Delhi District Court
Shri Nalin Arora vs Ms. Meenu Jain on 27 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF RUBY ALKA GUPTA
DISTRICT JUDGE, (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02, EAST
DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM.) No. 348/2023
CNR No. DLET01-011569-2023
In the matter of:
Sh. Nalin Arora
Proprietor of
M/s Richi Rich Traders
At C-4E/370, Janakpuri
New Delhi-110058. ....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Meenu Jain
Proprietor of M/s Royal Homz Interio
F-155/2, Main Road, Jagatpuri
Near Ambedkar Gate,
Delhi-110051.
2. Shri Sumit
Authorized Signatory of
M/s Royal Homz Interio
F-155/2, Main Road, Jagatpuri
Near Ambedkar Gate,
Delhi-110051. ....Defendants
Date of institution : 14.09.2023
Date of reserving judgment : 24.05.2025
Date of judgment : 27.08.2025
CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025
Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 1 of 29
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall dispose off the suit for recovery of Rs. 4,34,753/- (Rupees four lakh thirty four thousand seven hundred and fifty three only). Summons for settlement of issues were issued to the defendant no.1 only. The Ld. Predecessor did not direct for issuance of summons to defendant no. 2 as he was only the authorized signatory of the proprietorship of defendant no. 1. Thus, although name of defendant no. 2 was not deleted, the suit was not prosecuted against him. Accordingly, the term 'defendant' has been used for Ms. Meenu Jain, defendant no. 1, proprietor of M/s Royal Homz Interio. Upon service, the defendant no. 1 appeared and filed the written statement. Replication thereto was filed. Issues were framed. Both the parties examined one witness each in favour of their case.
2. Submissions were made on behalf of both the parties. Written submissions had been filed by the defendant. Written submissions by the plaintiff were filed after the matter was reserved for orders without proof of service of the same on the defendant. File has been perused.
Averments in the Plaint CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 2 of 29
3. The plaintiff is stated to be a proprietorship firm run in the name and style of M/s Richi Rich Traders. It is stated to be engaged in the business of distributorship of a number of companies manufacturing electronic goods. The defendant no. 1 is also stated to be a proprietorship concern in the name of Royal Homz Interio. The defendant no. 1 is engaged in the business of electronic goods. Defendant no. 2 is stated to be the authorized signatory of defendant no. 1.
4. It is stated that the plaintiff has been the dealer for the defendant company for some time. The defendant no. 2 had been placing orders for supply of electronic goods to the plaintiff, who had been dispatching goods to the defendants against invoices. The defendants made payments from time to time against the total outstanding. The defendants are stated to have received the goods supplied by the plaintiff without any objection. The plaintiff is stated to have raised invoices detailed below:
S. no. Tax invoices Date Amount
1. T1/21-22/2271 12.11.2022 Rs.89,290/-
2. T1/21-22/2556 24.03.2022 Rs.29,800/-
3. T1/22-23/221 22.04.2022 Rs.26,150/-
4. T1/22-23/583 03.06.2022 Rs.45,000/-
5. T1/22-23/821 04.07.2022 Rs.72,525/-
6. T1/22-23/1098 18.08.2022 Rs.52,317/-
7. T1/22-23/2012 21.12.2022 Rs.1,36,952/-
CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025
Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 3 of 29
5. The plaintiff states that as per the statement of account maintained by them in due course of business, a sum of Rs.3,75,597/- is due from the defendants. The defendant no. 2 had issued a cheque for Rs.25,000/- on behalf of defendant no. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. The said cheque was, however, dishonoured upon presentation with the remarks "payment stopped by the drawer". The defendants were informed about the same.
6. The plaintiff requested the defendants to make payments on number of occassions but they avoided to do so on one pretext or the other. The amount due from the defendants along with interest @ 21% p.a. is stated to be Rs.4,34,753/- till May 2023 since the date of the respective invoices. The defendants, having failed to clear the payment without justifiable reasons, are stated to be liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the said outstanding amount.
7. The plaintiff got a legal notice dated 24.04.2023 served upon the defendants. Despite receiving the said legal notice, the defendants neither replied to it nor cleared the outstanding amount. The plaintiff approached DLSA, South East District for pre-litigation mediation. The defendants did not participate despite service. Non-starter report dated 05.08.2023 was issued.
CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 4 of 29
8. The plaintiff is stated to be entitled to a sum of Rs.3,75,597/- along with Rs.59,156/- as interest calculated @ 18% p.a. from the date of respective invoices till May 2024. The plaintiff is thus stated to entitled to a sum of Rs.4,34,753/-. The plaintiff also claims pendente lite and future interest @ 18% p.a..
Averments in the Written Statement
9. The defendants have stated in their written statement that the suit is not maintainable as the entire claim is vague, unspecific, lacks necessary particulars and is without necessary documents. The plaintiff is stated to have not approached the court with clean hands and to have suppressed material particulars. The present suit is stated to be liable to be dismissed being based on wrong and misleading particulars. It is also stated to be not maintainable as it is not supported by specfic documentary evidence. The entire claim is stated to have been made on the basis of conjuctures and surmises.
10. It is stated that the plaintiff has instituted the present suit on the basis of false accounting ledger reflecting bogus accounting entries of sales to the defendants starting from 15.07.2020. The firm is stated to have been established in the month of August 2021 by its defendant no. 1/proprietor Ms. Meenu Jain. It started its commercial operation in September 2021. The present suit is thus stated to be liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.
CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 5 of 29
11. It is further stated that the plaintiff has mentioned seven tax invoices. However, in the ledger filed along with the suit, there are sales entries from 15.07.2020. Copies of tax invoices pertaining to these entries between the period 15.07.2020 to 31.091.2022 are stated to have not been filed. The defendant has filed its copy of the ledger. It is further stated that the defendant had made payment of the seven invoices mentioned in the suit. Further, sales return amounting to Rs.1,33,841/- was made to the plaintiff which the plaintiff deliberately did not enter in its ledger. The present suit is therefore stated to be also liable to be dismissed.
12. It is accepted that the firm is a proprietorship run by Ms. Meenu Jain. It is, however, denied that it is engaged in the business of electronic goods. It is stated that it is mainly doing the business of modular kitchen, tiles and interior articles. It is also denied that the parties have been in association with each other as stated by the plaintiff. The defendants futher state that they had not placed various orders on the plaintiff in the quantity and value as stated by the plaintiff. The present suit is thus stated to be without cause of action. The defendants, however, admit that they had received the electronic goods against the seven sales invoices issued by the plaintiff as mentioned in the plaint. However, it also claims to have made payments in respect of the said seven sales invoices. It is stated that the plaintiff is surreptiously silent on such payments received as well as the amount of sales returns made by the defendants to the plaintiff from the said seven sales invoices.
CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 6 of 29
13. The defendants deny that there is an outstanding of Rs.3,75,597/-. The defendants deny being legaly liable to pay such amount to the plaintiff. It is stated that the firm was not in existence from July 2020 to September 2021. It is further stated that the ledger furnished by the plaintiff reflects sales of Rs.9,05,895/- and no proof of such sales have been filed. It is claimed that the plaintiff has not adjusted the amount of sales return despite several communications of defendants to that effect. The claim of the plaintiff is stated to be based on false ledger and thus liable to be dismissed with a heavy costs.
14. In respect of the cheque issued by the defendant, it is stated that the same was issued as a security for supply of goods against invoice no. T1/2022-2023/2012 dated 21.12.2022 amounting to Rs.1,36,952/-. It was issued without any legally enforceable liability. It was misused by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had been instructed to not present security cheques as some items were to be returned to the plaintiff by them. The cheque was, however, misused by the plaintiff for wrongful gain due to which the defendants stopped the payment thereof. The defendant claimed to have made sales return of seven items amounting to Rs.1,33,841/- including GST on 17.03.2023. The return of said items was duly acknowledged by the plaintiff on the said date. However, the plaintiff did not update the return in their ledger.
CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 7 of 29
15. The defendant states that despite several requests, the plaintiff did not correct and update their ledger. The defendants had tried to communicate with the plaintiff to settle the balance outstanding amount even after receipt of legal notice. The plaintiff did not share the updated ledger with the defendant. It is further denied that the defendant had ever agreed to pay any interest or other charges to the plaintiff on the balance outstanding amount. It is also denied that the defendant avoided to clear the actual balance outstanding against them. The defendant, therefore, denies that it is liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. The defendants also deny that they are liable to pay any interest on any such alleged outstanding amount to the plaintiff. The defendants deny having received notice from DLSA, South East District. No cause of action is stated to have ever arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. It is prayed that the suit be dismissed with exemplary costs.
