Delhi District Court
Sangeeta Shivhare vs Manish Verma on 17 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF GORAKH NATH PANDEY
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT),
NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS: DELHI.
CS (COMM.) 137/2024
CNR NO.DLNE01-003666-2024
SMT. SANGEETA SHIVHARE
PROP. GYAN TECHNICAL SOLUTION
H.NO.25/37, WEST KARAWAL NAGAR,
DELHI - 110094. ........ Plaintiff.
VERSUS
MANISH VERMA
PROP. GBM INDUSTRIES
U1-B-4, RED CROSS ROAD,
MIE PART-B,
U2-145-HSIIDC SEC-16,
BAHADURGARH, HARYANA - 124507.
.............. Defendant
Date of Institution : 11.12.2024
Date of final arguments : 15.11.2025
Date of decision : 17.11.2025
Decision : Dismissed
JUDGMENT:-
1. This suit has been filed by the Plaintiff against the defendant seeking recovery of Rs.18,75,000/- alongwith pendente- lite & future interest @ 24% p.a. Case of the Plaintiff
2. The case of the plaintiff is that - the plaintiff through her representative Mr. Mayur Bhardwaj approached to the defendant CS (COMM) 137/2024 SANGEETA SHIVHARE VS. MANISH VERMA Page No.1/16 for the purchase of 4 feet automatic spray painting system. After negotiation between the parties, the defendant agreed to manufacture the system as required by the plaintiff. On 15.10.2021, the defendant gave the quotation of the automatic spray painting system for wood panels explaining the entire details of the machine including installation and complete terms and conditions of sale. The total cost of the machine was agreed at Rs.22,42,000/- including the installation of machine. The plaintiff made advance payment of Rs.5 lacs on 15.10.2020 to the defendant. The defendant offered to install the machinery at plaintiff's place and verbally assured to resolve all the issues pertaining to design and smooth functioning of the machine and on being satisfied by the assurance given by the defendant, the plaintiff released the remaining payment i.e. Rs.5 lacs on 26.12.20; Rs.4 lacs on 26.12.20 and Rs.4,75,000/- on 28.12.20. The defendant also handed over a post dated cheque no.000003 for a sum of Rs.3,67,000/- to the plaintiff for the remaining payment of the machine. The machine was dispatched on 26.12.20 beyond the agreed period i.e. one month. The plaintiff repeatedly asked the defendant to install the machine but of no avail. The plaintiff got examined the machine by an expert and as per the report of the expert, the machine was found defective.
It is further stated in the plaint that the machine manufactured was not as per the required specifications given by the representative of the plaintiff and the machine is lying in defective condition for last two years. The defendant also filed the complaint CS (COMM) 137/2024 SANGEETA SHIVHARE VS. MANISH VERMA Page No.2/16 case under Negotiable Instruments Act against the plaintiff for the dishonour of the above mentioned cheque. Since the defendant neither installed the machine nor repaired the same, the plaintiff issued legal notice dated 10.01.22 calling the defendant to refund the entire amount of Rs.18,75,000/- as well as damage to an amount of Rs.10 lacs and charges of Rs.500/- per day for keeping the faulty machine at the warehouse. It is stated that no response to the legal notice was received from the defendant. The present suit is, therefore, filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for the recovery of Rs.18,75,000/- alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 24% per annum.
3. The defendant filed written statement contending that - this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit; no cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff to file the present suit; the plaintiff has not valued the suit properly for the purpose of court fees; suit is barred by limitation. It is stated in the written statement that the plaintiff has completely failed to explain as to why she kept mum for about 5 years from the date of supply of machine to her. It is further stated that the defendant had supplied the machine to the plaintiff in good working condition after initial trial of the same at the factory of the defendant in the presence of AR of the plaintiff. The defendant denied the other contents of the plaint and lastly prayed to dismiss the suit with heavy costs.
CS (COMM) 137/2024 SANGEETA SHIVHARE VS. MANISH VERMA Page No.3/16
4. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant denying the contents made in the written statement and reiterating and affirming the contents of the plaint.
