Delhi District Court
Rohit Jain vs Sachin Jain on 24 November, 2025
BEFORE THE COURT OF SH. SURINDER S. RATHI, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMM.)-11 CENTRAL, THC, DELHI
CS Comm. No.402/2024
Rohit Jain
S/o Late. Sh. Naresh Jain
Proprietor of M/s Sanmati Enterprises
R/o 18/114D, Gali No. 7, East Moti Bagh,
Sarai Rohilla, Delhi-110007 ..............Plaintiff
Vs.
Sachin Jain
Prop of M/s Jaina Papers
R/o 7/9, Singh Sabha Road,
Shakti Nagar (behind Amba Cinema)
Near Roshnara Club, Delhi-110007 .........Defendant
Date of Institution : 26.03.2024
Date of Final Arguments : 24.11.2025
Date of Judgment : 24.11.2025
Decision : Decreed
Judgment
1.This suit is filed by plaintiff for recovery of Rs.27,35,373/- alongwith interest @18% per annum as unpaid dues of goods sold and unpaid friendly loan advanced.
Case of the Plaintiff
2. Case of the plaintiff as per amended plaint and the documents filed is that plaintiff is sole prorprietor of M/s Sanmati Enterprises at Sarai Rohilla, Delhi and is in the business of trading and supply of disposable items (paper plates etc.). It is claimed that he wounded up his business in 2021. Defendant is said to be proprietor of M/s Jaina Papers at Shakti Nagar, Delhi. Both the sides have had cordial relations for the last 20 years. In 2012 defendant approached the plaintiff for business and started CS Comm No.402/2024 page 1 Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain purchasing various goods from him. Goods were sold and supplied by issuing VAT paid invoices.
3. The plaint carries a tabluation of 23 invoices, through which the business was carried out between the parties between 10.02.2014 and 16.10.2017. The plaint is silent as to the cumulative value of these 23 invoices or how much amount was paid by the defendant. All that is pleaded is that there was a debit balance of Rs.17,76,216/- but the plaint does not carry any reference as to when this debit balance existed on which date, month or year. Defendant did not clear the dues despite requests. It is case of the plaintiff that owing to cordial relations defendant used to seek friendly loan from the plaintiff which were granted by the plaintiff from his proprietorship concern and entries qua the same are mentioned in the same ledger. There was never any complaint qua quality of the goods sold and supplied and receipt of all the goods were acknowledged by the defendant. Plaintiff used to maintain ledger of all the sales made. He used to share copy of the same to the defendant and no objection was ever raised.
4. Plaintiff claims interest @18% per annum from the period 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2024 valued at Rs.9,59,157/-. Defendant is claimed to have made last payment of Rs. 1 lakh in January 2021. No legal demand notice was issued. When the dues were not cleared plaintiff approached Central DLSA for Pre-Institution Mediation under Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 where defendant did not participate and Non-Starter Report dated 05.03.2024 was issued. In this backdrop suit in hand has been filed for following reliefs:
Prayer:
In view of above said facts and circumstances this Hon'ble Court may kindly be passed the decree of recovery for sum of Rs.27,35,373/- out of which Rs 17,76,216/- towards the principal amount and Rs. 9,59,157/- towards the CS Comm No.402/2024 page 2 Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain interest @ 18% p.a. along with pendent lite and future interest in favour of plaintiff and against the Defendant.
Pass any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, in the interest of justice.
5. Summons of the suit was served upon the defendant on 15.04.2024.
Defendant entered appearance on 27.05.2024 through Sh. Shivam Singh, Advocate and filed detailed written statement.
Defendant's Case
6. In the WS defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit on the ground that same is based on baseless, misconceived and concocted facts which do not constitute any cause of action. Dismissal is also sought on the ground that plaintiff has concealed material facts. Defendant admits that plainitiff's proprietorship firm M/s Sanmati Enterprises was started in 2012 as a partnership firm between plaintiff and one Mr. Punit Jain who happens to be brother of the defendant. The office of the partnership firm was in Swaroop Nagar, Delhi. It is pleaded that in an accidental fire the documents of the plaintiff firm were destroyed. It is pleaded that this partnership firm was registered in 2015 when defendant's brother Punit Jain parted ways and the plaintiff continued the business with the same firm name.
7. Defendant admits that both the sides had friendly relations. It is case of the defendant that they did have commecial relations but everthing which was due and payable was settled on 06.09.2017 when defendant paid Rs. 1 lakh in discharge of full and final liability. It is pleaded that now nothing remains due and payable. It is case of the defendant that the settlement was oral. Defendant has made reference to the ledger filed by the plaintiff which shows debit balance of only Rs.3,85,123/- as on 31.03.2016 and that this debit balance was never carried forward but fresh accounts were prepared between the parties.
CS Comm No.402/2024 page 3
Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain
8. It is case of the defendant that in the said fresh transactions defendant used to make advance payments in favour of plaintiff and the sales were carried out accordingly. However, defendant has not placed his ledger on record but is rather referring again to the plaintiff's ledger which shows that on 17.12.2012 a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was paid and another payment of Rs. 4 lakhs was made on 12.04.2016. The WS is not maintaining chronology of events.
9. According to the defendant the limitation to file the suit in hand stood expired on 05.09.2020. It is case of the defendant that after 3 and a half years of settlement of dues on 06.09.2017, in January 2021, plaintiff approached the defendant for seeking a friendly loan of Rs.1 lakh which was paid by the defendant on 06.01.2021. Plaintiff assured the defendant that he will return this money back soon. When this money was not paid back by the plaintiff, defendant requested for return in July 2024. However, in this backdrop, plaintiff filed the suit in hand. It is pleaded that an entry of Rs.50,000 (credit entry ) was manipulated by the plaintiff on 08.10.2019 in the ledger even though it was never paid by the defendant.
