Delhi District Court
M/S Oasis Tours India Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Dsc Ltd on 30 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL BENIWAL,
DISTRICT JUDGE-06, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS DJ No.8894/2016
CNR No.DLST01-004159-2016
M/s Oasis Tours India Pvt Ltd.
17-18, Dwarka Sadan,
C-40, Middle Circle, Connaught Place,
New Delhi 110001. ....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. M/s DSC Limited
E-9, 3rd Floor, South Extension,
Part II, New Delhi 110049.
2. M/s DSC Construction FZCO
Through its Authorised Representative
UAE, PO Box 61332,
Jebel Ali, Dubai,
United Arab Emirates. .....Defendants
Date of Institution : 01.08.2014
Date of Judgment : 30.10.2025
Suit for recovery of Rs.28,63,713/-
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendants seeking recovery of Rs.28,63,713/- along with interest.
Page 1 of 192. Before proceedings with the matter it is relevant to mention herein that initially the suit was filed against three defendants i.e. defendant no.1 M/s DSC Limited, defendant no.2 Mr. H.S. Narula and defendant no.3 Mr. V.S. Narula. Later vide order dated 13.04.2018, defendant no.4 M/s DSC Construction FZCO and its directors (already defendants no.2 and 3) as defendant no.5 and 6 were impleaded. Further vide order 12.01.2023, defendants no. 2 Mr. H.S. Narula and defendant no.3 Mr. V.S. Narula ( also as defendants no.5 and 6) were deleted from the array of parties. As such now there are only two defendants i.e. defendant no.1 M/s DSC Limited and defendant no.2 M/s DSC Construction FZCO. Defendant no.1 appeared and contested the suit, however, defendant no.2 did not prefer to appear and contest the suit.
3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff company inter alia deals with the business of travel agents, transport agents, cargo agents charters of various kinds of transport of any airways, railways or shipping or roadways on representation, retainer ship, sole general sales agent or any other such basis to provide for tourists and travelers, and also to carry on the business of booking and reserving accommodations, seat compartments and berths on railways, airplanes etc.
4. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendant No.1 is the company. That DSC Ltd is the main concern and have sister concern/subsidiary company or other branches of their offices in Page 2 of 19 India and as well as in abroad i.e. defendant No.2, Authentic Export and Import Pvt. Ltd. and DSC Ltd. in Delhi and Gurgaon. Apollo Enterprises is the sister concern/subsidiary company of the defendants who used to make the payments to the plaintiff on behalf of the defendants. Although the defendant No.2 is Dubai based company but its management is controlled by Delhi Office of DSC Ltd. DSC Delhi office has control over all the branches or offices of DSC i.e. the defendant No.4, Authentic Export and Import Pvt. Ltd. and DSC Ltd. in Delhi and Gurgaon.
5. Further that the defendants' company DSC Limited operates as an infrastructure development and engineering construction company. The company's services include construction, engineering, project management, equipment procurement, and financing development. That it undertakes projects in the highways, expressways and railways, hydro power, airports, ultra mega power projects and special economic zones. It also engages in international trading, retailing, hospitality, real estate investments, natural stone trading and money markets. The company serves various sectors, including transportation infrastructure, urban infrastructure, pipeline and processing plants, water and waste water management, marine infrastructure. That the defendants are supplying man power abroad at their site at Tripoly in Libiya, the defendants are also carrying their import and export business, and defendants are also carrying the work of Page 3 of 19 construction.
6. That the plaintiff as ticketing agent, used to book tickets for Defendant No. 1 and erstwhile defendant no.2 (since deleted). The office staff authorized by Defendant No. 1 and erstwhile defendant no.2 would contact the plaintiff's staff for booking of air tickets. The plaintiff would send the bills to defendants in their Delhi office in the name of the defendant No.4 (now defendant no.2) and thereafter bills were cleared by Apollo Enterprises, sister concem of the Defendant in Dubai. This was the arrangement and on this arrangement business was carried out between plaintiff and defendants. Further, the plaintiff also send the bills of DSC Ltd. to the defendants but no payment till today received by the Plaintiff. That office of the plaintiff maintains the records of transactions of each client separately including that of defendant's transactions. The office of the plaintiff maintained client ledger statement which shows every transaction i.e. how many tickets are issued, tickets issued by which airlines, the amount due towards that issued tickets. The ledger statement also shows the amount received from the defendants as well as refunds of the cancelled tickets. That the plaintiff used to receive mail from the defendants requesting for booking of specified tickets with names and details to the required destination and the plaintiff used to book those tickets for the defendants for the last 3-4 years on credit basis. Based on this the plaintiff raised invoices sent through e-mail, and in addition to this Page 4 of 19 hard copies of the bills delivered personally as in the cases of other customers. The plaintiff used to indicate the total amount due and the defendants made payments to the plaintiff through Apollo Enterprises, sister concern of DSC Ltd. through SWIFT on an adhoc basis usually within a month or so. However, the payments made by the defendants never indicated against which bills/invoices payments were being made. This arrangement of making payments was being continued between plaintiff and defendants. The Plaintiff always used to inform the balance amount to the defendants. Earlier there were no problems from the defendants side as they used to clear all dues of the plaintiff with in time. But for the last 2 years, defendants failed to make payments to the plaintiff which was brought to the notice of the defendants by the Plaintiff.
