as intended by the lawmakers. In commercial disputes as defined a special procedure is provided for a class of litigation and a strict procedure will have to be followed to entertain only that class of litigation in that jurisdiction. If the same is strictly interpreted it is not as if those excluded will be non-suited without any remedy. The excluded class of litigation will in any event be entertained in the ordinary civil courts wherein the remedy has always existed.
14. In that view it is also necessary to carefully examine and entertain only disputes which actually answers the definition "commercial disputes" as provided under the Act. In the instant case, as already taken note neither the agreement between the parties refers to the nature of the immovable property being exclusively used for trade or commerce as on the date of the agreement nor is there any pleading to that effect in the plaint. Further the very relief sought in the suit is for execution of the mortgage deed which is in the nature of specific performance of the terms of Memorandum of Understanding without reference to nature of the use of the immovable property in trade or commerce as on the date of the suit. Therefore, if all these aspects are kept in view, we are of the opinion that in the present facts the High Court was justified in its conclusion arrived through the order dated 1- 3-2019 impugned herein. The Commercial Court shall therefore return the plaint indicating a date for its presentation before the Court having jurisdiction".
CS(Comm.) 923/2024 Deepali Goyal v. Sonal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. DoJ 20.12.2025 Page No.9 of 17
25. Out of the twenty-two categories referred above, the category which is of primary relevance here is defined under Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the Act of 2015, which pertains to ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents, including enforcement and interpretation of such documents.
26. In Kailash Devi Khanna v. DD Global Capital Ltd. 2019 SCC Online Del 9954 this Court emphasized that not all suits for monetary recovery qualify as "commercial dispute" under the Act of 2015. The Court specifically observed that for a claim to fall under Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the Act of 2015, it must pertain to "ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers, and traders," involving mercantile documents and their enforcement or interpretation. The Court further held that a suit merely seeking recovery of money, without any connection to mercantile transactions or documents, does not meet the criteria of a "commercial dispute" and, therefore, cannot be filed as a commercial suit. Filing a civil suit under the commercial courts' jurisdiction, without meeting these requirements, amounts to a misuse of the specialized forum meant for expeditious resolution of genuine business disputes, ultimately hindering the adjudication of legitimate commercial cases.
27. Further, the High Court at Calcutta in Ladymoon Towers (P) Ltd. v. Mahendra Investments Advisors (P) Ltd. 2021 SCC Online Cal 4240, clarified that a "commercial dispute"
involves transactions typically of merchants, financiers, and traders, and emphasized that disputes should be assessed on the substance of the case rather than procedural objections. Similarly, in Rolta (P) Ltd. v. Varanium Cloud Ltd. 2024 SCC Online Bom. 3518 the High Court at Bombay reiterated that a "commercial dispute" under the Act of 2015 must relate to commercial transactions and not personal loans or other non- commercial engagements. In both these cases, the Courts ruled that disputes arising from personal loans, even if advanced for business purposes, do not qualify as "commercial dispute" under the definition provided in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015.
28. On a plain reading of Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the Act of 2015 juxtaposed with the judicial pronouncements discussed above, it is crystal clear that the qualification attached in Section 2(1)(c)(i) is not that of "ordinary transaction" as it clearly means that not all ordinary transactions would come CS(Comm.) 923/2024 Deepali Goyal v. Sonal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. DoJ 20.12.2025 Page No.10 of 17 under the purview of the "commercial dispute", rather only those ordinary transactions that concern merchants, bankers, financiers and traders, and relate to mercantile documents, would come under the purview of the "commercial dispute". Having said so, it would be apposite to note that sub-clause
(i) is primarily composed of two elements - firstly, "ordinary transactions" between merchants, bankers, financiers and traders; secondly, such transactions must be based upon mercantile documents. It further clarifies that any issue regarding the interpretation or enforcement of such mercantile documents executed between merchants, bankers, financiers and traders would be covered within the ambit of "commercial dispute". The overall scheme of the Act of 2015 and the intent underlying therein indicate that both elements must co-exist for a dispute to be termed as a "commercial dispute".
29. At this juncture, it is now necessary to analyze the meaning and significance of "mercantile documents" within the framework of commercial disputes. The Act of 2015 does not define "mercantile documents" as such, however, the plain meaning of "mercantile" pertains to matters related to trade and commerce. In its ordinary usage, the term "mercantile document" refers to a document associated with merchants, trade, or commercial transactions.