10.In his reply on merits defendant does not deny that the plaintiff is proprietor of M/s Sanmati Enterprises or that he had wounded up his business in 2021. Defendant admits that he is proprietor of M/s Jaina papers and both the sides have cordial relations for the last 20 years. The WS do not deny that defendant started purchase of goods from the plaintiff in the year 2012. It is however denied that there was a debit balance of Rs.17,76,216/-. As regards the tabulation of 23 sale invocies mentioned in the plaint, the WS admits 18 invoices issued between 10.02.2014 to 25.12.2016. However intrerestingly despite admitting these 18 invoices the WS states that purchase of delivery of goods mentioned in CS Comm No.402/2024 page 4 Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain 18 invoices is denied but no reason is cited as to how the purchase and delivery is being denied once the invoice is admitted. As regards the invoices at Sr. no. 19 to 23 are concerned, the WS neither admits nor denies the same on the ground that they were not accepted by the Court on record on a request made by the plaintiff for filing additional documents.
11.Accordingly, as per Ld. Counsel for plaintiff these 5 invoices of GST era issued between 04.10.2017 to 16.10.2017 are not disputed in so far as payments qua them already received by the plaintiff. The fact that plaintiff used to grant friendly loan to the defendant is not denied in the WS. It is however added that both the sides used to help each other financially. Defendant denies any liability to pay Rs.17,76,216/-. Defendant maintained that plaintiff never supplied any goods and as such no question of paying 18% interest arises. Defendant denied liability to pay any money in the name of interest however there is no specific denial of plaintiff's claim of interest of Rs.9,59,157/- accrued between 01.04.2021 and 31.03.2024 as provided under Order 8 Rule 3A in CPC as amended for Commercial Courts. Defendant denies that he ever acknowledged the receipt of goods on the invoices issued by the plaintiff.
12.Defendant also denied that plaintiff maintained regular account statements or used to send copy thereof to the defendant. It is surprising to observe that despite admitting the payment of Rs. 1 lakh in the initial part of the WS in january 2021 in reply to para 11 of the plaint the WS denies making payment of Rs.1 lakh to the plaintiff in January 2021. Without citing any reason the defendant has denied as false the Non-Starter Report issued by Secretary Central DLSA on 05.03.2024. In reply to para 14A of the plaint defendant yet again denied making payment of Rs.1 lakh on 06.01.2021. Defendant claims that he had filed a counter claim for CS Comm No.402/2024 page 5 Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain recovery of Rs.1 lakh, purported loan granted by him to the plaintiff. Defendant admits terrritroal jurisdiction of this Court. He prayed for dismissal of this suit.
13.In his affidavit of admission denial to plaintiff's documents he has termed the Non-Starter Report issued by Central DLSA as false and fabricated. Strong objection on the conduct of the defendant is taken in this regard by calling a certificate issued by a statutory body and signed by a Judicial Officer on deputation as fabricated without even ascertaining the authenticity of the same from the Central DLSA.
14.In the verification clause of the affidavit of admission denial defendant has categorically mentioned that it is in his personal knowledge that the Non-Starter Report issued by Secretary DLSA is a fabricated document. Despite being requested nothing has been shown by Ld. Counsel for defendant that the Non-Starter Report issued by Secretary DLSA is a fabricated document. Admittteldy, neither defendant nor his Ld. Counsel cross-checked the authenticity of this document from the records of Central DLSA. In this backdrop the defined stand of the defendant that Non-Starter Report is a fabricated document is a blatant attempt to scandalise the Mediation.
15.As such notice under Section 379 BNSS (Section 340 Cr.PC) be issued to the defendant Sachin Jain as to why proceedings of perjury be not initiated against him for giving a misleading statement. Reply to the same be filed within 2 weeks. Reader/Ahlmad is directed to create a separate file for this purpose.
16.No replication was filed by the plaintiff.
17. Out of the pleadings following issues were identified by Ld. Predecessor on 23.09.2024:
Issues:
CS Comm No.402/2024 page 6
Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain
1. Whether the plaintiff suppressed material facts and presented false facts to the Court? OPD
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD
3. Whether there was a partnership between the plaintiff and Mr. Puneet Jain, brother of the defendant and which ended in the year 2015 and there was an oral settlement and pursuant thereto the defendant paid an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the plaintiff as full and final settlement on 06.09.2017? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs. 17,76,216/-? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the suit amount, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
6. Whether the defendant is entitled to decree for recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/-, as prayed in the counter claim? OPD
7. Whether the defendant is entitled to any interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPD
8. Relief Evidence
18. Evidence in this case was ordered to be recorded before Advocates namely Sh. Tanmay Garg, and Ms. Abhirati Gupta, Ld. Local Comissioners as per protocol created by this Court under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC read with Order 15A Rule 6(l) and (o) CPC as applicable to Commercial suits for the sake of timely disposal of this case. Plaintiff's Evidence
19. To prove its case plaintiff company examined PW1 Rohit Jain. Vide affidavit Ex.PW1/A he deposed on the lines of plaint and exhibited following documents:
i. Documents of VAT registration is exhibited as EX. PW-1/1(COLLY) (OSR). ii. The fresh ledger account statement is exhibited as EX. PW-1/2. iii. The Invoices are exhibited as EX. PW-1/3(COLLY) (OSR). iv. The non-starter report dated 05.03.2024 is exhibited as EX. PW-1/4. v. GST Registration certificate is exhibited as EX. PW-1/5 (COLLY). vi. The certificate under order XI Rule 6(3) of CPC R/W Section 63 of the BSA dated 28.11.2024 is exhibited as EX. PW-1/6.
vii. The invoice for pre-suit interest issued for a sum of Rs. 9,59,157/- is exhibited as EX.
PW-1/7.
viii. Computer generated ledger for interest receivable for F.Y.-2021-22, F.Y. 2022-23 and F.Y. 2023-24 is exhibited as EX. PW-1/8 (COLLY).
CS Comm No.402/2024 page 7
Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain
20.He was cross-examined by Sh. Varun Tyagi, Advocate wherein he stated that he knows that defendant since his school days and they have family relations. Defendant's brother is Mr. Punit Jain. He accepted that plaintiff firm was initially a partnershp firm between plaintiff and defendant's brother Punit Jain between 2012 and 2016 before it was converted into a proprietorship firm. He denied that the business with Punit Jain continued only up till 2015. It is stated that a dispute arose between the partners which led to dissolution of the firm. The relations bwetween the plaintiff and the defendant started during the time when plaintiff's firm was a partnership firm in the year 2014. Goods were sold and supplied on the basis of purchase orders and invoices were issued accordingly. Defendant was making payments as per terms and conditions agreed in the invoice. Many a time payments were made in advance as well but on other occasions the payments were delayed.
