Delhi District Court
Saanjh Create Your World vs N V Multistore on 15 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PITAMBER DUTT:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-01)
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 365/2023
Lalita Jeanth
Sole proprietor of
M/s Saanjh Create Your World
W/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Jeanth
60, Gali No. 3, Patparganj,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi - 110092.
Also At:- B/37, Street No. 1,
East Azad Nagar, Near Shakti Mandir,
New Delhi - 110051 ................Plaintiff
Versus
1. Neha Arora Narula
Sole Proprietor of M/s NV Multistore
C-37, Pandav Nagar,
Near Radha Krishna Mandir
Delhi - 110092.
2. Varun Arora
C-37, Pandav Nagar,
Near Radha Krishna Mandir
Delhi - 110092. .............Defendant
Date of institution : 23.09.2023
Date of reserving judgment : 28.03.2025
Date of judgment : 15.04.2025
JUDGMENT:
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit filed by the plaintiff against defendants for seeking recovery of Rs.46,07,212/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% Per Annum. The brief facts necessitated in filing of the present suit are given as under:-
Digitally signed by PitamberPitamber Dutt Date: Dutt 2025.04.15 16:37:44 +0530 CS (Comm) No. 365/23 M/s Saanjh Create Your World Vs M/s N.V. Multistore Page No. 1 of 23
2. The plaintiff has averred that she is the proprietor of "M/s Saanjh Create Your World", dealing with manufacturing and fabrication of ladies garments. Defendants no. 1 and 2, were also into the business of sale and purchase of ready-made ladies garments and running their business in the name and style of M/s N.V. Multistore. They approached the plaintiff and showed their willingness to buy garments in large quantity from her. The plaintiff agreed to their proposal and manufactured goods as per their choice and requirement and supplied to them, on account basis after raising invoices.
3. The plaintiff has further averred that defendants made part payments, through UPI and made last payment in December 2021, after which they did not make any payment. As per the statement of account, a sum of Rs.46,07,212/- was due and outstanding against the defendants, which they failed to pay despite various requests and service of legal notice dated 24.12.2022.
4. The plaintiff has further averred that she filed an application under Section 12 A of the Commercial Courts Act before the District Legal Service Authority, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi for seeking pre-institution mediation, where defendants though joined the proceedings but failed to make payment despite two consecutive meetings, as such the matter was returned being found not fit for mediation vide order dated 18.05.2023. On the basis of the above averments, the present suit has been filed for adjudication.
Digitally signed by Pitamber Pitamber Dutt Date: Dutt 2025.04.15 16:37:52 +0530 CS (Comm) No. 365/23 M/s Saanjh Create Your World Vs M/s N.V. Multistore Page No. 2 of 23
5. Pursuant to the summon, defendants no. 1 and 2 appeared and filed their written statement, taking preliminary objections that plaintiff has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts; That suit has been filed in contravention of the provisions of Order VI Rule 15A of CPC; That suit suffers from misjoinder of parties as defendant no. 2 is not a necessary party; That the suit has not been valued properly for the purpose of Court Fee; That no cause of action for filing the present suit has arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
6. On merits, defendants have controverted all the averments made in the plaint. It is averred that the alleged amount was never due or outstanding against the defendants at any point of time. It is further averred that the amount claimed by the plaintiff is exorbitant. It is further averred that it was the plaintiff who approached them for manufacturing / design of clothes. She supplied inferior quality material to defendant no. 1, qua which defendant no. 1 apprised her and inferior quality goods worth Rs.5,50,000/- are still lying in the godown of defendant no. 1, which plaintiff did not take back despite repeated requests.
7. The defendants have further averred that defendant had cleared all the dues of the plaintiff time to time. It is further averred that 6 PDCs were issued by defendant no. 1 to plaintiff as advance but plaintiff with her evil intentions, misused those cheques. All other averments have been denied. It is prayed that the suit may be dismissed with costs.