30. Since the Act of 2015 does not provide a specific definition, the ordinary meaning must be assigned to it. As per Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "mercantile" is referred to as "of or relating to merchants or trade." The Oxford English Dictionary states it as "relating to trade or commerce". The Cambridge Dictionary describes it as "related to trade or commerce", while the Collins Dictionary defines it as "relating to merchants or commerce".
31. Reference can be made to Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, which defines "mercantile" as "an act relating to a merchant or trading and being commercial in nature. This interpretation suggests that for a dispute to be categorized as a "commercial dispute", the transaction should be supported by a document that records, governs, or evidences trade, commerce, or business activity. The absence of such a document certainly raises doubts as to whether a dispute can be classified as a "commercial dispute" under the provisions of the Act of 2015. A dispute qualifies as a "commercial dispute" when it arises from transactions involving merchants, bankers, financiers, or traders, and relates to CS(Comm.) 923/2024 Deepali Goyal v. Sonal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. DoJ 20.12.2025 Page No.11 of 17 mercantile documents, including their enforcement and interpretation. Pertinently, the essence of a "commercial dispute" inherently carries a commercial flavour, encompassing elements of trade and business.
32. Understanding the role of "mercantile documents" in commercial disputes necessitates an examination of specific instruments commonly used in trade and finance. One such crucial instrument is "commercial paper", which plays a significant role in business transactions by facilitating payments and credit arrangements. Since "commercial paper"
itself forms the basis of a commercial dispute, it becomes essential to analyze how a mercantile document must fit within the definition of "commercial paper" to qualify as part of a commercial dispute. By defining "commercial paper", the scope of mercantile documents and their significance in determining the nature of commercial disputes under the Act of 2015 can be better understood.
33. The "commercial paper" is also defined in the Black's Law Dictionary as an instrument other than cash for the payment of money and includes negotiable instruments of a particular kind, in the following manner:
"commercial paper": 1. An instrument, other than cash, for the payment of money. "commercial paper"
- typically existing in the form of a draft (such as a check) or a note (such as a certificate of deposit) - is governed by Article 3 of the UCC. But even though the UCC uses the term "commercial paper" when referring to negotiable instruments of a particular kind (drafts, checks, certificates of deposit, and notes as defined by Article 3), the term long predates the UCC as a business and legal term in common use. Before the UCC, it was generally viewed as synonymous with negotiable paper or bills and notes. It was sometimes applied even to nonnegotiable instruments.
- Also termed mercantile paper; company's paper. See NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT.
"commercial paper" is rather a popular than a technical expression, often used, however, both in statutes and in decisions of courts, to 20 designate those simple forms of contract long recognized in the world's commerce and governed by the law merchant.
Defined most broadly,"commercial paper" refers to any writing embodying rights that are customarily conveyed by transferring the writing. A large subset of CS(Comm.) 923/2024 Deepali Goyal v. Sonal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. DoJ 20.12.2025 Page No.12 of 17 "commercial paper" consists of such writings that are negotiable, which means that the law enables a transferee to acquire the embodied rights free of claims and defences against the transferor.
34. From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that mercantile documents, including "commercial paper", play a pivotal role in determining the nature of a "commercial dispute" under the Act of 2015. The classification of a dispute as commercial hinges upon the presence of such documents, which serve as concrete evidence of trade and financial transactions. However, it is equally important to note that the term "mercantile documents" could not be constrained within the strict confines of judicial interpretation. The word "document" is defined in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhinyam, 2023 (earlier "Indian Evidence Act, 1872") and the definition is fairly expansive. Any document of a formal nature which serves as a record of a commercial transaction or trade between merchants, traders etc. could qualify as a "mercantile document". The nature of the document may be relevant in determining the real nature of the dispute as it would reveal the element of commercial flavour, however, the real nature of a document is to be determined on a case to case basis and the general expression used by the legislature cannot be curtailed to narrow down the scope of application of the Act of 2015 in any manner. The real test to determine whether a particular document qualifies as a "mercantile document" is whether merchants, bankers, financiers or traders would ordinarily 21 execute such a document to record a commercial/mercantile transaction, having regard to the prevailing practices and extant law. The presence of the word "mercantile" narrows down the scope of the word "documents" and thus, the mere presence of a document evidencing the transaction is not enough unless the document qualifies as a mercantile document in the sense discussed above."