5. Upon completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed on 25.03.2025:
Issues:
(1) Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD (2) Whether the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rs.18,75,000/-? OPP (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendentelite and future interest @ 24% per annum from 26.12.20 on principal amount till realization? OPP (5) Relief.
6. The plaintiff examined its SPA Sh. Gyan Chand Shivhare as PW1 vide his affidavit Ex.PW1/A to prove the case who deposed as per the averments in the plaint. He also relied upon the following documents:
(i) Special Power of Attorney as Ex. PW1/1. (ii) Design of the machine shared with the defendant by the
representative of the plaintiff as Ex. PW1/2.
CS (COMM) 137/2024 SANGEETA SHIVHARE VS. MANISH VERMA Page No.4/16
(iii) The quotation given by the defendant to the representative of the plaintiff dated 15.10.2021 explaining the complete details of the machine along with terms of sale and purchase as Ex. PW1/3.
(iv) Invoice raised by the defendant for the machine as Ex. PW1/4.
(v) Videos sent on WhatsApp number as trial by the defendant no. 2 as well as objections raised to the same by the representative of the plaintiff as Ex. PW1/5.
(vi) Cheque bearing no. 000003, drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank issued to defendant without any date as Ex. PW1/6.
(vii) Copy of payment transfer details as Ex. PW1/7.
(viii) Copy of e-mail and WhatsApp chat as Ex.PW1/8.
(ix) Copy of Expert Report on machine as Mark A. (Ex.PW1/9 is de-exhibited).
(x) Photographs of machine in question lying in the warehouse as Mark B. (Ex. PW1/10 is de-exhibited).
(xi) Legal notice dated 15.04.2021 and the reply to the said legal notice as Ex. PW1/11.
(xii) Legal notice dated 10.01.2022 along with service report as Ex. PW1/12 (Colly).
(xiii) Non Starter Report as Ex. PW1/13. (xiv) The certificate under section 65B of Evidence Act (S-63 BSA) as Ex. PW1/14 (Gyanchand Shivhare). (xv) Cross-examination of the defendant dated 03.06.2022 in
complaint case as Mark C. (Ex. PW1/15 and Ex. PW1/16 are de-
CS (COMM) 137/2024 SANGEETA SHIVHARE VS. MANISH VERMA Page No.5/16 exhibited) (xvi) The invoice raised by the plaintiff to her end buyer/user dated 10.10.2020 as Ex. PW1/17.
(xvii) E-way bill dated 26.12.2020 generated in favour of the Rajdhani Craft Industries Pvt. Ltd. the end user/buyer of the machine in question and buyer of the machine from the plaintiff as Ex. PW1/18.
(xviii) Delivery challan dated 02.03.2022 as Ex. PW1/19.
7. The plaintiff further examined PW2 Sh. Mayur Bhardwaj as PW2 vide his affidavit Ex.PW2/A. He deposed that he met the defendant in an exhibition in the year 2020 and discussed regarding spray painting machine and after discussions placed order for the said machine upon the defendant. He further deposed that advance payment of Rs.5 lacs was given to the defendant but the machine was not supplied for three months. He further deposed that no trial of the machine was given, no installation was carried out. He further deposed that he followed up with the defendant with number of times through e-mails regarding installation of machine in operative condition but the defendant did not reply the said mails.
8. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW1 vide his affidavit Ex.DW1/A and deposed as per the averments in the written statement. He relied upon the following documents:
(i) Certified copies of the complete paper book of CS (COMM) 137/2024 SANGEETA SHIVHARE VS. MANISH VERMA Page No.6/16 complainant under Section 138 of NI Act as Ex.DW1/1 (Colly).
(ii) Certified copy of order dated 18.01.23 as Ex.DW1/2.
(iii) Certified copy of statement of one Mr. Mayur Bhardwaj as Ex.DW1/3.
(iv) Certified copy of statement of Sh. Gyanchand Shivhare as Ex.DW1/4.