Digitally signed Pitamber by Pitamber Dutt Dutt Date: 2025.04.15 16:38:01 +0530 CS (Comm) No. 365/23 M/s Saanjh Create Your World Vs M/s N.V. Multistore Page No. 3 of 23
8. The plaintiff has filed replication, thereby controverted the averments made in the written statement and reiterated the averments made in the plaint.
9. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, vide order dated 02.05.2024, has framed the following issues for adjudication:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree against the defendants in the sum of Rs.46,07,212/- along with interest, if any, and if yes at what rate and for which period? OPP
2. Relief.
10. In order to prove their case, plaintiff has examined herself as PW - 1 and reiterated the averments made in the plaint in her examination in chief. PW-1 has exhibited six cheques bearing non. 250006, 250007, 250011, 202216, 250020 and 250027, Ex.PW-1/1 (Colly), return memos of cheque bearing no. 000004 Ex.PW-1/2, letter dated 06.04.2022 Ex.PW-1/3, Legal notice dated 24.12.2022 along with postal receipts and tracking report Ex.PW-1/4, Proceedings before Mediation Centre Ex. PW-1/5, Ledger account Ex. PW-1/6, copies of invoices Ex. PW-1/7(Colly), complaint dated 17.12.2021 Ex.PW-1/8, WhatsApp Chat of plaintiff and defendant Ex. PW-1/9, Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW-1/10.
11. PW-1 has been thoroughly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel of defendants.
Digitally signed by Pitamber Pitamber Dutt Dutt Date: CS (Comm) No. 365/23 2025.04.15 16:38:10 +0530 M/s Saanjh Create Your World Vs M/s N.V. Multistore Page No. 4 of 23
12. In order to answer the claim of the plaintiff, both defendants no. 1 and 2 have examined themselves as DW - 1 and DW - 2 and reiterated the averments made in written statement, in their examination in chief. DW-1 has exhibited Ledger account of defendant no. 1 from 2018-19 Ex.DW-1/1, list of GR/Debit Note Ex.DW-1/2, ledger account of defendant no. 1 from 2019-20 Ex.DW-1/3, Debit note as Ex. DW-1/4, ledger account of defendant no. 1 from 2020-21 Ex.DW-1/5, Debit note Ex.DW-1/6, ledger account of defendant no. 1 from 2021-22 Ex.DW-1/7, Debit note Ex.DW-1/8.
13. Both DW-1 and DW - 2 have been thoroughly cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
14. I have heard Sh. Lalit Kumar Maurya, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, Sh. Bhoj Raj, Ld. Counsel for defendants and perused the pleadings, evidence and other material placed on record. My issue wise finding is as under:-
Issue no. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree against the defendants in the sum of Rs.46,07,212/- along with interest, if any, and if yes at what rate and for which period? (OPP) The plaintiff has claimed that she was in the business of manufacturing and fabrication of ladies garments and defendant no. 1 and 2 were doing business of sale-purchase of ready-made ladies garments. They approached the plaintiff and showed their interest for doing business with her and suggested that plaintiff should manufacture clothes as per their requirement, which plaintiff had accepted and manufactured clothes as per the requirement of defendants and supplied the same to them.Digitally signed by Pitamber
Pitamber Dutt CS (Comm) No. 365/23 Dutt Date:
2025.04.15 16:38:23 +0530 M/s Saanjh Create Your World Vs M/s N.V. Multistore Page No. 5 of 23
15. The plaintiff has further claimed that defendants used to make on account part payment and as per the statement of account of defendants, maintained by her, a sum of Rs.46,07,212/-, was outstanding against the defendants, after adjusting all the amount paid by them but defendants have failed to pay the said amount despite various requests and service of legal notice.
16. The defendants have claimed that defendant no. 1 is the proprietor of M/s N.V. Multistore and defendant no. 2 has nothing to do with the business of defendant no. 1 and he has been impleaded unnecessarily. They have further claimed that initially plaintiff had worked properly but later on she started using inferior quality of material to spoil the market of defendant no. 1. She also used the design and contents of defendant no. 1 to capture the open market.