Replication
16. The plaintiff filed replication wherein the averments contained in the plaint have been reiterated while denying the averments contained in the written statement.
Issues and Evidence CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 8 of 29
17. As per pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 09.09.2024:
1. Whether the amount claimed by the plaintiff has been calculated on the basis of a properly maintained and correct ledger? OPD
2. Whether the defendant had returned goods amounting to Rs.1,33,841/- to the plaintiff? OPD
3. If issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the defendant, whether the plaintiff has accounted for the said sales returns? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the amount claimed? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the said amount? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
18. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and the Sr. Manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank as PW2. His affidavit is Ex.PW1/X. PW1 was cross-examined on behalf of the defendant. The documents exhibited in his testimony are mentioned in Table A, which are as follows:
Table A S. Particulars of the document Exhibit No. No. (during evidence) 1 GST Certificate of plaintiff company Ex. PW 1/1 2 Tax Invoice no. T1/21-22/2271 dated Ex. PW 1/2A 12.11.2022 3 Tax Invoice no. T1/21-22/2556 dated Ex. PW 1/2B 24.03.2022 CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 9 of 29 4 Tax Invoice no. T1/21-23/221 dated Ex. PW 1/2C 22.04.2022 5 Tax Invoice no. T1/21-23/583 dated Ex. PW 1/2D 03.06.2022 6 Tax Invoice no. T1/21-23/821 dated Ex. PW 1/2E 04.07.2022 7 Tax Invoice no. T1/21-23/1098 dated Ex. PW 1/2F 18.08.2022 8 Tax Invoice no. T1/21-23/2012 dated Ex. PW 1/2G 21.12.2022 9 E-way bill dated 21.12.2022 Ex. PW 1/2H 10 Ledger account w.e.f 01.04.2020 to Ex. PW 1/3A 31.03.2021 11 Ledger account w.e.f 01.04.2021 to Ex. PW 1/3B 31.03.2021 12 Ledger account w.e.f 01.04.2022 to Ex. PW 1/3C 23.05.2023 13 Cheque bearing no. 000135 dated Ex. PW 1/4 20.01.2023 amount Rs.25,000/- 14 Return memo dated 21.01.2023 Ex. PW 1/5 15 Copy of legal notice dated 24.04.2023 Ex. PW 1/6 16 Copies of postal receipts Ex. PW 1/7 17 Tracking report bearing registered post no. Ex. PW 1/8A RD9437789051N 18 Tracking report bearing registered post no. Ex. PW 1/8B RD9437790351N 19 Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, Ex. PW 1/9 1872.
20 Certificate for non-starter report dated Ex. PW 1/10 05.08.2023 CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 10 of 29
19. Sh. Saurabh Raj Verma, Sr. Manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank has been examined as PW2. He has proved his authority letter as Ex. PW 2/A and the statement of the account of the defendant bearing no. 4112833037 for the period of 15.07.2020 to 31.08.2020 as Ex. PW 2/B.
20. The defendant no. 1 examined herself as DW1. Her affidavit is Ex. DW1/X. DW1 was cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff. The documents exhibited in her testimony are mentioned in Table B which are as follows:
Table B S. Particulars of the document Exhibit No. No. (during evidence)
1. Copy of GST registration certiciate of the Already Ex. PW defendant's firm 1/DA 2 Certified copy of Accounting Ledger Already Ex. PW 1/DB 3 Copy of Sales Return Invoice Already Ex. PW 1/DC 4 Acknowledgement of goods returned Already Mark A 5 Copy of Bank Statement of HDFC Bank Ex. DW 1/4 Contentions on behalf of the plaintiff
21. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has reiterated the facts and the proceedings. It is stated that the defendant has not denied the delivery CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 11 of 29 of goods supplied against invoices Ex. PW 1/2A to Ex. PW 1/2G. The defendant is stated to have denied the genuineness of the ledger account, Ex. PW 1/3A to Ex. PW 1/3C as the alleged sales return is not entered in the ledger. However, it is stated that the defendant has not confronted the plaintiff/PW1 with the specific enteries of the ledger account or payments made by the defendant but not mentioned in the ledger accounts or any entry as regards the supply of goods but in actual not delivered to the defendant.