7. That the total amount due from the defendant No.2 was Rs. 1,42,87,201/- as on 27.07.2012. The Plaintiff received an amount of Rs.65,00,000/- from Authentic Export and Import Pvt. Ltd and 16.07.2010 by two different cheques. The Plaintiff adjusted the amount of Rs. 65,00,000/- from Authentic Export and Import Pvt. Ltd in the account of the defendant No.2 on 27.12.2013, as per telephonic instructions from the Defendant. The plaintiff also received an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- from DSC Ltd on 12.3.2009, and the plaintiff on telephonic instructions from the defendants adjusted this amount of Rs.50,00,000/- in the amount of the Page 5 of 19 defendant No.2. Now the balance amount due from the defendants after adjusting the payments received by the plaintiff by two different above named companies of the defendants is stated to be Rs. 27,87,201/-.
8. Further that the plaintiff issued another set of tickets of DSC Ltd. for H.S. Narula family, Chairman of the Company, for which again payment was not made and now the balance amount of Rs.76,512/- is due from defendant no. 1 and erstwhile defendant no.2 (since deleted), as such total amount due towards the defendants are of Rs.28,63,713/-.
9. That the plaintiff approached the defendants several times requesting for clearance of their dues of Rs.28,63,713/- but Defendants never bothered to clear the payments due towards Plaintiff for booking of air tickets. The Staff as well as CMD of the Plaintiff's Company personally visited several times in the office of the Defendants, but unfortunately the Defendants refused to meet the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff issued gentle reminder for recovery of payments to the Defendants on 4th September 2013 but no response from the side of the Defendants was received. The plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 04.10.2013 to the Defendant No. 1 and erstwhile defendant no. 2 for recovery of amount. Since there was no response from the defendants, the Plaintiff again sent a legal notice dated 27.01.2014 to the defendants for recovery of amount but there was no response from the Defendants' side.
Page 6 of 19Aggrieved the Plaintiff constrained to file this suit seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.28,63,713/-along with interest @24% pa as well as costs.
10. Defendant no.1 has filed written statement wherein it has raised preliminary objections that the present suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary party. That defendant no. 1 company cannot be held liable for the alleged debt pertaining to defendant no.2 M/s DSC Construction FZCO, Dubai. That it is settled law that each "company" is a separate and distinct legal entity capable of suing and being sued in its own name. That there is nothing on record to show that defendant no.1 company has ever admitted the alleged liability of defendant no.2 company or had stood guarantor for the liability of said defendant no.2 company or that defendant no.1 company has ever instructed plaintiff to issue tickets on credit to said defendant no.2 company so as to hold defendant no.1 company liable for same. That even otherwise, documents filed by plaintiff reveals that plaintiff had never raised any bills/invoice or has maintained any ledger account in the name of defendant no.1 with respect to alleged transactions made with said defendant no.2 company.
11. Further that the present suit is bad for mis-joinder of causes of action. That the alleged causes of action against defendant no.1 company and against said defendant no.2 company are altogether separate. That moreover defendant no.1 company and said Page 7 of 19 defendant no.2 company are not jointly liable to plaintiff for alleged outstanding amount. That causes of action, if any, against defendant no.1 company and said defendant no.2 company cannot be clubbed together to file a single suit. That the present suit qua defendant no.1 company is hopelessly barred by limitation and therefore is liable to be dismissed in limine. That it is alleged in the plaint that tickets were issued for defendant no.1 company against which payment of Rs. 76,512/- was not made and same is due from defendant nos.1 and erstwhile defendant no.2 (since deleted). That in support of aforesaid statement plaintiff has filed ledger statement maintained by it, meaning thereby, as per own averment of plaintiff, only a sum of Rs. 76,512/- is payable by defendant no. 1 company. Now a bare perusal of said ledger statement reflects that cause of action, if any, in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no.1 arose in February 2011; however, present suit has been filed sometime in July 2014 i.e. after a lapse of more than 3 years.