(v) Certified copy of statement of Ms. Sangeeta Shivhare as Ex.DW1/5.
9. I have heard the final arguments addressed by the counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant and also gone through the records as well. I have also gone through the written arguments filed by the counsel for the plaintiff in support of his contentions. My issue-wise findings are as under:
Issue No.(1):
Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD This issue was to be proved by the defendant in view of the preliminary objection by the defendant in the written statement. The defendant claimed that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this case as the defendant is working for gain at Bahadurgarh, Haryana; the alleged machine was delivered at Jaipur, Rajasthan and the plaintiff has shifted his business at Jaipur, Rajasthan prior to filing the present suit.
The plaintiff per contra claimed that the plaintiff CS (COMM) 137/2024 SANGEETA SHIVHARE VS. MANISH VERMA Page No.7/16 approached the defendant from his office situated at Delhi; the payment was also made from Delhi and the invoice vide which the machine was delivered is having the address of the plaintiff of Delhi. Since the payment was made from Delhi and the invoice containing the address of the plaintiff of Delhi is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, the cause of action appears to have arose in Delhi within the territorial jurisdiction of this court in view of Section 20 of CPC.
I have gone through the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CS (OS) 243/2010 decided on 26.07.2012 titled Pramod Gupta Vs. Romesh Power Product Pvt. Ltd. wherein the similar issue was discussed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the ratio of the judgment is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The relevant para in respect of cause of action i.e. para nos.12 and 15 are reproduced for ready reference to come to the conclusion that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court and this court accordingly has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this matter as below:-
"12. A cause of action means every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded. It does not comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts, but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree.
Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a right to CS (COMM) 137/2024 SANGEETA SHIVHARE VS. MANISH VERMA Page No.8/16 immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has no relation judgment must be par of the cause of action. But it has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff.
15. In the matter of contract there may arise causes of action of various kinds. In a suit for damages for breach of contract the cause of action consists of the making of the contract, and of its breach, so that the suit may be filed either at the place where the contract was made or at the place where it should have been performed and the breach occurred. The making of the contract is part of the cause of action. A suit on a contract, therefore, can be filed at the place where it was made. The determination of the place where the contract was made is part of the law of contract. But making of an offer on a particular place does not form cause of action in a suit for damages for breach of contract. Ordinarily, acceptance of an offer and its intimation result in a contract and hence a suit can be filed in a court within whose jurisdiction the acceptance was communicated. The performance of a contract is part of cause of action and a suit in respect of the breach can always be filed at the place where the contract should have been performed or its performance completed. If the contract is to be performed at the place where it is made, the suit on the contract is to be filed there and nowhere else. In suits for agency actions the cause of action arises at the place where the contract of agency was made or the place where actions are to be rendered and payment is to be made by the agent. Part of cause of action arises where money is expressly or impliedly payable under a contract. In cases of repudiation of a contract, the place where repudiation is received is the place where the suit would lie. If a contract is pleaded as part of the cause of action giving jurisdiction to the Court where the suit is filed and that contract is found to be invalid, such part of cause of the action disappears. The above are some of the connecting factors."
This court is also fortified in view of judgment by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in RSA No.40/2013 decided on 05.03.2014 titled Satyapal vs Slick Auto Accessories Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. in respect of the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and CS (COMM) 137/2024 SANGEETA SHIVHARE VS. MANISH VERMA Page No.9/16 the cause of action in respect of such transactions wherein similar issue was discussed.
In view of the above mentioned judgments and facts of the case, the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court. This court is of the considered opinion that this court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter accordingly. This issue is, therefore, decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issues No.2:
Whether the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD This issue has been framed in view of the objection taken by the defendant in the written statement. I have gone through the record. The plaintiff has valued the suit properly and filed the advalorem courts fees. The issue is accordingly decided against the defendant.
Issue No.(3) & (4) :
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rs.18,75,000/-? OPP (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendentelite and future interest @ 24% per annum from 26.12.20 on principal amount till realization? OPP
10. Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 defines "burden of proof" which is reproduced as below:-
CS (COMM) 137/2024 SANGEETA SHIVHARE VS. MANISH VERMA Page No.10/16 "101. Burden of proof- whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person."