22. It is further contended that the evidence of the defendant cannot be relied upon as the defendant has repeatedly made false averments in its evidential affidavit and cross-examination. The defendant is contended to have falsely stated that she started the business in 2021. PW2 is stated to have shown that the defendant made payment to the plaintiff through NEFT and cheques between July and August, 2020 from a bank account maintained in Kotak Mahindra Bank in the name of Royal Homz.
23. The defendant as DW1 is further contended to have falsely denied the receipt of legal notice Ex. PW 1/6 as Ex. PW 1/7 to Ex. PW 1/9 clearly show that she had received the same. It is submitted that as per Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, it is presumed that the legal notice is served upon the defendant as the correctness of the address mentioned in the notice has not been challenged.
CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 12 of 29
24. It is further contended that the defendant has failed to prove the photocopy of the sales return invoice dated 17.03.2023, Ex. PW 1/DB as per law. The defendant has neither filed the original sales return invoice duly acknowledged by the plaintiff nor the e-way bill for the said invoice which is necessary in Delhi for movement of goods having value more than Rs.1 lakh. The defendant is stated to have also not examined the driver of the vehicle who had delivered the goods to the plaintiff.
25. It is contended that the plaintiff was dealing with the defendant through her proprietorship concern M/s Royal Homz Interio. It is further stated that since proprietorship concern does not have legal entity, the defendant is liable to make payment to the plaintiff in her individual capacity. Further that, it does not make any difference whether part payment was made through other proprietorship concern. The Ld. Counsel has relied upon order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Noida Dhatu Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UDAI Continental and Anr., Crl.(A) 818/13 in this respect. The Ld. Counsel also referred Sudhir Engineering Vs. Nitco Roadways and Vijay Vs. Union of India during the course of submissions. However, neither the complete citations have been given nor the copy of judgments have been furnished.
26. It is further contended that since the defendant failed to make the payment of Rs.4,34,753/- without justifiable reasons, the CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 13 of 29 defendant is liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the outstanding amount.
Contentions on behalf of the defendant
27. The Ld. Counsel for the defendant has submitted that the present suit of the plaintiff is based on ledger accounts maintained by the plaintiff for the FY 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23, Ex. PW 1/3A to Ex. PW 1/3C respectively. The ledgers are stated to be not supported by tax invoices. It is claimed that the ledger accounts are false as they contain bogus entries of sales. It is contented that the defendant firm was established in August, 2021 after obtaining the GST registration. The proprietor started commercial operations in September, 2021. Yet, the leger accounts of the defendant maintained by the plaintiff contain entries reflecting transactions prior to September, 2021. It is stated that the defendant did not transact with the plaintiff before September, 2021. No purchases were made by her before the said month and thus there is no question of making any payment by the defendant.
28. It is further stated that the defendant opened the first bank account of the firm M/s Royal Homz Interio in HDFC Bank Ltd., Krishna Nagar Branch on 05.10.2021. The bank statement, Ex. DW 1/4 is stated to mention the date of opening of the account. The defendant is stated to be maintaining two other current accounts with Kotak Mahindra Bank which were opened on 28.01.2023 and CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 14 of 29 08.06.2024. It is also stated that no account with Kotak Mahindra Bank was opened by the defendant for her firm prior to 28.01.2023. There is thus stated to be no question of transfer of money to the plaintiff's firm from the said current account with Kotak Mahindra Bank by the defendant. The contention of the plaintiff that the defendant made the transfers is thus stated to be wrong.
29. It is further stated that the bank witness has deposed that the transactions relied upon by the plaintiff are from the account in the name of M/s Royal Homes and not pertaining to M/s Royal Homz Interio. It is submitted that the defendant has no connection with M/s Royal Homz in any capacity.
30. The plaintiff is stated to have failed to prove that the defendant paid Rs.6,93,691/- to the plaintiff in FY 2020-21 as reflected in the ledger Ex. PW 1/3A. The plaitniff has also failed to prove that he received payment of Rs.54,544/- from the defendant. The defendant is stated to have never transferred any amount from the account maintained with Kotak Mahindra Bank.