15. Admittedly, present transaction as per the case of the plaintiff is without execution of any document not to speak of mercantile documents. Admittedly, plaintiff is neither a banker nor a trader nor a merchant nor had any business dealing with the defendant. Aforesaid discussed judgement rules that merely CS(Comm.) 923/2024 Deepali Goyal v. Sonal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. DoJ 20.12.2025 Page No.13 of 17 because loan amount is payable with interest or that same was to be used by the defendant for its business purpose would not make the transaction commercial particular in the absence of mercantile documents as discussed above in the afore said quoted judgement. Hence, in view of the rulings in Meena Vohra (supra) which itself has relied upon many case laws defining the term "commercial dispute", present dispute/transaction cannot be termed as "commercial dispute"
and accordingly, issue No.1 is hereby decided in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE No. 2:- Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD.
16. Onus to prove this issue is also upon the defendant. It is the claim of the defendant that plaintiff was admittedly not residing or working for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and defendant was no longer available at its Pachim Vihar and had shifted to Gurgaon, therefore, this Court had no territorial jurisdiction. In order to show its shifting from Paschim Vihar, defendant examined DW1Sh. Preetam Kumar, Sr. Manager, Canara Bank, he brought documents to the effect that proceedings under under SARFAESI Act was initiated against defendant's Pachim Vihar property and possession thereof was taken over and therefore defendant was no longer available in Pachim Vihar.
17. Perusal of theses documents would show that proceedings CS(Comm.) 923/2024 Deepali Goyal v. Sonal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. DoJ 20.12.2025 Page No.14 of 17 under SARFAESI Act was initiated in 2023 whereas loan transaction had taken place on 08.09.2021. There is no evidence from the defendant that it did not have registered office at Pachim Vihar in 2021. Moreover, PW1 repeatedly testified that in the record of ROC the registered office of the defendant was still Paschim Vihar. Not a single time defendant denied the same. Even a suggestion was not given to the effect that defendant never had its registered office Paschim Vihar or that ROC record shows some other address as its registered office. Hence, this Court did have territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. Accordingly, issue No.2 is decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE No. 3:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount along with interest, as prayed for? OPP
18. Onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. Receipt of Rs.
5,00,000/- in the account of defendant is not denied by the defendant but defendant explained the same stating that it was a payment on behalf his father for manufacturing LPG Tank and for running of a gear set. Defendant did not examine any witness to prove this part of the stand of the defendant. The two witness examined on behalf of the defendant were examined to prove above said two issues. DW1 was there to prove that defendant's Paschim Vihar property was taken over following a proceedings under SARFAESI Act and DW2 was examined to prove that another suit filed by plaintiff against defendant was rejected by the trial court holding that dispute was not CS(Comm.) 923/2024 Deepali Goyal v. Sonal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. DoJ 20.12.2025 Page No.15 of 17 commercial one. As said above defendant did not examine any witness to prove that amount paid from the account of the plaintiff was in fact payment for her father for the Tank being manufactured or was to be manufactured or for running gear set. In the absence of any evidence from defendant, there is nothing to prevent from holding that amount given by the plaintiff to defendant was the loan to defendant which defendant was liable to return.
19. However, perusal of the file shows that present suit was filed on 23.10.2024 after pre-litigation mediation from 23.08.2024 to 23.09.2024. Loan was extended on 08.09.2021 and after that defendant had not paid a single penny. Therefore, present suit for recovery was liable to be filed on or before 07.09.2024. If period of 31 days from 23.08.2024 to 23.09.2024 spent in pre- litigation mediation is excluded then plaintiff was required to file her suit on or before 08.10.204 but the present suit was filed on 23.10.2024 which shows that suit was barred by limitation. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that entire period from 15.03.2020 (particularly from 08.09.2021) to 28.02.2022 was liable to be excluded in view of the Supreme Court order dt. 10.01.2022 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No 3/2020 in Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, is not sustainable.
20. In view thereof plaintiff is not entitled to recover the amount from defendant through the court of law and accordingly issue CS(Comm.) 923/2024 Deepali Goyal v. Sonal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. DoJ 20.12.2025 Page No.16 of 17 No.3 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Relief
21. In view of the above findings on all the issues particularly issue No. 3, suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
22. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
23. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Digitally
signed by
HARISH
HARISH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.12.20
15:47:12
+0530
(HARISH KUMAR)
District Judge (Commercial)-04
Announced in the Open Court District West, Tis Hazari Courts
(Judgement Contains 17 pages) Delhi/20.12.2025
CS(Comm.) 923/2024 Deepali Goyal v. Sonal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. DoJ 20.12.2025 Page No.17 of 17