21.Witness admits that they used to extend friendly loans to each other. He admitted that credit entry of Rs.5 lakhs reflected in ledger Ex.PW1/2 dated 17.12.2012 was a friendly loan taken by him from the defendant. He also accepted that a debit entry of Rs.1.50 lakhs dated 25.01.2014 was made by him towards part discharge of friendly loan. Goods were sold and supplied with 30 days credit period. He denied that parties have agreed to not to maintain a running account. He admitted that there is no calculation of interest up till 2021. He denied that no interest was charged because there was no such agreement. Payment reminders were sent orally. He expressed unawareness if cash transactions beyond Rs.20,000/- were not permissible. He stated that he used to have monetary transactions of cash amongst them and no receipt or acknolwedgement signed qua these payments made in cash. He denied the suggestion that no CS Comm No.402/2024 page 8 Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain cash transactions were took place. He denied the suggestion that defendant did not pay Rs.50,000/- in cash on 20.08.2018.
22.Upon being asked the witness could not disclose in the ledger Ex.PW1/2 as to which entries are qua sale of goods and which are towards friendly loan. Goods were supplied either through rickshaw or transport. Witness could not disclose the vehicle no. or the specific invoices sent by vehicle. He denied the suggestion that no goods were ever delivered. He accepted the suggestion that defendant has not placed on record any receipt of delivery of goods to the defendant. He denied the suggestion that plaintiff does not have any receipt because no goods were ever delivered.
23.Witness was confronted with the ledger initially filed with the suit Ex.PW1/DB where he accepted that entries at point A and B in ledger Ex.PW1/2 were not available in the earlier filed ledger Ex.PW1/DB. He added that while refiling the new ledger, details of GST invoices were also added therein. He denied that the ledger is forged and manipulated. He also denied the suggestion that Rs. 1 lakh paid by the defendant was for friendly loan and not partial discharge of debit balance qua goods sold. His ledger was maintained by the Accountant. He denied the suggestion that Rs. 1 lakhs was accepted by him on 06.09.2017 as full and final settlement towards the dues. He also denied that no business took place between the parties after 06.09.2017.
24.Second witness examined by the plaintiff is PW2 Ankit Kumar, Senior Assistant from Department of Trade and Taxes, GNCTD. He placed on record VAT returns for FYs 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 as Ex.PW2/1 colly. He also exhibited Form 2B (DVAT 31) for the above years as Ex.PW2/2. Certifficate of Section 63 BSA is Ex.PW2/3 and authority letter Ex.PW2/4.
CS Comm No.402/2024 page 9
Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain
25.In his crossexamination he stated that he has no personal knowledge in this matter. This witness was recalled and he brought record for FYs 2016-17 as well following documents:
i. Copy of VAT returns for the FY- 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015- 2016 are Exhibited as Ex.- PW2/1(Colly. Pg. 1-156).
ii. Form 2B (DVAT-31) for the FY-2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015- 2016 are Exhibited as Ex.-PW2/2 (Colly. Pg. 1-13).
iii. Letter of Authorization issued by Shri. Ravinder Jangra is Exhibited as Ex.- PW-
2/5.
iv. Certificate under 63 BSA, 2023 is exhibited as Ex. PW-2/6. v. Copy of VAT Returns for FY 2016-2017 IS Exhibited as Ex.- PW - 2/7 (COLLY.
Pg.1-55 ).
vi. Form 2B (DVAT-31) for FY 2016-2017 is Exhibited as Ex. -PW - 2/8. (COLLY.
Pg.1-6).
26.In his further cross-examination he stated that he does not know the date and time of uploading by the plaintiff on the portal. The GST department does not maintain any record of delivery of the goods and as such he cannot say that the goods were actually delivered or not.
27.The third witness examined by the plaintiff is PW3 Sushant Gill, Senior Assistant from GST office. He exhibited on record VAT returns in DVAT 16 form alongwith Form 2A of the defenant's firm M/s Jaina Papers for FY 2013-2017 as Ex.PW3/1.
28.In his crossexaminatin he stated that he has no personal knowledge in this case.
29.On the other hand defendant stepped into the witness box as DW1 Sachin Jain. Vide affidavit Ex.DW1/1 he deposed on the lines of WS and he did not file any document.
30.In his cross-examination done by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff Sh. Aditya Kaushik wherein he stated that he is educated up to 12 th. He could not disclose when the business started between the parties. He however stated that plaintiff used to do business with defendant's brother but the firm was dissolved in 2014-15. Thereafter defendant started doing business with the plaintiff. No transaction happened between them when the plaintiff firm CS Comm No.402/2024 page 10 Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain was a partnership firm. He maintained that he never placed any purchase order. He added that the orders were placed by him physically when plaintiff and defendant used to sit together. He accepted that suggestion that orders used to be placed verbally. He admitted the suggestion that invoices Ex.PW1/3 colly. (18 in number) were raised by plaintiff against defendant's firm M/s Jaina Papers. He admitted that his godown was only 500 metres away from plaintiff's shop. He accepted that in his WS he has admitted the invoices filed by the plaintiff. Witness also identified the name of his firm on document Ex.PW2/2. He stated that he understands the concept of claiming input in VAT. He accepted that when the goods are purchased input is claimed in the VAT form. He identified the name of the plaintiff's firm in Ex.PW3/1 but maintained that no goods were ever delivered by the plaintiff to his firm.
31.He denied the suggestion that delivery was carried by him in his personal vehicle. He admitted money transactions between the parties. He stated that these money transactions were not related to the business. He admitted transactions of Rs.5 lakh and Rs.4 lakh dated 17.12.2012 and 12.04.2016. As per him he never maintained any ledger account of the plaintiff and no such document is filed on record. He denied that the ledger is not filed because it is showing debit balance. He claimed that he does not owe any money to plaintiff and rather plaintiff owes him Rs. 1 lakh. No separate document was created for Rs.1 lakh loan.