17. The defendants have further claimed that the plaintiff has raised illegal demand without adjusting the debit notes of returned goods, including the amount of committee of Rs. 7,30,809/-. The plaintiff also concealed the fact that she used to ask the defendant no. 1 to transfer money into the account of some third person.
18. The defendant has further claimed that goods of inferior quality worth Rs.5,50,000/-, are still lying with defendant no. 1 and plaintiff has raised fake claim, without adjusting that amount and by adding forged bills of goods, which were never supplied.
Digitally signed by Pitamber Pitamber Dutt Dutt Date: 2025.04.15 CS (Comm) No. 365/23 16:38:32 +0530 M/s Saanjh Create Your World Vs M/s N.V. Multistore Page No. 6 of 23
19. In order to substantiate their respective claims, both the parties have led their respective evidence.
20. An examination of the pleadings and evidence led on record shows that it is an admitted case that both plaintiff and defendant no. 1 were having business relationship. The plaintiff was the manufacturer of ladies clothes whereas defendant no.1 used to give orders for supply of ladies clothes as per her requirement and used to sell them in open market.
21. The plaintiff has claimed that she supplied goods to defendant no. 1 vide various invoices Ex. PW-1/7 (colly) w.e.f. 20.10.2020 to 19.03.2021. The defendant made only part payment and as per the statement of account Ex.PW-1/6, a sum of Rs.46,07,212/-, was due and outstanding against the defendants, which they failed to pay.
22. The defendants have denied all these invoices, so relied upon by the plaintiff in their written statement as well as in their affidavit of admission / denial.
23. To prove the delivery of goods, the plaintiff has examined herself as PW - 1 and reiterated the facts regarding the delivery of goods vide invoices Ex.PW-1/7 (colly), in her examination in chief. She has also exhibited these invoices as Ex.PW-1/7 (colly), having acknowledgment of receiving goods with seal of "Selfie Kurtiz"
24. During cross-examination, PW - 1 has admitted that stamp on the bills is in the name of Selfie Kurtiz and these bills Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 365/23 Pitamber Pitamber Dutt Date:
Dutt 2025.04.15
M/s Saanjh Create Your World Vs M/s N.V. Multistore 16:38:42
+0530 Page No. 7 of 23
does not bear any signature of the defendant. She volunteered that there are signatures of the defendants on the invoices and the Selfie Kurtiz stamp belongs to defendant's another firm. She admitted that invoices no. 405, 442, 458, 464 and 472, do not bear the receiving stamp of the defendant. She volunteered that she recollect that some of the bills were canceled and new bills were generated.
25. Ld. counsel for the defendants has not carried out any further cross-examination of PW - 1 with respect to invoices Ex. PW-1/7 (colly), having seal of receiving of goods by the firm M/s Selfie Kurtiz.
26. Ld. counsel for the defendant has contended that invoices Ex.PW-1/7 (colly), do not bear seal of defendant no. 1 company and these invoices bear seal of M/s Selfie Kurtiz, which is not the firm of defendant no. 1.
27. The plaintiff during her cross-examination has stated that "Selfie Kurtiz" is another firm of defendant no. 1. The said testimony of PW - 1 has remained uncontroverted and unchallenged as no contrary suggestion was given to PW - 1 by Ld. Counsel of defendants that defendant no. 1 does not have any other firm by the name of 'Selfie Kurtiz'.
28. The plaintiff has exhibited all the invoices as Ex.PW-1/7 (colly) during her examination in chief. The defendants have not given any suggestion whatsoever to PW - 1 that defendants did not receive the goods against invoices Ex. PW-1/7 (colly). She has also not given any suggestion to PW-1 that seal of "Selfie Digitally signed by Pitamber Pitamber Dutt CS (Comm) No. 365/23 Dutt Date:
2025.04.15 M/s Saanjh Create Your World Vs M/s N.V. Multistore Page No. 8 of 23 16:38:51 +0530 Kurtiz", over invoices Ex.PW-1/7 (colly) is not the seal of the defendant's another firm or that the goods against these invoices were not delivered to the defendants.