31. The plaintiff is also stated to have failed to prove alleged sales amounting to Rs.9,05,895/- as reflected in Ex. PW 1/3A as no tax invoices have been placed on record. The plaintiff is stated to have admitted in his cross-examination that he has not placed any invoice on record pertaining to FY 2020-21 as payment had been received. The plaintiff is also claiming that an amount of Rs.2,12,204/- remains CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 15 of 29 unpaid for the said FY as the same is reflected as the opening balance in ledger Ex. PW 1/3B. The said openining balance has not been proved as the invoices in support thereof have not been filed. The claim of the plaintiff is thus stated to be contradictory and inconsistent.
32. It is pointed out that the plaintiff has filed only two tax invoices i.e. invoice no. 2271 and 2556 as he claims that the amount for these two invoices only remains due. However, these two invoices were issued in the FY 2020-21 as per Ex. PW 1/3B.
33. The Ld. Counsel for the defendant contends that there is total inconsistency in the statement of the plaintiff. There are staed to be four different versions regarding the due amount. The first version of the plaintiff is that he had not placed any invoice on record which fall in FY 2020-21, reflected in Ex. PW 1/3A as payment qua invoices reflected in Ex. PW 1/3A has been received. The second version of the plaintiff is that an amount of Rs.2,12,204/- shown as opening balance in the legder Ex. PW 1/3B remained unpaid pertaining to FY 2020-21. The third version of the plaintiff is that the payment of only two invoices amounting to Rs.1,19,090/- was due. The fourth version of the plaintiff is that he is maintaining a running account of the defendant and payments are not made by the defendant bill to bill.
34. The plaintiff has mentioned seven tax invoices, Ex. PW 1/2A to Ex. PW 1/2G. These seven tax invoicies amount to Rs. 4,52,034/-. CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 16 of 29 The defendant claims to have paid Rs.2,65,000/- and made a sales return of goods amounting to Rs.1,33,841/- on 17.03.2023. The balance remaining due as claimed by the plaintiff i.e. Rs.3,75,597/- is contended to be incorrect and inconsistant with the facts.
35. The plaintiff is stated to have deliberately not entered the sales return in the ledger for the FY 2022-23. The copy of the sales return is stated to be Ex. PW 1/DC and the acknowledgement of the goods has been brought on record as Mark A. The details of the sales return made by the defendant is stated to have been filed with the GST portal. The plaintiff had claimed the input benefit of GST amounting to Rs.20,416.36p on GST portal but he has not adjusted the sales return in his ledger. The defendant claims to have transported the sales return via e-way bill bearing no. 781325446567 dated 17.03.2023 through vehicle no. DL 01LP 5772. The sales return is stated to be duly acknowledged by the employee of the plaintiff. The claim of the plaintiff that he had not received the goods is thus stated to be false and incorrect.
36. The Ld. Counsel further contends that if a party comes to the court with unclean hands and based his claims on wrong facts or suppresses the real facts, the matter can be dismissed straightaway without even considering any merits. Ld. Counsel has relied upon S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath AIR 1994 SC 853 in this regard. Ld. Counsel has mentioned Paramount Publicity Vs. MCD, 1995 I AD (Delhi) 91; Rohit Dhawan Vs. G. K. Malhotra, AIR 202 Delhi 151; CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 17 of 29 Columbia Sportswear Company Vs. Harish Footwear, Order dated 28.04.2019 in CS (Comm) 1611/2016; Micolube India Ltd. Vs. Maggon Auto Centre, 2008 (36) PTC 231 and M/s Seemax Constructions Vs. State Bank of India, AIR 1992 Delhi 197 in support of his contention that the suit is liable to be dismissed on account of suppression of material facts. He has further mentioned Harish Mansukhani Vs. Ashok Jain, 2009 (109) DRJ 126 (DB) to contend that the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs. The judgments were neither mentioned during oral submissions nor have been furnished by the Ld. Counsel.
Observations of the court
37. The findings are given issue wise. However, the issues are not taken up chronologically.
Issue no. 2: Whether the defendant had returned goods amounting to Rs.1,33,841/- to the plaintiff? OPD And Issue no. 3: If issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the defendant, whether the plaintiff has accounted for the said sales returns? OPP
38. The defendant has claimed that she had returned goods supplied by the plaintiff. The sales return is said to have been worth Rs.1,33,841/-. It is further contended that the plaintiff has not accounted for the said sales return in their ledger. Plaintiff/PW1 has CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 18 of 29 denied in his cross-examination that there were any such sales return. He has stated that he has not received the alleged sales return invoice Ex. DW 1/DC. He has further stated that it does not bear his signature. The witness was also shown the photocopy of the acknowledgment of the said sales return, Mark A in his cross- examination. He stated that the said document did not bear his signature nor was the document received by him. No objectionw as raised that the photocopy cannot be put to the witness. The plaintiff further stated that he could not say whether the alleged sales return reflected on GST portal as sales return as it was false that goods were returned. He denied that the ledger, Ex. PW 1/3C was false and fabricated since it did not reflect the sales return. He has categorically stated that no goods were returned.