32.He admitted filing income tax return but could not specifically say if the claimed loan is disclosed in the return in the list of sundry debtors. Even though on the deferred date he did bring certain documents supplied to him by his CA but accepted that he did not bring the certified copy of ITR from 2012 to 2021. He only brought photocopies up to 2015. He denied that the ITR of FY 2015 onwards was not filed by him because they were CS Comm No.402/2024 page 11 Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain showing liability towards plaintiff. In his further cross-examination he stated that this is the first time that he has appeared in the Court. Upon being asked if he has brought certified copy of his ITR alongwith list of sundry debtors and creditors for the period 2012-2021, he stated that he has not brought the desired ITRs but rather brought photocopy of ITR of F.Y. 2012-15. He denied the suggestion that the complete ITRs upto 2021 were not brought by him since they reflected financial liability towards plaintiff. He claimed that he cannot bring these documents since the file containing the same was misplaced. He accepted that no police report qua the lost file was lodged. He stated that both the parties were granting sundry loans to each other. He denied the suggestion that he knows plaintiff since 2012 and rather stated that he knows him since school time and they started working together in 2012. He reiterated that payment of Rs.5,00,000/- on 17.12.2012 was a loan granted to the plaintiff and not a advance given for purchase of goods. The witness was confronted with para 9 of his affidavit-in-chief where payment of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- was mentioned as advance payment for purchase of goods and not as loan. He denied receipt of goods.
33.In contradiction to his earlier admission that both the sides used to receive and grant loan to each other, he denied the suggestion that he used to take loan from the plaintiff. He denied that plaintiff is entitled to 18% interest. He denied that sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by him in partial discharge of debit balance. He denied that he used to take input tax credit in his VAT returns for the period 2012 to 2021.
Counter claim filed by defendant was rejected
CS Comm No.402/2024 page 12
Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain
34.Before deciding the issues on merits it would be appropriate to mention here that the defendant herein Sh. Sachin Jain had initiallly filed a counter claim titled bearing CS (Comm.) No. 45/2024 titled as Sachin Jain Vs. Rohit Jain for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest, however, the same was rejected by this Court on 02.12.2024 since no mandatory Pre- Institution Mediation was carried out by the defendant.
35. I have heard arguments of Sh. Aditya Kaushik and Sh. Rakesh Upadhyay, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Ms. Akshita Harjai, Ld. Counsel for defendant and have perused the case file.
36. Now I shall dispose of individual issues framed in this case.
Issue No. 2:
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD
37.At the onset it would be appropriate to cull out the facts admitted by both the sides in the pleadings, during the course of trial and during final arguments. It is admitted case of both the parties that they know each other since prior to 2012 and have enjoyed cordial relations with each other. It is admitted that both plaintiff and defendant are traders of disposable paper/plastic products and in the course of business plaintiff had been selling goods to the defendant. It is also admitted that owing to their cordial relations both the parties have been lending as well as borrowing money from each other. It is admitted that both the sides were maintaining ledger account. However, only plaintiff has filed his ledger Ex.PW1/2 while defendant chose not file his ledger.
38.While opening his case, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that he has been selling goods to the defendant through VAT/GST paid invoices and in support of the suit claim plaintiff is relying on 23 invoices issued to the defendant between 10.02.2016 to 14.10.2017 Ex.PW1/3. It is argued that out of these 23 invoices earlier 18 invoices pertains to VAT era while the CS Comm No.402/2024 page 13 Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain last 5 invoices pertain to GST period. It is case of the plaintiff that 5 invoices of GST period already stands paid and this suit pertains to only 18 VAT era unpaid invoices which cumulatively adds upto Rs.17,76,216/- excluding interest.
39.Perusal of the invoices Ex.PW1/3 (Colly.) shows that some of these 6 old invoices are fully paid while invoice dated 09.11.2016 is partially paid and remaining 9 invoices are unpaid. The oldest invoice stated in the suit is partially paid invoice dated 09.11.2016 and the latest invoice unpaid is of 25.12.2016. As far as limitation of these invoices is concerned, all these invoices carry a 30 day credit period so the date of starting of limitation ranges from 09.12.2016 to 25.01.2017.
40.As such the three years period of filing the suit as per the oldest invoice dated payable on 09.12.2016 expires on 09.12.2019 while the period for invoice due on 25.01.2017 expired on 25.01.2020. The suit in hand was filed on 26.03.2024. It is submitted that the three years period in the case in hand deserves to be calculated according to Article 1 of Schedule Attached to Limitation Act, 1963 instead of Article 15 of Schedule Attached to Limitation Act 1963. Perusal of ledger exhibit Ex.PW1/2 shows that it is a composite ledger of sales made by the plaintiff as well as loans exchanged by both the sides with each other. The factum of both the parties seeking and granting loan to each other is admitted by the defendant in cross examination. Accordingly it can be considered that this limitation is covered under open, current and mutual account as per Article 1 and 15 of Schedule Attached to Limitation Act 1963. For ready reference the same are reproduced hereunder:
CS Comm No.402/2024 page 14
Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain
Article Description of suit Period of Time from which period
Limitation begins to run
1. For the balance due on a mutual, open Three Years The close of the year in
and current account, where there have which the last item admitted
been reciprocal demands between the or proved is entered in the
parties. account; such year to be
computed as in the account.
14. For the price of goods sold and Three Years The date of delivery of the
delivered, where no fixed period of goods.
credit is agreed upon.
15 For the price of goods sold and Three Years When the period of credit
delivered to be paid for after the expires.
expiry of a fixed period of credit.