29. It is relevant to mention that defendants have placed on record various debit notes Ex.DW-1/2, Ex. DW-1/4, Ex. DW-1/6 and Ex.DW-1/8. A perusal of these debit notes show that defendant no. 1 has mentioned her email address on these debit notes as '[email protected]'.
30. If defendant no. 1, has no connection with "M/s Selfie Kurtiz", then how come she has mentioned her email address as '[email protected]' over these debit notes, have remained unexplained.
31. It is also relevant that before filing this suit, the plaintiff being an MSME, approached the MSME Council, for conciliation where no final settlement could arrive at.
32. The plaintiff has placed on record proceedings taken place before MSME Council as Ex. PW-1/3, which contain details of firms of plaintiff and defendant no. 1 as well as email sent by defendant no. 1 on 11.07.2022, which has been admitted by defendant no. 1, during her cross-examination.
33. The said email was sent by defendant no. 1 to MSME Arbitration Case, by giving reference of defendant as Selfie Kurtiz, having email address '[email protected]'.
34. A perusal of debit notes relied upon by defendant no. 1 as well as the email, part of Ex. PW-1/3, clearly proves that Digitally signed by Pitamber Pitamber Dutt CS (Comm) No. 365/23 Dutt Date:
2025.04.15 16:39:02 M/s Saanjh Create Your World Vs M/s N.V. Multistore +0530 Page No. 9 of 23 defendant no. 1 was using the name 'Selfie Kurtiz' as her firm and had received the goods against invoices Ex. PW-1/7 (colly), except against invoices no. 405, 442, 458, 464 and 472, which do not have any acknowledgment of receipt of the goods.
35. The plaintiff has sought to take a plea that invoices no. 405, 442, 458, 464 and 472 were canceled and replaced by new bills. However, those new bills issued against these invoices, have not been placed on record. The plaintiff is thus not entitled to recover the amount of these invoices, which cumulatively comes to Rs.3,81,402/-.
36. The defendants have claimed that plaintiff is not entitled to recover any amount, whereas in the email dated 11.07.2022, sent by defendant no. 1 before MSME Ex.PW-1/3, she herself had mentioned that "the claim filed by the plaintiff is false and fabricated. It's not maintainable. Below are the facts. This is the real amount of Rs.13,73,008/- and all the payments and debit notes are attached."
37. As per email sent by defendant no. 1 herself to MSME Council, a sum of Rs.13,73,008/- was outstanding against her.
38. The defendants have sought to take a plea that bills raised by the plaintiff are exaggerated as plaintiff has not adjusted the amount of debit notes and committee amount of Rs.7,38,809/-. She has also taken a plea that defendant no. 1 transferred a sum of Rs.7,47,460/- into the account of a third person on the asking of plaintiff. The defendant no. 1 has also claimed that goods worth Rs.5,50,000/- of inferior quality, are still lying with her.
Digitally signed by Pitamber Pitamber Dutt CS (Comm) No. 365/23 Dutt Date: 2025.04.15 16:39:11 +0530 M/s Saanjh Create Your World Vs M/s N.V. Multistore Page No. 10 of 23
39. The onus to establish the defences that plaintiff has not adjusted the amount of debit notes and committee of Rs.7,38,809/-; That on her asking a sum of Rs.7,47,460/- was transferred into the account of a third person; That inferior quality of goods worth Rs.5,50,000/- are still lying at the premises of defendant no. 1, was upon her.