12. Further that the present suit is not maintainable in present form before this Court. As per averment of plaintiff itself only a sum of Rs. Rs. 76,512/- is payable by defendant no.1 company. Hence, this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate present suit.
13. Defendant no.1 in preliminary submissions stated that the defendant company neither stood guarantor for said defendant Page 8 of 19 no.2 company nor had instructed plaintiff to issue any tickets on credit to said defendant no.2 company. That no bills/invoice has been raised by the plaintiff upon defendant no.1 company with respect to alleged transactions made between plaintiff and said defendant no.2 company. That defendant no.1 and said defendant no.2 company are having business transactions between themselves. That upon instructions of said defendant no.2 company defendant no.1 had paid Rs. 50,00,000/- to the plaintiff, and except said payment of Rs.50,00,000/-, defendant no. 1 company has nothing to do with alleged transactions between plaintiff and said defendant no.2 company.
14. It is denied by defendant no.1 that defendant no.2 DSC Construction FZCO is the branch office of defendant no.1 company or is managed or controlled by Delhi office of defendant no.1 company. Defendant no.1 further denied that M/s Authentic Export and Import Pvt. Ltd. are subsidiary companies of defendant no.1 company. It is also denied that Appollo Enterprises is the sister concern/subsidiary company of defendant no.1 company. It is denied by defendant no.1 that defendant no.1 company has ever requested Appollo Enterprises to make payment to plaintiff on behalf of defendant no.1 company. That all these companies are separate and distinct legal entities.
15. That the business activities of Defendant No. 1 company have nothing to do with the issue in present matter. It was denied Page 9 of 19 that defendant no.1 company is having any site at Tripoly in Libya, as such, there arises no question of defendant no.1 company supplying any men power for alleged site. It is submitted that except tickets amounting to Rs. 76,512/- (as stated in plaint), plaintiff has not booked any other ticket for defendant no. 1 company. Therefore, defendant no.1 cannot be held liable for tickets pertaining entities/companies. Defendant no.1 denied having any liability to pay, as claimed by the plaintiff and sought dismissal of the suit.
16. Replication was filed to the Written Statement. Contrary averments were denied as false and incorrect and the stand pleaded in the plaint was reiterated and reaffirmed as correct.
17. Vide order dated 20.09.24 following issues were settled:
(1)Whether the present suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action?OPD (2)Whether the present suit is barred by law of limitation?OPD (3)Whether this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present suit qua the defendant?OPD (4)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery of a sum of Rs.28,63,713/- along with pre suit and pendente lite interest against the defendant, as prayed for?OPP (5)Relief.
18. PW1 Sh. Atul Kumar Rustagi tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon various documents i.e.(i) Xerox/photocopies of registration certificate marked as Mark A (Colly), (ii) certified true copy of the Board Resolution/Power of Page 10 of 19 attorney dated 29.11.2024 as EX PW1/2, (iii) copy of E-mails sent by the defendants for booking tickets exhibited as EX.PW1/3, (iv) copy of the invoices issued by the plaintiff as EX PW1/4, (v) copy of ledger statement of the defendant no. 1 from 2008 to 2014 as EX PW1/5, (vi) copy of ledger statement of DSC construction FZCO/defendant no. 2 from 2009 to 2014 as EX PW1/6 , (vii) copy of ledger statement of Authentic Export and Import Pvt Ltd from 2010 to 2014 as EX.PW1/7, (viii) copy of bank statement as EX PW1/8, (ix) copy of certificate U/s 63 BSA as EX. PW1/9, (x) copy of the letter dated 04.09.2013 as EX PW1/10, (xi) copy legal notice dated 04.10.2013 as EX PW1/11 and (xii) copy of legal notice dated 27.01.2014 as EX.PW1/12. He was cross examined and discharged.
19. DW1 Sh. Vishal Kaushal, authorised representative of defendant no.1 company tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A on the lines of averments made in written statement. He relied upon authorisation in his favour as Ex.DW1/1. He was cross examined and discharged.