41.The language used in Article shows that the three years period starts from the first date of next financial year after the closure of year which carried the last item in the ledger. The usage of word 'item' shows that it does not necessarily pertains to sale or purchase but also pertains to payments made. The last admitted payment of Rs.1 lakh was made by the defendant on 06.01.2021 and by implication of Article 1 the 3 years period starts from 01.04.2021. An argument is made by Ld. Counsel for defendant in this regard that plaintiff has unauthorisedly mingled money loans exchanged by the parties with the sale transactions in one ledger. Although it is correct that in civil courts such ledgers are not filed in written but the fact that it contains all the entries of the bank transfer as well as cash transfer it is evident that the sales and the loans were being credited and debited regularly. Since 01.04.2021 was during the covid related freeze the first date of the limitation starts from 01.03.2022 and the three year period ends on 01.03.2025. The suit in hand filed on 26.03.2024 is accordingly found to be within limitation. The issue no. 2 is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no. 1 and 3 :
1. Whether the plaintiff suppressed material facts and presented false facts to the Court? OPD CS Comm No.402/2024 page 15 Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain
3. Whether there was a partnership between the plaintiff and Mr. Puneet Jain, brother of the defendant and which ended in the year 2015 and there was an oral settlement and pursuant thereto the defendant paid an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the plaintiff as full and final settlement on 06.09.2017? OPD
42.The onus of proving the above two issues placed on the defendant. It is case of the defendant that an oral settlement was arrived at between the parties and finally accounts were settled on 06.09.2017. This plea has been denied by the plaintiff. Admittedly defendent has not placed any document whatsoever on record to substantiate the plea that the accounts up to September 2017 were settled. Neither any settlement letter or deed placed on record nor the defendant has filed his ledger in support of his above plea. It is a settled legal proposition that bald arguments and denied suggestions do not make evidence.
43.In this regard another plea raised by Ld. Counsel for defendant is that the fact that after promulgation of CGST Act 2017 on 01.07.2017 a separate ledger was maintained between the parties qua the business carried out with each other shows that the accounts prior to this period stood finally settled. This court do not find strength in the plea since segregation of ledgers is not abnormal more so when there was a change in the taxation regime between the parties. As such this Court has no hesitation in concluding that defendant even if there was an alleged partnership between plaintiff and defendant's brother has failed to establish on record that the accounts in question were finally settled on 06.09.2017.
Issue no. 6 and 7:
6. Whether the defendant is entitled to decree for recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/-, as prayed in the counter claim? OPD
7. Whether the defendant is entitled to any interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPD CS Comm No.402/2024 page 16 Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain
44.Issue no. 6 and 7 rendered infructuous because counter claim was dismissed.
Issue no. 4 and 5
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs. 17,76,216/- ? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the suit amount, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
45.In order to discharge the onus to seek relief on the above issues plaintiff is supposed to show defendants' liability to pay to him the sum of Rs.17,76,216/-. As discussed supra out of 18 odd invoices, 8 stood paid, one was partially paid and remaining 9 were unpaid. While the defendant has not denied the issuance of invoices but has denied the contention that goods qua the same were delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. The law with regard to delivery of goods can be summarised as under:
46.In money suit seeking recovery of unpaid dues qua goods sold proof of delivery of goods is mandatory pre-requisite. Under the law plaintiff could have proved delivery by any of the following methods:-
i. Admission by defendant/defendant acknowledges the delivery.
ii. Endorsement of receipt by the defendant on the invoices.
iii. Filing and proving Form 7 or Form 8 (Bilty) under Carriage by Road Rules, 2011 to show that plaintiff delivered the goods to the carrier and is entitled to benefit under Section 39 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
iv. By proving on record that the GST claimed to have been deposited by the plaintiff qua these invoices, defendant took input tax credit under Section 2 (63) of CGST Act, 2017 and plaintiff is entitled to presumption under Section 16 (2) of CGST Act, 2017.
v. By issuing notice under Section 12 (8) CPC and Order 11 Rule (5) CPC.
CS Comm No.402/2024 page 17
Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain
47.It is a settled legal position that plaintiff is entitled to recovery of only value of such goods which stands duly delivered. The law in regard to sale and delivery is governed under Sale of Goods Act, 1930, Carriage by Road Act, 2007 and Carriage by Road Rules, 2011. The relevant statute which governs sale of movable articles is Section 23 (2), Section 31, Section 33 and Section 39 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930. As far as duty of the seller is concerned, under Sale of Goods Act (SoGA), 1930 Section 31 of the Act places entire duty on the seller to ensure that the goods sold are delivered to the buyer. For ready reference the same is reproduced hereunder:
Section 31: Duties of Seller and Buyer "It is the duty of the seller to deliver the goods and of the buyer to accept and pay for them, in accordance with the terms of the contract of sale."
48.The term delivery also stands defined under the Statute under Section 33 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 . The same is reproduced hereunder:
Section 33: Delivery "Delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorised to hold them on his behalf."
49.Likewise, standalone invoices do not prove delivery of the goods as mandated under Section 31, 33 and 39 of Sale of Goods Act unless there is a physical endorsement of delivery over them or there is a separate document so as to show that the goods were actually delivered to defendant or at least delivered to a goods carrier as provided under Section 23 (2) and Section 39 of Sale of Goods Act. For ready reference the same are reproduced hereunder:
Section 23 (2) :Delivery to carrier.--
"(2) Where, in pursuance of the contract, the seller delivers the goods to the buyer or to a carrier or other bailee (whether named by the buyer or not) for the purpose of transmission to the buyer, and does not reserve the right of disposal, he is deemed to have unconditionally appropriated the goods to the contract."
CS Comm No.402/2024 page 18
Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain
Section 39: Delivery to carrier of wharfinger:
"(1) Where, in pursuance of a contract of sale, the seller is authorised or required to send the goods to the buyer, delivery of the goods to a carrier, whether named by the buyer or not, for the purpose of transmission to the buyer, or delivery of the goods to a wharfinger for safe custody, is prima facie, deemed to be a delivery of the goods to the buyer.
(2) Unless otherwise authorised by the buyer, the seller shall make such contract with the carrier or wharfinger on behalf of the buyer as may be reasonable having regard to the nature of the goods and the other circumstances of the case. If the seller omits so to do, and the goods are lost or damaged in course of transit or whilst in the custody of the wharfinger, the buyer may decline to treat the delivery to the carrier or wharfinger, as a delivery to himself, or may hold the seller responsible in damages.