39. The defendant/DW 1 denied the suggestion that there were no sales return to the plaintiff nor any acknowledgment of such alleged sales return. She stated that she had confirmed with the plaintiff about the receipt of the sales return. She again stated that she had confirmed with the staff of the plaintiff. She denied the suggestion that she had not taken any such confirmation. She accepted that she has not filed the e-way bill on record. She denied the suggestion that she had not filed it as she did not have a genuine e-way bill.
40. DW 1 has stated in her evidential affidavit that the returned goods had been received by Chirag Chawla and Manoj Kumar, who CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 19 of 29 were dealing with her on behalf of the plaintiff. In her cross- examination, she denied the suggestion that Chirag Chawla and Manoj Kumar are not employees of the plaintiff. She stated that they were and had signed the sales return slip. She further denied that the said two persons are employees of CATA or that they used to visit for customer grievances. She, however, admitted that she was not aware whether Chirag Chawla and Manoj Kumar were authorized by the plaintiff to deal on behalf of the plaintiff.
41. DW 1 has stated in her evidential affidavit that the goods were returned via vehicle no. DL01LP5772. The e-way bill No. 781325446567 dated 17.03.2023 had been filed on the GST portal. She accepted that the vehicle number which is mentioned in her evidential affidavit to have been used to transport the sales return as well as the e-way bill have not been mentioned in the written statement. She has mentioned about the e-way bill for the first time in her evidential affidavit.
42. The defendant has produced a sales return invoice and a photocopy of an acknowledgment of receipt of sales return, purportedly signed on behalf of the plaintiff. The signature thereon cannot be identified. That is to say, the name of the person who has purportedly signed Mark A cannot be made out from the signature. DW 1 has claimed that it was received by Chirag Chawla and Manoj CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 20 of 29 Kumar. It cannot be made out from the signature whether it is Chirag Chawla, Manoj Kumar or somebody else. There is only one signature on Mark A. In either case, the acknowledgment has not been proved. The defendant has only filed a photocopy. No evidence has been led to show that the original is not available and the reason why it is not available. Mark A can thus not be accepted as secondary evidence also. While DW 1 was put the suggestion that Chirag Chawla and Manoj Kumar are not employees of the plaintiff, no such question has been put to the plaintiff in his cross-examination. The plaintiff has also not been asked to identify the signature on Mark A which is contended to have been put as receipt of goods returned.
43. The sales return invoice Ex. PW 1/DC has not been admitted by the plaintiff. He has stated that he has not received the same. There is no signature or stamp on behalf of the plaintiff on the same. The details of sales return are stated to have been filed with the GST portal. No proof of the same has been placed on record. It is further contended on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff had claimed the input benefit of GST amounting to Rs.20,416.36p on GST portal but he has not admitted the sales return in his ledger. Input benefit is taken when sale is made. Every seller collects GST from the buyer, but can claim credit for the GST already paid on inputs. Thus, only the value added at each stage is taxed. The fact as brought forth by the defendant that the plaintiff has claimed the input benefit only proves that goods were sold. It would not prove return of goods.
CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 21 of 29
44. Even though the plaintiff had not objected to the mention of the vehicle number and e-way bill of return being beyond pleadings, these facts are not proved as no supporting document has been filed. Production of GST records could have established the claim. The defendant has chosen not to do so.
45. The defendant has thus failed to prove that any goods were returned to the plaintiff. They have specifically failed to prove that goods amounting to Rs.1,33,841/- were returned to the plaintiff. Issue no. 2 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. Since issue no. 2 has been decided against the defendant, issue no. 3 is not required to be answered. Issue no. 3 becomes irrelevant.