20. I have heard Ld counsel for parties and perused the record.
21. My issuewise findings are as under.
Issue No.1:Whether the present suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action?OPD
22. It is contended on behalf of defendant no.1 that plaintiff has Page 11 of 19 mis-joined separate causes of actions against separate and distinct legal entities in the present one suit, instead filing of separate suits against separate and distinct legal entities. Defendant no.1 claimed that it has no concern with defendant no.2 or any other companies i.e. Authentic Export and Imports Pvt Ltd as well as Appollo Enterprises, as claimed by the plaintiff in its plaint. It is further contended by defendant no.1 that the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish or file any document showing that defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 are sister concerns of each other. It is further contended that PW1 during cross examination stated that he cannot point out any document from the record to show that defendant no.1 is sister concern of defendant no.2 and/or subsidiary company of the other company as alleged in the plaint.
23. Perusal of record reveals that the plaintiff has not filed any document on record by which it can be said that defendants no.1 and 2 are sister concerns of each other. Further, plaintiff claimed that it is maintaining ledger accounts for each company separately, which supports the version of defendant no.1 that both the defendants are separate entities. Accordingly plaintiff was to file separate suits against each defendants, and as such suit is bad for misjoinder of separate causes of actions against separate and distinct legal entities.
24. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided adverse to the plaintiff and in favour of defendant no.1.
Page 12 of 19Issues no.2:Whether the present suit is barred by law of limitation? OPD
25. Defendant no.1 in its written statement has taken the plea that the suit of the plaintiff qua defendant no.1 is time barred. It is stated that as per ledger statement of plaintiff, the last cause of action for recovery of alleged amount of Rs.76,512/- arose on 14.02.2011 but the present suit has been filed much after expiry of three years i.e. on 31.07.2014. It is further contended on behalf of defendant no.1 that PW1 during his cross examination admitted that as per ledger filed by plaintiff company, the last invoice raised by the plaintiff company qua defendant no.1 DSC Limited was dated 14.02.2011 and that as per ledger filed by plaintiff company there is no balance due except Rs.76,512/- of the plaintiff company qua defendant no.1. It is also contended by Ld counsel for defendant no.1 that contention of plaintiff that account of defendant no.1 was a running account has no force, since there are no transactions by defendant no.1 with plaintiff except payment of Rs.50 Lakh on behalf of defendant no.2, and booking of air tickets by plaintiff for defendant no.1 regrading which plaintiff has sought recovery of Rs.76,512/- against defendant no.1.
26. Having regard to the record and submissions made by Ld counsel for the parties, this Court finds force in the contention of Ld counsel for the defendant no.1 that the last cause of action for Page 13 of 19 recovery of alleged amount of Rs.76,512/- arose on 14.02.2011, but the present suit has been filed much after expiry of three years i.e. on 31.07.2014, and further plaintiff has failed to prove that account of defendant no.1 was a running account, as such suit qua defendant no.1 is time barred.
27. Issue no.2 is accordingly decided in favour of defendant no.1 and against the plaintiff.
28. Issue no.3:Whether this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present suit qua the defendant?OPD
29. Defendant no.1 stated that since as per plaintiff itself only an amount of Rs.76,512/- is due and outstanding against it, hence, this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the present suit.
30. In view of findings on issue no.1, I find force in the contention of defendant no.1 and accordingly it is held that this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the present suit qua defendant no.1 for recovery of Rs.76512/-.
31. Issue no.3 is accordingly decided in favour of defendant no.1 and against the plaintiff.
32. Issue no.4:Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery of a sum of Rs.28,63,713/- along with pre suit and pendente lite interest against the defendant, as prayed for?OPP
33. It is contended by Ld counsel for the plaintiff that PW1 entered into witness box and duly proved contents of plaint which are further corroborated with documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/12.
Page 14 of 1934. It is further contended by Ld counsel for plaintiff that DW1 examined by defendant no.1 failed to support the case of the defendant no.1, as to most of the questions put to him, he replied 'I do not remember' and 'I cannot tell'. It is further contended that during cross examination, DW1 stated that he has been with the defendant no.1 since November 2004, however, from the answers given by him in respect of HS Narula and BS Narula, it is apparent that he has no knowledge about the present suit.
35. Ld counsel for plaintiff further contended that defendant no.1 filed written statement and evidence as well, wherein the defendant no.1 stated that defendant no.2 is not related to the defendant no.1, but the invoice dated 15.04.2011 shows that a ticket was booked by defendant no.1 in the name of HS Narula. That it is also admitted that defendant no.1 had paid an amount of Rs.50 Lakh on behalf of defendant no.2.