(3) Unless otherwise agreed, where goods are sent by the seller to the buyer by a route involving sea transit, in circumstances in which it is usual to insure, the seller shall give such notice to the buyer as may enable him to insure them during their sea transit and if the seller fails so to do, the goods shall be deemed to be at his risk during such sea transit."
50.To prove delivery by a carrier, copy of Rule 7 and 8 of Carriage by Road Rules should have been placed on record which is popularly known as 'Bilty'. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has accepted that apart from filing e- way bills issued under CGST Rules, 2017 which statutorily and as per settled law does not prove actual delivery of the goods, neither Form 7 as per Carriage by Road Rules, 2011 whereunder a seller hands over the consignment/material/goods to the carrier under endorsement or Form 8 i.e. popularly known as 'Bilty' whereunder the carrier issues a receipt in favour of the seller thereby acknowledging the receipt of goods.
51.Every transport company or a carrier of goods carries out business under Carriage by Road Act, 2007 whereunder every movable article as and when booked for transportation shall be done as per documentation provided under the statute. The term common carrier is defined in Section 2 (a) of this Act.
Section 2 of Carriage by Road Act. 2007 : Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-- i. "common carrier" means a person engaged in the business of collecting, storing, forwarding or distributing goods to be carried by goods carriages under a goods receipt or transporting for hire of goods from place to place by motorised transport on road, for all persons undiscriminatingly and includes a goods booking company, contractor, agent, broker and courier agency engaged in the doorto-door transportation of documents, goods or articles CS Comm No.402/2024 page 19 Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain utilising the services of a person, either directly or indirectly, to carry or accompany such documents, goods or articles, but does not include the Government; ii. "consignee" means the person named as consignee in the goods forwarding note; iii. "consignment" means documents, goods or articles entrusted by the consignor to the common carrier for carriage, the description or details of which are given in the goods forwarding note;
iv. "consignor" means a person, named as consignor in the goods forwarding note, by whom or on whose behalf the documents, goods or articles covered by such forwarding note are entrusted to the common carrier for carriage thereof; v. "goods" includes--
i. Containers, pallets or similar articles of transport used to consolidate goods; and ii. animals or livestock;
vi. "goods forwarding note" means the document executed under section 8; vii. "goods receipt" means the receipt issued under section 9; viii. "person" includes any association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not, a road transport booking company, contractor and an agent or a broker carrying on the business of a common carrier;
ix. "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this Act; x. "registering authority" means a State Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority constituted under section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988); xi. "registration" means the registration granted or renewed under sub-section (5) of section
52. Section 2 of this Act also defines the specific terms like Consignee in Section 2(b), Consignment in Section 2 (c) and Consignor in Section 2
(d). Even the terms "Goods Receipt" issued under Section 9 of this Act also stands defined under Section 2 (g).
Section 9 of Carriage by Road Act, 2007 : Goods Receipt
1. A Common Carrier shall,-
i. in case where the goods are to be loaded by the consignor, on the completion of such loading; or ii. in any other case, on the acceptance of the goods by him, issue a goods receipts in such form and manner as may be prescribed.
2. The goods receipt shall be issued in triplicate and the original shall be given to the consignor.
3. The goods receipt shall be prime facie evidence of the weight or measure and other particulars of the goods and the number of packages stated therein.
4. The goods receipt shall include an undertaking by the common carrier about the liability under Section 10 or Section 11.
53. For ready reference Rule 10 of Carriage by Road Rules, 2011 is reproduced hereunder:
Rule 10 : Goods forwarding note and goods receipt i. "Every consignor while booking his goods shall execute a goods forwarding note as specified under sub-section (1) of section 8, containing details of the goods in Form 7 and submit it to the common carrier in duplicate.
CS Comm No.402/2024 page 20
Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain
ii. For the goods of dangerous or hazardous nature, the goods forwarding note shall be issued on a paper with upper left hand corners printed in red as "expand goods." iii. An acknowledged copy of the good forwarding note shall be returned by the common carrier to the consignor.
iv. Every common carrier on receipt of the goods forwarding note from the consignor for booking of goods to be transported, shall issue a goods receipt in Form 8. v. For the goods of dangerous or hazardous nature, the goods receipt shall be issued on a paper with upper left hand corners printed in red as "Dangerous and Hazardous goods."
54. Form 7 and 8 of Rules, 2011 are pictorially represented as under:
CS Comm No.402/2024 page 21
Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain
55.Applying the above conclusions on the facts of this case, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that in para 15 of the plaint the plaintiff has categorically stated that he had made delivery of the goods sold to the defendant within jurisdiction of this Court and that this fact has not been denied either in terms of Order 8 Rule 5 CPC or in terms of Order 8 Rule 3A of CPC.
56.Para 7 of amended plaint is reproduced as under:
7. That apart from the arrears of the outstanding amount including the loan, the plaintiff still used to send all the material as per the order placed by the Defendant which were delivered to the Defendant and all the invoices were also issued accordingly which were supplied to the Defendant and the Defendant never complained the Plaintiff regarding the quality of the products/goods supplied to him.
CS Comm No.402/2024 page 22
Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain
57.In WS para 7 is replied as under:
7. That the said partnership business continued to exist till the year 2015, when Mr. Punit Jain separated from the said business. In fact, thereafter, for some period, Defendant also worked with the Plaintiff, though the same had become sole proprietorship concern of the Plaintiff.
58.It would be handy to have a glance at Order 8 Rule 5 CPC including its proviso specifically added for Commercial Courts as well as Order 8 Rule 3A CPC. As per Order 8 Rule 5 CPC when read in the context of the suit in hand categorically shows that the evasive denial by the defendant shall lead to an inference that the defendant has admitted the contents of the plaintiff's plaint. For ready reference Order 8 Rule 5 CPC and Order 8 Rule 3A CPC are reproduced hereunder:
Order 8 Rule 5 CPC: Specific Denial
1."Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability:
Provided that the Court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission.