Issue no. 1: Whether the amount claimed by the plaintiff has been calculated on the basis of a properly maintained and correct ledger? OPD
46. The contention of the defendant that the accounts are incorrect is based firstly on the contention that the sales return have not been reflected therein, which has been decided against the defendant. The second leg of the contention is that the accounts Ex. PW 1/3A, Ex. PW 1/3B and Ex. PW 1/3C start from 15.07.2020. The defendant claims to have started her business from September, 2021. It is stated that the defendant got her GST registration done in the year 2021. The registration certificate Ex. PW 1/DA shows her GST registration to be valid from 30.08.2021. It is thus claimed that the transactions shown CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 22 of 29 prior to such date are false. The defendant also claims that she opened her bank account in HDFC Bank on 05.10.2021, which date is stated to be mentioned in her bank statement Ex. DW 1/4. She opened two accounts in Kotak Mahindra Bank on 28.01.2023 and 08.06.2024. No account is stated to have been opened by her in Kotak Mahindra Bank prior to 28.01.2023. Thus too, it is contended that payment could not have been made from any account to the plaintiff prior to 05.10.2021.
47. The plaintiff has maintained that the defendant was doing business with the plaintiff from 2020. He has relied upon the ledger to show the said transactions. The ledger Ex. PW 1/3A which is from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 contains entries of sales on 15.07.2020, 31.07.2020, 08.08.2020, 20.08.2020 etc.
48. The plaintiff has called for the records from Kotak Mahindra Bank of account no. 4112833037. PW 2 Sh. Saurabh Raj Verma, Sr. Manager of the bank stated that an amount of Rs.10,588/- was transferred from the said account on 24.07.2020 to Richi Rich Traders i.e. in the name of proprietorship of the plaintiff. On 29.07.2020, a sum of Rs.11,978/- was transferred from the said account to the plaintiff's account. Sums of Rs.11,978/- and Rs.20,000/- were also transferred from the said account to the plaintiff on 05.08.2020 and 21.08.2020 respectively.
49. The amount and date of the transactions dated 24.07.2020 and 20.08.2020 reflected in the ledger Ex. PW 1/3A corresponds with the CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 23 of 29 statement of PW2. However, the payment dated 29.07.2020 is reflected as payment received on 28.07.2020. Similarly, the payment is stated to have been transferred on 05.08.2020 is reflected as the payment received on 04.08.2020. This could be possible in case of payment made through cheque. Payment is credited on the basis of cheque and not upon encashment. There are many more receipt entries in the year 2020 and the first three months of the year 2021, all transactions being before the date defendant claims to have started business.
50. PW2 has also stated that the statement of account bearing no. 4112833037 is in the name of M/s Royal Homes. The Ld. Counsel for the defendant has contended that the said account is not of the defendant as the defendant's proprietorship is M/s Royal Homz Interio. However, the defendant/DW1 has in her cross-examination admitted that she has a bank account in Kotak Mahindra, AGCR Branch and that the account number of that account is 4112833037. Thus, the defendant has admitted that the statement produced by the PW2 is the statement of her account in that bank. Having admitted so, she can now not be heard to deny that she has not made payments to Richi Rich in the year 2020.
51. Perusal of the statement Ex. PW2/B further shows payments being made to Rajdhani Tiles Sanitary, Bath Exim, Apco Hardware, Krishna Saini Neeraj, S. Kumar Traders, MB:Eleg Hardware. All these payments were made in the year 2020. All appear to be names of CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 24 of 29 business houses, some of them appearing, by virtue of their name, to be dealing with hardware. It is the case of the defendant that she is doing the business of modular kitchen, tiles and interior articles. These payments establish that defendant no. 1 had business transactions prior to September, 2021 from which period the defendant claims to have commenced business operations. It may also be noted that the non- production of the invoices mentioned in Ex. PW 1/3A and Ex. PW 1/3B, ledgers of 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 cannot have an adverse affect on this finding.
52. The third leg of the claim that the accounts are not properly maintained is the contention that there are inconsistent versions of the plaintiff's case. The following four scenarios have been mentioned by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
1. Invoices mentioned in Ex. PW 1/3A, ledger for the year 2020- 2021 have not been filed.
2. Rs.2,12,204/- is the opening balance in the ledger for the year 2021-2022, Ex. PW 1/3B. It is thus an amount remaining outstanding against the defendant in the year 2020-2021.