36. Plaintiff/PW1 claimed that an amount of Rs.1,42,87,201/- as on 27.07.2012 was due and outstanding against defendant no.2; that plaintiff received an amount of Rs.65 lakh from Authentic Export & Imports Pvt Ltd on 16.07.2010 by two different cheques, and adjusted the same in the account of defendant no.2 on 27.12.2013; that plaintiff also received an amount of Rs.50 Lakh from defendant no.1 on 12.03.2009 and plaintiff on telephonic instructions from defendants adjusted this amount of Rs.50 Lakh in the account of defendant no.2; thus an amount of Rs.27,87,201/-
Page 15 of 19is due and outstanding against defendant companies; that plaintiff issued another set of tickets for defendant no.1 and an amount of Rs.76,512/- is due against defendant no.1; so total amount due towards defendants is Rs.28,63,713/-.
37. Plaintiff/PW1 stated that plaintiff received Rs.65 lakh through two cheques from Authentic Export & Imports Pvt Ltd on 16.07.2010, and adjusted said amount in the account of defendant no.2 on 27.12.2013. However, there is no explanation from the side of plaintiff as to why it waited for more than two years to encash those cheques, which raises doubt on the story of the plaintiff. Plaintiff further stated that it received Rs.50 Lakh on 12.03.2009 from defendant no.1 and adjusted this amount of Rs.50 lakh in the account of defendant no.2 but did not explain as to when said amount was adjusted.
38. It is also stated by plaintiff that plaintiff company as ticketing agent, used to book tickets for defendant no.1 and Mr. H.S. Narula; that there was arrangement that plaintiff would send bills to defendants in their Delhi office in the name of defendant no.2 and thereafter bills were cleared by Apollo Enterprises, sister concern of defendant in Dubai.
39. When it is admitted case of the plaintiff that it used to raise bills in the name of defendant no.2 and same were cleared by Apollo Enterprises, then apparently there is no role of defendant no.1, who is a separate entity, in respect of payment of such bills Page 16 of 19 raised against defendant no.2. Moreover, though payments qua defendant no.2 were being made by Apollo Enterprises but plaintiff did not bother to array said company Apollo Enterprises as defendant in the present suit.
40. Further PW1 during cross examination stated that defendant no.1 has not released any amount on behalf of defendant no.2 except the transaction of Rs.50 Lakh. He further stated that defendants no.1 and 2 had some business transactions/relations and upon instructions of defendant no.2, the amount of Rs.50 lakh was released to the plaintiff company. Such statement of PW1 shows that there was no liability upon the defendant no.1 to pay the amount due and outstanding against defendant no.2 nor they paid any amount to plaintiff on behalf of defendant no.2 except Rs.50 Lakh only once.
41. Accordingly, it is held that plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant no.1 is liable to make payment of Rs.27,87,201/- to the plaintiff, as claimed by the plaintiff in its plaint.
42. Insofar as defendant no.2 is concerned, defendant no.2 has chosen not to appear and contest the suit. Thus defendant no.2 has failed to create any dent to the evidence led by plaintiff in the present case in respect of recovery sought against defendant no.2. The documents relied upon by plaintiff qua defendant no.2 have been duly proved by PW-1. The testimony of PW1 in respect of recovery of amount sought against defendant no.2 has remained Page 17 of 19 unrebutted, unchallenged and uncontroverted as the defendant no.2 did not choose to appear and contest the matter and had not led any evidence in order to controvert the version of the plaintiff. As such I have no reason to disbelieve the version of PW1 and the plaintiff is held entitled for recovery of Rs.27,87,201/ from the defendant no.2.
43. Accordingly, it is held that plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.27,87,201/- against the defendant no.2 only.
44. Insofar as rate of interest to be awarded is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that keeping in view prevailing rate of interest, ends of justice would meet if plaintiff is awarded interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization.
Relief
45. In view of above discussion, suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no.2 M/s DSC Construction FZCO UAE only.
46. A decree for recovery of Rs.27,87,201/- is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant no.2 M/s DSC Construction FZCO UAE, as prayed for in the plaint.
47. Plaintiff is awarded interest @ 8% per annum on the decreetal amount from the date of filing of the suit till realization.
48. Cost is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
Page 18 of 1949. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly upon payment of deficit court fees, if any.
50. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 30.10.2025.
Digitally signed by (Sunil Beniwal) District Judge-06(South), Sunil Sunil beniwal beniwal Date:
2025.10.31 09:01:32 +0530 Saket Courts, New Delhi Page 19 of 19