Section 101 of the Evidence Act has clearly laid down that the burden of proving a fact always lying upon the person who asserts the facts. Until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been liable to discharge his burden. Until he arrives at such conclusion he cannot proceed on the basis of weakness of other party. Further, Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act contained that no fact need to be proved in any proceedings which parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the herein, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands or which by any rule of pleadings enforce at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings.
11. It is well settled that a suit has to be tried on the basis of the pleadings of the contesting parties which is filed in the suit in the form of plaint and written statement and the nucleus of the case of the plaintiff and the contesting case of the defendant in the form of issues emerges out of that. Being a civil suit, this suit is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
In the case of Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Jagjit Chawla, reported in 183 (2011) DLT 418, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi CS (COMM) 137/2024 SANGEETA SHIVHARE VS. MANISH VERMA Page No.11/16 was pleased to observe as under:-
"A civil case is decided on balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities in the present case shows that the Power of Attorney Ex. PW3/1 and the Will Ex. P-1 were duly executed by the deceased Sh. Sohan Singh. The Power of Attorney is after all a registered Power of Attorney, and more importantly, the original title documents of the subject property are in the possession of the respondent No. 1 and which would not have been, if there was not to be any transfer of title in the suit property. Merely because two views are possible, this court would not interfere with one possible and plausible view which is taken by the court below, unless such view causes grave injustice. In my opinion, in fact, grave injustice will be caused not to the objectors/appellants but to the respondent No. 1 her father-in-law Sh. Sewa Singh, if the impugned judgment is set aside."
In the case of Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Daya Sapra, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 729, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:
''8. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that a creditor can maintain a civil and criminal proceedings at the same time. Both the proceedings, thus, can run parallel. The fact required to be proved for obtaining a decree in the civil suit and a judgment of conviction in the criminal proceedings may be overlapping but the standard of proof in a criminal case vis-a-vis a civil suit, indisputably is different. Whereas in a criminal case the prosecution is bound to prove the commission of the offence on the part of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, in a civil suit "preponderance of probability" would serve the purpose for obtaining a decree".
12. The onus to prove the above issues was on the plaintiff. The brief and relevant facts for the filing of this case alongwith defence of the defendant have been mentioned at the outset. The claim of the plaintiff remained that - the defendant have not manufactured the machine as per the required specifications given CS (COMM) 137/2024 SANGEETA SHIVHARE VS. MANISH VERMA Page No.12/16 by the plaintiff; machine was never installed; machine was found defective on examination by expert. On the other hand, the defendant claimed that the defendant had supplied the machine to the plaintiff in good working condition after initial trial of the same in the presence of AR of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is continuously using the machine for business purpose. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff purchased the machine in question from the defendant vide Ex.PW1/3 dated 15.10.2020. As per the quotation Ex.PW1/3, the warranty period of the machine was fifteen months from the date of dispatch or twelve months from the date of commissioning whichever is earlier. The plaintiff claimed that the machine was dispatched on 26.12.2020. The plaintiff got inspected the machine through expert who gave his report dated 30.09.2021 vide Mark A regarding unsatisfactory performance and manufacturing defect in the machine. Now the question arises when the machine never installed and is still lying scrap at the warehouse as claimed by the plaintiff how the performance/manufacturing defect of the machine was detected by the plaintiff or the expert checked the machine without the installation of the machine. The expert who inspected the machine is also not examined by the plaintiff to corroborate the case. The report of the expert Mark A is remained unproved as per Indian Evidence Act being photocopy of the document. The testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses does not corroborate the case of the plaintiff as well. The relevant testimonies of PW1 and PW2 recorded during cross-examination is as under:
CS (COMM) 137/2024 SANGEETA SHIVHARE VS. MANISH VERMA Page No.13/16 PW1: Sh. Gyan Chand Shivhare "It is correct that we had taken the delivery of the machine on 26.12.20 and filed the present suit in the month of December, 2024.