3. Only two invoices remain unpaid - No. 2271 and 2556 amounting to Rs.1,19,010/-.
CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 25 of 29
4. A running account was maintained by the plaintiff. The defendant made bill to bill payment.
53. There is no inconsistency in the points 1, 2 & 4 noted above. The plaintiff maintained a running account. Payments made by the defendant were adjusted towards the bills remaining due. The ledger shows the entries for each financial year - 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. There is an opening balance not only in Ex. PW 1/3B but also in Ex. PW 1/3C. However, the ledgers also show some payments were made by the defendant. After taking these in account, a balance of Rs.3,75,597/- remained due. This is the principal amount claimed in the present suit.
54. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has rightly pointed out that the defendant has not confronted the plaintiff/PW1 with the specific enteries in the ledger accounts. No questions have been put to the plaintiff asking him to explain any of the entries, except qua the claim that the defendant started her business transactions in September, 2021.
55. This brings us to the inconsistencies in the case of the plaintiff. During his cross-examination, the plaintiff/PW1 denied the suggestion that he had not filed the invoices of the period prior to September, 2021 as none existed. He stated that he had not filed them as the defendant had paid for those invoices. He then volunteered that only two invoices had not been paid for - 2271 and 2556. It has to be CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 26 of 29 remembered that while the ledger shows the amount remaining due, the basis of the claim are the invoices.
56. By the above-mentioned admission, the plaintiff has brought a major inconsistency in his claim. In his plaint as also the evidential affidavit Ex. PW 1/X, the claim of the plaintiff pertains to seven invoices. He has filed all seven on record and they are Ex. PW 1/2A to Ex. PW 1/2G. The amount sought to be recovered comprises of the total of these seven invoices as the principal amount and interest therein as mentioned by the plaintiff.
57. The admission of the plaintiff, however, puts a spoke in the wheel. The two invoices 2271 and 2556 amount to Rs.1,19,090/-, which is way less than the amount claimed as the principal.
58. The plaintiff has deposed contrary to his case. He has negated his claim that the money of the seven invoices remained due. The plaintiff has thus established that his claim is false. Also that he suppressed the material fact of receiving the dues in respect of five invoices for which the suit has been filed. The plaintiff has also, by such admission, established that the ledger is incorrect. The ledger Ex. PW 1/3C, as stated before, supports the claim made in the plaint that the money of seven invoices has not been paid. It should have reflected the receipt of the amounts of the five invoices. Not only is the amount claimed in the suit false and fabricated, the ledger appears to have been manipulated to support the false claim. Further more, CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 27 of 29 perusal of the ledger, Ex. PW 1/3C shows that it does not contain the entries of all the seven invoices, EX. PW 1/2A to Ex. PW 1/2G. It does not contain the entry of the invoice T1/22-23/221 and T1/22- 23/82 , Ex. PW1/2C and Ex. PW 1/2E respectively. Instead, it contains entries of invoices T1/22-23/222 and T1/22-23/823. The ledger, Ex. PW 1/3C is thus clearly unreliable. The entries therein have been shown to have been arbitrarilymade. Care has not been taken in its preparation or it has been prepared to serve a sepcific purpose. In either case, the ledger has not been maintained properly. Ergo, issue no. 1 has to be answered in negative. Issue no. 1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Issue no. 4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the amount claimed? OPP and Issue no. 5: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the said amount? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP 59 The suit was filed to recover amounts stated to have not been paid in respect of seven invoices. Said claim has been found to be incorrect. The plaintiff is shown to have not approached the court with clean hands. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the amount as claimed. No question arise of being entitled to any interest. In the light of the discussion above, issue nos. 4 and 5 are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025 Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 28 of 29 Relief
60. The suit fails as the plaintiff has failed to prove its claim. The suit stands dismissed.
61. Copy of the judgment be supplied to the Ld. Counsel for the parties free of costs.
62. File be consigned to record room thereafter.
RUBY Digitally signed by
RUBY ALKA GUPTA
ALKA Date: 2025.09.01
GUPTA 14:57:12 +0530
Announced in the Open Court (RUBY ALKA GUPTA)
on 27th August, 2025 District Judge (Comm. Court)-02,
East District/KKD Courts/Delhi
CS (Comm) No. 348/2023 Judgement dated 27.08.2025
Nalin Arora Vs. Meenu Jain Page 29 of 29