Provided further that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied in the manner provided under rule 3A of this Order, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability."
Order 8 Rule 3A CPC: Denial by the defendant in suits before Commercial Division of the High Court or the Commercial Court-- i. Denial shall be in the manner provided in sub-rules (2), (3), (4) and (5) of this Rule.
ii. The defendant in his written statement shall state which of the allegations in the particulars of plaint he denies, which allegations he is unable to admit or deny, but which he requies the plaintiff to prove, and which allegations he admits. iii. Where the defendant denies an allegation of fact in a plaint, he must state his reasons for doing so and if he intends to put forward a different version of events from that given by the plaintiff, he must state his own version. iv. If the defendant disputes the jurisdiction of the Court he must state the reasons for doing so, and if he is able, give his own statement as to which Court ought to have jurisdiction.
v. If the defendant disputes the plaintiff's valuation of the suit, he must state his reasons for doing so, and if he is able, give his own statement of the value of the suit."
CS Comm No.402/2024 page 23
Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain
59. In case titled Sh. Rajeev Tandon and Anr. Vs. Smt Rashmi Tandon, 2019 Latest Caselaw 1306 Del dated 28.02.2019 Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that:
" The substance of the actual defence of the defendant from a perusal of the written statement is that the property in question has been purchased from the joint family fund obtained from the joint family business belonging to the father of the parties. It is also stated that the suit property was brought from the funds generated after disposal of the joint family property in which the defendant had an equal share and entitlement. This is the sum and substance of the defence raised by the defendant in her written statement. It is manifest that the defence is vague, evasive and lacks material particulars. Under 8 Rule 3 CPC, a defendant is obliged to deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth. Similarly, under Order 8 Rule 4 CPC, if a defendant denies an allegation of fact, he must not do so evasively but answer the point of substance. In the present case, the denials are evasive and cannot be said to be a specific response."
60. In case titled Thangam and Anr. Vs. Navamani Ammal, 2024 Latest Caselaw 132 SC dated 04.03.2024 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"Order 8 Rules 3 and 5 CPC clearly provides for specific admission and denial of the pleadings in the plaint. A general or evasive denial is not treated as sufficient. Proviso to Order 8 Rule 5 CPC provides that even the admitted facts may not be treated to be admitted, still in its discretion the Court may require those facts to be proved. This is an exception to the general rule. General rule is that the facts admitted, are not required to be proved."
61.Bare perusal of the above two paras from the plaint and the WS shows that defendant has not only failed to specifically deny the factum of delivery of goods by the plaintiff as amended under Order 8 Rule 5 CPC. The defendant has further failed to cite any reasons since there was no denial at all. While opposing this plea attention of this Court is drawn by Ld. Counsel for defendant to para 7 of the plaint and the corresponding reply wherein a similar assertion is made by the plaintiff that the goods were sold and delivered to the defendant and there is a specific denial to the plaintiff's assertion that the goods were delivered to the defendant. A rejoinder is made by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that even denial to para 5 of the plaint is not happily worded for the purpose of denial and is in non- compliance of Order 8 Rule 3A CPC but when the factum of delivery was reiterated in para 15 there is absolutely no denial and as such benefit CS Comm No.402/2024 page 24 Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain of Order 8 Rule 5 CPC shall be extended to the plaintiff. Evidently, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff is correct in a limited sense that the factum of delivery of goods in para 15 of the plaint, dedicated to cause of action, is not denied by the defendant but when the same factum is already denied in reply to the para 7 of the plaint, failure to deny it every time the identical assertion is made in more than one place may not be necessary and may seem to be falling short of satisfying the Court that the proviso to Order 8 Rule 5 CPC is applicable.
62.Perusal of these 10 invoices shows that they are handwritten invoices and none of them have any signatures of defendant and any person acting on his behalf as endorsement of delivery of goods. None of these invoices also carry any reference as to on what mode the goods were supplied. In the cross examination plaintiff has stated that the goods were sent many a times by rickshaw but on other occasions by transport. However in the absence of any e-way bill or a goods receipt the plaintiff has not been able to discharge the onus under Section 31, 33 and 39 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The last opportunity which the plaintiff had was presumption attached to Section 16 CGST Act, 2017 but since these invoices were issued prior to promulgation and invoices on CGST Act 2017 on 01.07.2017 Section 16 (2) has no applicability over it. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that the corresponding provision under the VAT Act 2004 akin to Section 16 (2) CGST Act the closer corresponding is Section 9 (1) of DVAT Act, 2004. Same are reproduced hereunder:
Section 16 : Eligibility and conditions for taking input tax credit
2. Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no registered person shall be entitled to the credit of any input tax in respect of any supply of goods or services or both to him unless,--
(a) he is in possession of a tax invoice or debit note issued by a supplier registered under this Act, or such other tax paying documents as may be prescribed;
(b) he has received the goods or services or both.
CS Comm No.402/2024 page 25
Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain
[Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause, it shall be deemed that the registered person has received the goods or, as the case may be, services- i. where the goods are delivered by the supplier to a recipient or any other person on the direction of such registered person, whether acting as an agent or otherwise, before or during movements of goods, either by way of transfer of documents of title to goods or otherwise;
ii. where the services are provided by the supplier to any person on the direction of and on account of such registered person.]
(c) subject to the provisions of section 41, the tax charged in respect of such supply has been actually paid to the Government, either in cash or through utilization of input tax credit admissible in respect of the said supply; and
(d) he has furnished the return under section 39:
Provided that where the goods against an invoice are received in lots or instalments, the registered person shall be entitled to take credit upon receipt of the last lot or instalment:
Provided further that where a recipient fails to pay to the supplier of goods or services or both, other than the supplies on which tax is payable on reverse charge basis, the amount towards the value of supply along with tax payable thereon within a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of issue of invoice by the supplier, an amount equal to the input tax credit availed by the recipient shall be added to his output tax liability, along with interest thereon, in such manner as may be prescribed:
Provided also that the recipient shall be entitled to avail of the credit of input tax on payment made by him of the amount towards the value of supply of goods or services or both along with tax payable thereon.