40. The defendant no. 1 has examined herself as DW - 1 and reiterated these facts in her examination in chief. During cross- examination, she deposed that by the term 'forged', she used in para 9 of her affidavit, she meant that the plaintiff had discarded the debit notes issued by her, with regard to the goods returned by her and also added the payment of those goods in the ledger which were already returned to the plaintiff.
41. DW - 1 has deposed during her cross-examination that she does not know when the letter was written to the plaintiff conveying the debit notes. She volunteered that the said function was performed by her accountant. She further deposed that the ledger account Ex. DW-1/1 was prepared by her CA. She had shown the amount of Rs.16,37,499/- as credit balance in her Income Tax Record. She produced income tax record for the year 2018-19 and 2019-20 Ex. DW-//P-1 (colly) and Ex. DW-1/P-2 (colly). She admitted that Ex. DW-//P-1 (colly) and Ex. DW-1/P-2 (colly) are not certified copies of the ITRs. She does not remember the name of the CA, through whom she got filled her ITR Ex. DW-//P-1 (colly). She further deposed that she need not to pay the amount claimed by the plaintiff by way of present suit that is why she has mentioned that the claim of plaintiff is exorbitant. She further deposed that she has not filed Digitally signed Pitamber by Pitamber Dutt CS (Comm) No. 365/23 Dutt Date: 2025.04.15 16:39:23 +0530 M/s Saanjh Create Your World Vs M/s N.V. Multistore Page No. 11 of 23 any document to show that the bills raised by the plaintiff against her were not correct. She has placed documents to show the payments she has made to the plaintiff. She has placed on record documents regarding return of the goods as Ex. DW-1/2 (colly). She has further deposed that the returned goods shown in Ex. DW-1/2 were returned to the employee of the plaintiff, however, they have not taken any receipt from the employee of the plaintiff while returning those goods. She admitted that debit notes Ex. DW-1/4 (colly), Ex. DW-1/6 (colly) and Ex. DW-1/8 (colly), nowhere bears the signatures either of plaintiff or any of her employees. She further deposed that she is not aware if ledger account Ex. DW-1/1, Ex. DW-1/3, Ex. DW-1/5 and Ex.DW-1/7 were shared with the plaintiff or not.
42. The defendant has also examined her brother Sh. Varun Arora as DW - 2, who also reiterated the deposition as made by DW - 1 in her examination in chief.
43. The defendant no. 1 has sought to claim that various goods received by her from the plaintiff, were returned being defective, vide debit notes Ex. DW -1/2, Ex. DW-1/4,Ex.DW-1/6 and Ex. DW-1/8. However, all these debit notes and ledger account Ex. DW-1/1, Ex. DW-1/3, Ex. DW-1/5 and Ex.DW-1/7 are electronic evidence, being prepared electronically.
44. The defendant no.1 has stated that the debit notes and other things were prepared by her accountant, income tax return was filed by her chartered accountant and the ledger account Ex.DW-1/1 was also prepared by her chartered accountant.
Digitally signed by Pitamber Pitamber Dutt CS (Comm) No. 365/23 Dutt Date: 2025.04.15 M/s Saanjh Create Your World Vs M/s N.V. Multistore Page No. 12 of 23 16:39:33 +0530
45. The defendant no. 1 however has neither examined her chartered accountant and her accountant to prove the ledger account and other documents nor she has placed on record a certificate as required under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, for the admissibility of electronic record.
46. Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act , deals with the admissibility of electronic record, which reads as under:-
Section 65B. Admissibility of Electronic Records.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.
(2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:-
(a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the Digitally signed by Pitamber Pitamber Dutt Dutt Date:
CS (Comm) No. 365/23 2025.04.15 16:39:43 +0530 M/s Saanjh Create Your World Vs M/s N.V. Multistore Page No. 13 of 23 purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer;
(b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.