It is correct that as per terms and conditions of the quotation the warranty of the machine was for 18 months. (Vol. The machine has not been installed till date).
XXXX XXXX XXXX I had taken the delivery of the machine at Jaipur, Rajasthan. The machine was supplied directly to the customer although the invoice was issued at my address but it was shipped to end buyer. We tried to run the machine but the same was not working and nobody from the defendant came at the place of the delivery to run the machine.
PW2: Sh. Mayur Bhardwaj The machine was delivered at Jaipur, Rajasthan on asking of Mr. Gyan Chand Shivhare. The delivery charges of the machine were paid by plaintiff firm. I am also an Engineer in Electronics and Telecommunication. I had not got prepared the same kind of machine prior to purchasing it from the defendant. I have studied about the component of machine while pursuing my degree in Engineer in Electronics and Telecommunications. I had run the similar kind of machine earlier when I was working in a company namely Homag India Pvt. Ltd. from 2009 to 2012. The said company was manufacturing wood working machinery.
It is correct that the machine was directly shipped to end user at Jaipur, Rajasthan. Machine was not installed and therefore it could not be run. There were operators in the company where the machine was supplied but as same could not be installed, the machine was not run by the operators. I do not remember for how much price the machine was sold by us but the bill is placed on record. I cannot tell how much amount is still to be paid by that party to whom the machine was sold by us. It is correct that machine was sold to third party after keeping our profit. Machine was sold for Rs. 26 lacs. As far as I recollect, the plaintiff had taken Rs. 15 lacs from the party to whom the machine was sold and remaining amount was to be paid subject to installation of the machine.
XXXX XXXX XXXX
CS (COMM) 137/2024
SANGEETA SHIVHARE VS. MANISH VERMA Page No.14/16
It is correct that we have not returned Rs. 15 lacs to the party from whom the machine was sold by us after purchasing from defendant. It is correct that the said purchaser has not filed any case against us. No written notice is given by the said party to us for returning the machine but they are asking for providing another machine in lieu of that. We have provided another machine to that party. I have not filed any document regarding supply of another machine to that party. Again said, the said document is already on record".
There is no document on record filed on behalf of the plaintiff to show that she ever informed the defendant regarding defect in the machine. There is no letter/correspondence is also on record to show that the plaintiff ever asked the defendant to install the machine. Even the end buyer has not been examined by the plaintiff to prove that the machine is defective or lying uninstalled at the warehouse. No job sheet/note is prepared by the expert who inspected the machine nor any such record is filed on record to show that the machine was defective as claimed by the plaintiff. In nut shell, the testimony of the witnesses on record alongwith documents relied by the plaintiff in support of the claim failed to prove that the machine supplied by the defendant was defective. Merely oral and bald averments by the plaintiff is not sufficient to prove the contention. In nut shell, the plaintiff has not proved anything on record to corroborate the claim. In view of the submissions made, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the machine supplied by the defendant was defective and could not be operated properly and the plaintiff is entitled for the refund of the costs of the machine.
CS (COMM) 137/2024 SANGEETA SHIVHARE VS. MANISH VERMA Page No.15/16
13. In view of the testimony of PWs and documents on record, aforementioned discussions and examining the case on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus and prove the issue regarding entitlement of the relief claimed in this suit. Issues no.(3) and (4) are accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
In view of the above said discussions and findings, this court is of the considered opinion that plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as prayed in the suit. The suit of the plaintiff is, therefore, dismissed.
14. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
15. The copies of the judgment be issued to all the parties to the dispute through Electronic Mail. Judgment be also uploaded on the server.
16. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary Digitally signed by GORAKH compliance. NATH PANDEY GORAKH NATH PANDEY Date: 2025.11.20 14:43:14 +0530 Announced in the open court (GORAKH NATH PANDEY) on 17th November, 2025. District Judge (Commercial Court) North East: Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
CS (COMM) 137/2024 SANGEETA SHIVHARE VS. MANISH VERMA Page No.16/16