(Emphasis Supplied)
Section 9 of DVAT Act, 2004: Tax Credit
Rules: 6, 7 Form: Nil
(1) Subject to sub-section (2) of this section and such conditions, restrictions and limitations as may be prescribed, a dealer who is registered or is required to be registered under this Act shall be entitled to a tax credit in respect of the turnover of purchases occurring during the tax period [where the purchase arises] in the course of his activities as a dealer and the goods are to be used by him directly or indirectly for the purpose of making
(a) -- sales which are liable to tax under section 3 of this Act; or
(b) -- sales which are not liable to tax under section 7 of this Act.
Explanation.- Sales which are not liable to tax under section 7 of this Act involve exports from Delhi whether to other States or Union territories or to foreign countries.
63.Plain reading of the above two statute shows that they both pertain to and deals with availing of input tax credit. They both address the situation which relates to presumption or concept of delivery/receipt of goods by the buyer. It is evident that Section 16 (2) is much more specific in the language utilised that that the factum of receipt of input tax credit of the buyer is linked directly that he must have received the goods or services, CS Comm No.402/2024 page 26 Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain as the case may be. On the other hand the corresponding provision of Section 16 (2) of CGST Act, 2017 i.e Section 9 of DVAT Act, although addresses the same aspect but is not worded identically. The language of Section 9 DVAT Act however does indicate that the buyer's right to seek Input Tax Credit is directly proportionate and related to the factum of delivery of goods. In this regard even if specific presumption is not mentioned in Section 9 DVAT Act but the legislative intent, purpose and purport of both these statutory provisions is same. More so when plaintiff has clearly established on record other necessary documents viz. Duly issued DVAT registered invoices supported with ledger. Mere absence of endorsement of delivery on invoices or goods receipt as per the Carriage by Road Rules, 2011 does not mean that the defendant is at liberty to deny the delivery of goods.
64.During the course of arguments Ld. Counsel for defendant has relied on case titled Mahender Kumar Gandhi Vs. Parveen Kumar, 2025:DHC:8843 Division Bench wherein while deciding an appeal against a judgment passed by Ld. District Judge Comm. There are no qualms about the findings given by Hon'ble High Court. Hon'ble Division Bench has discussed the factum of proof of delivery documents. It is found that in the facts and circumstances of the cited case the discussion is carried out only qua Rule 138(12) of CGST Rules, 2017 and that the aspect of availing of ITC as per Section 2 (63) and the statutory presumption qua delivery of the goods as per Section 16(2) of CGST Act, 2017 in favour of the seller and against the buyer was neither agitated nor adjudicated before the Hon'ble Division Bench.
65.On the contrary the suit in hand pertains to DVAT era where plaintiff has invoked corresponding provision of Section 9 DVAT Act, 2004 in relation to which is earlier avatar of current Section 16 (2) of CGST Act, 2017.
CS Comm No.402/2024 page 27
Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain
66.Through PW2 Ankit Kumar and PW3 Sushant Gill plaintiff have exhibited several documents detailed supra, respectively which clearly show that the sales in question already stands mentioned in the DVAT record of the plaintiff and corresponding entries qua availing of Input Tax Credit are visible in the DVAT documents of the defendant brought on record by PW3 as available in the initial page 305-306 i.e. DVAT Form 2B of plaintiff, 498 i.e. DVAT-16 Form of the defendant firm and 513 i.e. corresponding DVAT Form-2A showing the sales of Rs.19,88,485/- by the plaintiff to the defendant in the relevant third quarter from 01.10.2016 to 31.12.2016. Nothing has been shown by the defendant on record as to why on the one hand he admits having business relations with the plaintiff and admits the invoices in question on the other hand despite receiving the ITC he is denying the receipt of goods. This Court is of the considered view that the facts and circumstances of this case does call for drawing an analogy and presumption against the defendant that his act of availing ITC qua VAT deposited by the plaintiff in respect to unpaid invoices agitated in the suit is sufficient to draw the presumption of delivery.
67. It goes without saying that in a Civil Court, decisions are arrived at as per Doctorine of Preponderance of Probability. The doctrine of preponderance of probability, in the parlance of Civil Courts means that a party who proves its version of fact is more likely true/probable than not shall prevail. This doctrine was explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in celebrated case of "Narayan Ganesh Dastane Vs. Suchita Naresh Dastane", 1975 Latest Caselaw 79 SC while discussing Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 where it was ruled that civil cases are decided by weighing conflicting probability and ruling in favour of more probable version of events. The doctrine was further reiterated and asserted in case titled "Gurbachan Singh Vs. Satpal Singh", 1989 Latest Caselaw 289 CS Comm No.402/2024 page 28 Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain SC while elucidating the standard of proof required in criminal cases and civil cases ruling that civil cases are decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. In case titled N. G. Dastane vs. Sucheta Narayan Dastane, detailed supra Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"24. The normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact can be said to be established if it is proved by a preponderance of probabilities...... The first step in this process is to fix the probabilities, the second to weigh them.....The impossible is weeded out at the first stage, the improbable at the second. Within the wide range of probabilities the court has often a difficult choice to make but it is this choice which ultimately determines where the preponderance of probabilities lies.
68. The admission of business relations, acceptance of genuineness of the unpaid invoices and availing of ITC in the VAT deposited by the plaintiff is sufficient to conclude that the plaintiff has discharged the onus of proving the above issues in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Relief
69.In view of the above, suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost for Rs.17,76,216/- + Rs. 5,03,228/- (interest @9% w.e.f. 01.02.2021 as per last entry in the ledger to 26.03.2024 i.e. date of filing of the suit) =Rs.22,79,444/- and further 9% interest on Rs.22,79,444/- pendente lite and till realization. Plaintiff's Lawyer's fees is assessed as Rs.50,000/-.
70.Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by SURINDER SURINDER S RATHI S RATHI Date:
2025.12.12 10:29:21 +0530 (SURINDER S. RATHI) District Judge, Commercial Court -11 Central District, THC Delhi/24.11.2025 CS Comm No.402/2024 page 29 Rohit Jain Vs. Sachin Jain