47. A perusal of section 65B (1) & (2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 clearly shows that electronic evidence is admissible only on furnishing certificate of conditions stipulated under clause 2 of section 65B. A certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is a statement that confirms the authenticity of electronic evidence in court proceedings, which must include the following information:-
(i) Identification of the electronic record,
(ii) Description of how the electronic record was produced,
(iii) Details of the device used to produce the record.Digitally signed
Pitamber by Pitamber Dutt Dutt Date: 2025.04.15 CS (Comm) No. 365/23 16:39:54 +0530 M/s Saanjh Create Your World Vs M/s N.V. Multistore Page No. 14 of 23
(iv) Certification that the data was created by a computer or other electronic device that was commonly used for storing or processing information,
(v) Certification that the device was functioning properly at the relevant time,
(vi) Signature of a person in a position of authority over the device,
(vii) The certificate must be produced along with the electronic record when it's presented in court. If the certificate isn't produced at the right time, the court may declare the electronic evidence inadmissible.
48. A Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors." reported as VIII (2014) SLT 223 has held as under:-
"Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of sections 59 and 65A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under section 65B.
Section 65B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a a computer. It may be noted that section starts with a non obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the evidence act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document only if the conditions mentioned under Digitally signed Pitamber by Pitamber Dutt CS (Comm) No. 365/23 Dutt Date: 2025.04.15 16:40:05 +0530 M/s Saanjh Create Your World Vs M/s N.V. Multistore Page No. 15 of 23 Sub-Sections (2) are satisfied, without further proof or production of the original. The very admissibility of such a document, i.e., electronic record which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions under section 65B (2). Following are the specified conditions under Section 65 B (2) of the Evidence Act:
(i) The electronic record containing the information should have been produced by the computer during the period over which the same was regularly used to store or process information for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of that computer;
(ii) The information of the kind contained in electronic record or of the kind from which the information is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity;
iii) During the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly and that even if it was not operating properly for sometime, the break or breaks had not affected either the record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(iv) The information contained in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the information fed in to the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity.
49. Recently, a Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors." (2020) 7 SCC 1, has held that:-Digitally signed
Pitamber by Pitamber Dutt CS (Comm) No. 365/23 Dutt Date: 2025.04.15 16:40:16 +0530 M/s Saanjh Create Your World Vs M/s N.V. Multistore Page No. 16 of 23 "32. Coming back to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, sub-section (1) needs to be analyzed. The sub-section begins with a non-obstante clause, and then goes on to mention information contained in an electronic record produced by a computer, which is, by a deeming fiction, then made a "document". This deeming fiction only takes effect if the further conditions mentioned in the Section are satisfied in relation to both the information and the computer in question; and if such conditions are met, the "document" shall then be admissible in any proceedings.
The words "...without further proof or production of the original..." make it clear that once the deeming fiction is given effect by the fulfillment of the conditions mentioned in the Section, the "deemed document" now becomes admissible in evidence without further proof or production of the original as evidence of any contents of the original, or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.
33. The non-obstante clause in sub-section (1) makes it clear that when it comes to information contained in an electronic record, admissibility and proof thereof must follow the drill of Section 65B, which is a special provision in this behalf - Sections 62 to 65 being irrelevant for this purpose. However, Section 65B(1) clearly differentiates between the "original"
document - which would be the original "electronic record"
contained in the "computer" in which the original information Digitally signed Pitamber by Pitamber Dutt CS (Comm) No. 365/23 Dutt Date: 2025.04.15 16:40:24 +0530 M/s Saanjh Create Your World Vs M/s N.V. Multistore Page No. 17 of 23 is first stored - and the computer output containing such information, which then may be treated as evidence of the contents of the "original"
document. All this necessarily shows that Section 65B differentiates between the original information contained in the "computer" itself and copies made therefrom - the former being primary evidence, and the latter being secondary evidence."
50. The above pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India makes it absolutely clear that Electronic Evidence are admissible only if certificate in terms of section 65B (2) of Evidence Act is filed alongwith electronic record and not otherwise.
51. The documents relied upon by the defendant no. 1 in support of her plea, are inadmissible for want of Certificate as per Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Moreover, defendant no. 1 has not placed an iota of proof to prove that debit notes were in fact delivered to the plaintiff.
52. The defendant no. 1, during her cross-examination, has categorically admitted that debit notes do not bear any signatures of plaintiff or any of her employees.
53. The defendant no. 1 has neither given the name of employee of the plaintiff, who had received the returned goods vide debit notes nor these debit notes bears signature either of plaintiff or any of her employee, which can show that any goods were returned by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff vide these debit Digitally signed Pitamber by Pitamber Dutt Dutt Date: 2025.04.15 16:40:32 +0530 CS (Comm) No. 365/23 M/s Saanjh Create Your World Vs M/s N.V. Multistore Page No. 18 of 23 notes. In the absence of any cogent proof, the plea of defendant no. 1 that goods were returned to the plaintiff vide debit notes Ex.DW-1/2, Ex. DW-1/4, Ex. DW-1/6 and Ex.DW-1/8, has remained unsubstantiated and unproved.
54. The defendant no. 1 has also claimed that she transferred a sum of Rs.7,47,460/- into the account of a third person on the asking of plaintiff. She however has not placed on record any proof whatsoever to substantiate her said claim nor confronted the plaintiff during her cross-examination with the said plea nor gave the name of the person, in whose account said amount was transferred by her on the asking of plaintiff nor furnished any details whatsoever to establish that any such amount was transferred by defendant no. 1 into the account of some stranger on the asking of plaintiff. In the absence of any cogent proof, the plea taken by defendant no. 1 that she transferred a sum of Rs.7,47,460/- into the account of some third person on the asking of plaintiff, has remained unsubstantiated and unproved.
55. The defendant no. 1 has also claimed that plaintiff has not adjusted the amount of Rs.5,50,000/- towards returned goods and committee amount of Rs.2,45,684/-. The defendant no. 1 however has not adduced even an iota of proof to establish that goods worth any amount were returned by her to the plaintiff. She has also failed to prove that plaintiff had received am amount of Rs2,45,684/- of committee as shown in Ex. DW-1/2 (colly).
56. The defendant no. 1 though in her affidavit of examination in chief has stated that she is in possession of the Digitally signed Pitamber by Pitamber Dutt CS (Comm) No. 365/23 Dutt Date: 2025.04.15 16:40:41 +0530 M/s Saanjh Create Your World Vs M/s N.V. Multistore Page No. 19 of 23 signed documents with respect to the returned material as well as committee amount.
57. The defendant no. 1 however has not adduced even a single piece of paper, having receiving of plaintiff, vide which goods were returned.
58. The defendant no. 1 has unambiguously admitted during her cross-examination that returned goods shown in Ex.DW-2/3 were returned to the employee of plaintiff, however, they had not taken any receipt from the employee of the plaintiff. Admittedly, debit notes Ex.DW-1/2, Ex. DW-1/4, Ex.DW-1/6 and Ex.DW-1/8, do not bear signatures either of plaintiff or any of her employee.
59. If the defendant no. 1 was in possession of signed documents with respect to the returned material as well as of committee amount, adjusted during the course of business, as deposed by her in para 9 of her examination in chief, then she must have produced the said material before the Court. However, she has failed to place any document in this regard, rather she categorically admitted that she do not have any document, which bears signature of plaintiff or any of her employees regarding return of material.
60. The said testimony made by defendant no. 1 falsify her claim made in para 9 of her examination in chief that she has document in her possession qua receipt of returned material as well as of committee amount adjusted during the course of business.
Digitally signed by Pitamber Pitamber Dutt Dutt Date: CS (Comm) No. 365/23 2025.04.15 16:40:51 +0530 M/s Saanjh Create Your World Vs M/s N.V. Multistore Page No. 20 of 23
61. The defendant has also claimed that goods worth Rs.5,50,000/- of inferior quality are still lying with her, which have not been adjusted by the plaintiff. The defendant no. 1 however has not placed on record any proof whatsoever to show that inferior quality goods worth Rs.5,50,000/- are still lying with her.
62. The defendants have taken various pleas in their written statement as well as in their examination in chief to dis-own the claim put forth by the plaintiff. However, they have miserably failed to establish their pleas by leading cogent proof.
63. The plaintiff has proved that she supplied goods to defendant no. 1 through invoices Ex.PW-1/7 (colly), except invoices no. 405, 442, 458, 464 and 472 for cumulative amount of Rs.3,81,402/-. The plaintiff has thus proved that she is entitle to recover a sum of Rs.46,07,212/- as shown in statement of account Ex. PW-1/6, after adjusting the amount of Rs.3,81,402/- of above five invoices.
64. The defendant no. 1 has claimed that she is entitled to claim a sum of Rs.16,37,499/- from the plaintiff, which has been shown as credit balance in her income tax return. She made the said deposition before the Court on 08.10.2024.
65. This Court directed the defendant no. 1 to produce her income tax record for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019- 20, pursuant to which, defendant no. 1 placed on record her income tax record for the said period as Ex. DW-1/P-1 and Ex.DW-1/P-2.
Digitally signed Pitamber by Pitamber Dutt Dutt Date: 2025.04.15 16:41:00 +0530 CS (Comm) No. 365/23 M/s Saanjh Create Your World Vs M/s N.V. Multistore Page No. 21 of 23
66. A perusal of Ex. DW-1/P-1 and Ex.DW-1/P-2 shows that these income tax returns no where mention that plaintiff is a secured creditor from whom, defendant no. 1 has to recover Rs.16,37,499/- as deposed by her during her cross-examination.
67. The plaintiff before filing this suit, had issued legal notice Ex PW-1/4, calling upon the defendants to make the payment, which was sent at the correct address of defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 through registered post and as per the tracking report, said notice was duly served upon the defendants. Despite the service of the said legal notice, the defendant, neither replied the same nor made any payment. The defendant no. 1 is thus liable to pay a sum of Rs.42,25,810.18/- to the plaintiff.
68. The plaintiff has also claimed pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served, if plaintiff is awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the actual realization of the amount.
69. The plaintiff has filed this suit against defendant no. 1 and
2. The defendant no. 1 is the proprietor of M/s N.V. Multistore, who purchased the goods from the plaintiff.
70. The defendant no. 2 was helping defendant no. 1 only and had no personal transaction with plaintiff, therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to recover any amount from defendant no. 2.
71. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff has proved on record that she Digitally signed by Pitamber Pitamber Dutt Dutt Date:
2025.04.15 CS (Comm) No. 365/23 16:41:10 +0530 M/s Saanjh Create Your World Vs M/s N.V. Multistore Page No. 22 of 23 supplied goods worth Rs.42,25,810.18/- to defendant no.1 against invoice Ex. PW-1/7 (colly). The plaintiff has also proved that defendant no. 1 has failed to pay the said amount despite various requests and service of legal notice. The defendant no. 1, the proprietor of M/s N.V. Multistore, is thus liable to pay a sum of Rs.42,25,810.18/- to the plaintiff along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the actual realization. The plaintiff has thus successfully discharged the onus of issue no. 1, same is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff.
72. Issue no. 2 Relief.
In view of my findings on issue no. 1, the present suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant no. 1 is decreed with cost. A Decree of Recovery for Rs.42,25,810.18/- is passed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no. 1 along with interest @ 12% Per Annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the entire amount. A Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court
on 15th of April 2025 Digitally signed
by Pitamber
Pitamber Dutt
Dutt Date:
2025.04.15
16:41:16 +0530
(PITAMBER DUTT)
District Judge (Commercial Court-01) East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CS (Comm) No. 365/23 M/s Saanjh Create Your World Vs M/s N.V. Multistore Page No. 23 of 23