Delhi District Court
Vee Pee Fabric Pvt Ltd vs Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora on 24 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-02
SHAHDARA DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023
In the matter of
VEE PEE FABRIC PRIVATE LIMITED,
Formerly known as MAPS Creation Private
Limited a 'company' within the meaning of
Companies Act, 2013 having its registered
office at IX/3718, Shop No.F1, Gouri Shankar
Market, Dharampura, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi
....Plaintiff
Vs.
Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora,
a sole proprietor carrying on business
under name and style of 4-way 55 Collection
from No.1/1, S.K.V. Complex, Opp. SBI ATM
Rayapuram Road, Tripur - 641601
Mobile No. 91 720001485
Email ID: [email protected]
....Defendant
Date of Institution :21.12.2023
Date of final arguments :22.05.2025
Date of conclusion :24.05.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit filed against the defendant for recovery of Rs.13,55,882/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum till its realization.
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.1 of 35
2. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that though the present suit was filed under Order 37 CPC, however, on the statement of ld. counsel for plaintiff made on 19.04.2024, the present suit was treated as an ordinary commercial suit instead of one under Order 37 CPC.
2.1 Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged are that plaintiff has changed its name to Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited from MAPS Creation Private Limited with effect from 03.05.2023 and the certificate of incorporation pursuant to change of name dated 03.05.2023 issued by Registrar of Companies, Delhi is also annexed. Plaintiff is a fabric sourcing company that works as a bridge between fabric manufacturers and garment manufacturers and defendant Sh. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora carries on business under the name and style of '4-way 55 Collection' as proprietor thereof and claims to be manufacturer of hosiery garments. Plaintiff has stated that they and defendant had entered into contract titled Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and from time to time, plaintiff sold, supplied and delivered knitted fabrics (hereinafter referred to as said goods) of various description and quantity / quality to the defendant and raised the invoices. The invoice numbers and their amounts though mentioned in the plaint are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
2.2 Plaintiff stated that between 14.07.2017 and 13.04.2022, they sold, supplied and / or caused to be supplied and delivered to defendant goods worth Rs.58,96,038 and raised the computer generated invoices. Further, it is stated that as a matter of longstanding practice, although the plaintiff sold said goods to defendant, but, the plaintiff did not directly supply the Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.2 of 35 same to the defendant from its own godown and the same were supplied directly to the defendant by a third party manufacturer- supplier who used to supply the goods to defendant directly as per order placed by defendant on the plaintiff. The said third party manufacturer-supplier is M/s Sunny Oswal Fabrics of Inside Sartaj Grewal Farm, Bahadur KE Road, Ludhiana-141008, Punjab and copies of bills raised by third party manufacturer- supplier on plaintiff for consignment of goods dispatched to defendant are filed alongwith Delivery Challans, E-way bills etc. Plaintiff stated that defendant never had to pay for the said goods to the actual supplier and the third party manufacturer supplier would raise its bill to the plaintiff, which the plaintiff accordingly paid and the bank account statement of plaintiff demonstrating payment to third party are also annexed. On the other hand, plaintiff would issue invoices to the defendant against the goods received by it from the third party manufacturer-supplier. Plaintiff stated that payment was never made on bill to bill basis and out of the total invoice amount of Rs.58,96,038/-, the defendant paid to plaintiff not more than Rs.47,56,641/- and a sum of Rs.11,39,397/- remains unpaid and the defendant failed / refused to pay this balance amount of Rs.11,39,397/-.
2.3 A commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(xviii) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 arose between plaintiff and the defendant and in view of Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, plaintiff initiated Pre Institution Mediation Proceedings against the defendant, however, the attempt to amicably settle the dispute failed, accordingly, a Non Starter Report dated 28.02.2023 was issued. Plaintiff has stated that they are entitled to recover a sum of Rs.13,55,882/- and the particulars whereof as provided in the plaint, para 17 are Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.3 of 35 reproduced verbatim in the table below:
"17. In the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove the plaintiff has become entitled to recover from the defendant a sum of Rs.13,55,882/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Fifty Five Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Two only particulars whereof are provided in the table below:
S. No. Particulars Amount
1. Principal debt owed Rs.13,55,882/-
to the plaintiff by
the defendant
2. Interest on the Rs.2,16,485/-
principal debt
calculated @ 24%
per annum from the
date when the last
ad hoc payment was
made i.e.
07.04.2022 till
30.11.2023 as per
MOU
Total Rs.13,55,882/-
2.4 Certainly, the plaintiff has wrongly stated abut the
principal amount in para 17, as the principal is Rs.11,39,397/- and the amount of Rs.13,55,882/- is inclusive of interest. The amount in other paras is also wrongly stated. The plaint is pathetically drafted. In fact, synopsis also seems to be copied from another plaint, in as much as, as per the synopsis, plaintiff is seeking money decree for a sum of Rs.28,34,918/-. This aspect shall be dealt with while appreciating the evidence.
2.5 It is stated that part cause of action arose at Gandhi Nagar since the defendant was contractually bound to make the Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.4 of 35 payment to plaintiff in its bank account no.1126050000254 in ICICI Bank, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. Further, the suit has been valued at Rs.13,55,882/- for purpose of jurisdiction and court fees and ad valorem court fees has been paid.
Statement of Truth also filed in support of the plaint.
3. WS along with supporting affidavit, statement of truth, affidavit of admission and denial of documents filed on behalf of defendant along with application seeking condonation of delay in filing the WS. Vide order dated 19.04.2024, the same was allowed and WS was taken on record. Vide order dated 09.05.2024, admission/denial of documents was conducted and the defendant in his affidavit of admission/denial has admitted only one document of the plaintiff i.e. (i) Particulars of GSTIN 33APZPR7062 M1ZW as obtained from official website of Govt. of India supported by a certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is Ex.P1. Thereafter, on the basis of pleadings of parties, following issues were framed for consideration:
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree? If so, to what amount? OPP.
ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
iii. Relief.
4. In the WS, it is stated that the pleas/contentions raised by plaintiff in present commercial suit are totally baseless and are nothing but an afterthought attempt to mislead this court, the same being devoid of merit. Defendant has stated that both the parties are commencing business with each other from a long Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.5 of 35 period of time and have always been cordial with each other.
Defendant stated that he had purchased products from plaintiff during regular course of business and the same was paid in cash, but, some of the products were not up to mark and were defective material/products and the defendants duly communicated the same to plaintiff and requested the plaintiff either to replace the products or to take back the defective products as the same was of no use. Defendant submitted that plaintiff deliberately did not delivered the complete products as ordered by them and they tried to sell the products in the market and same has damaged their goodwill in the market, thus, the act on the part of plaintiff caused great loss and damage besides mental tension, trauma and inconvenience and loss of value of money.
4.1 It is submitted that defendant was in regular touch with plaintiff in order to settle the dispute amicably with plaintiff, however, the plaintiff having malafide intention has initiated legal proceedings against the defendants in order to recover the disputed amount. Further, it is submitted that plaintiffs have wrongfully claimed amount of Rs.13,55,882/- and the said figure is fictitious, bogus and imaginary. Defendant has stated that the contents of statement of truth in the pleadings is not in accordance with rules provided under Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Defendant further stated that plaintiff even denied to take back the defective material and also failed to return the money paid in advance for purchasing the goods. Defendant further stated that there were no invoices available till 30.11.2023, moreover, the plaintiff has adduced incomplete set of invoices and bills with their suit. It is submitted that it is the plaintiff who is under liability to pay damages to the defendants for selling defective material/products, therefore, the defendants approached Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.6 of 35 the plaintiff and requested them to return the money which was already paid in cash, however, the plaintiff having malafide intention has preferred to initiate legal proceedings against the defendant instead of settling the dispute amicably. Prayer has been made for dismissal of suit with heavy cost.
5. In support of its case, Sh. Sudhanshu Sharma, AR of plaintiff company has examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit on 27.05.2024 which is Ex.PW1/A and has relied upon the following documents:
• Copy of certificate of Incorporation of plaintiff company and change of name from MAPS Creation Pvt. Ltd. to Vee Pee Fabric Pvt. Ltd. as Ex.PW1/1;
• Printout of defendant GST profile from GST Portal alongwith certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/2 (Colly-8 pages);
• Copy of MoU as Mark PW1/3(colly-2 pages); • Original copy of invoices along-with certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/4(colly-10 pages); • Copy of third party manufacturer supplier bills as Ex.PW1/5(colly-6 pages);
• Copy of Challans/builty along-with e-way bills as well as certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/6 (Colly-11 pages);
• Copy of statement of account as Ex.PW1/7(colly-5 pages); • Printout copy of ledger account maintained by plaintiff qua the defendant along-with certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/8 (colly-4 pages); • Statement of ledger showing part payment made by the defendant along-with certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/9(Colly-22 pages);
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.7 of 35 • Statement of bank account statement showing part payment made by the defendant as Ex.PW1/9A; • Pre-institution Mediation & Settlement application under Section 12A as Ex.PW1/10(colly-6 pages); • Non-starter Report dated 28.02.2023 as Ex.PW1/11; • Affidavit under Order XI Rule 6(3) CPC, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, as Ex.PW1/12. He was duly cross examined on behalf of defendant. Thereafter, PE was closed on the statement of AR of plaintiff.
5.1 In rebuttal, the defendant Sh. Ravinder Arora examined himself as DW-1 and has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A on 07.06.2024. He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for plaintiff. Thereafter, DE was closed on the statement of defendant.
6. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the following cases:
a. Central Bank of India vs Tarseema Compress Wood Manufacturing Company and Others BOM 225 AIR 1997 b. Prayag Polytech Pvt Ltd & Anr. vs Raj Kumar Tulsina 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6058
7. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has relied upon the following cases:
a. M/s Secrets of India Tours Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sh. Sriganesh Eswaran CS (Comm) 77 of 2021, dated 01.09.2023; b. State Bank of Travancore vs M/s Kingston Computers (I) P. Ltd. Civil Appeal no. 2014 of 2011.
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.8 of 35
8. The court has heard ld. counsel for the plaintiff as well as ld. counsel for the defendant and have also gone through the records of the case. The court has also perused the written arguments filed by both the parties. The findings on the issues are as under:
ISSUE No.(i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree? If so, to what amount? OPP.
9. The onus to prove the issue is upon the plaintiff.
The suit is commercial in nature and squarely falls within the purview of Section 2 (1) (C) of Commercial Courts Act and plaintiff has also duly complied with mandatory provision of Pre- Institution Mediation and Conciliation as provided in Section 12 A of Commercial Courts Act, as per the Non Starter Report dated 28.02.2023 Ex.PW1/11.
10. As far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned, perusal of Invoices Ex.PW1/4 reveals that the details of bank of plaintiff where the defendant was bound to make the payment is ICICI Bank, Gandhi Nagar Branch, Delhi which falls within the jurisdiction of present court. Copy of bank account statement exhibited as Ex.PW1/9A reveals that the bank account of the plaintiff is at Gandhi Nagar in which the payment of Rs.4,00,000/- has been received on 11.05.2018, thereafter, Rs.3,00,000/- has been received on 03.06.2018 and similarly, further payments has been received. Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence in support of the bank account statement is also filed by the AR of the plaintiff. The defendant was required to make the payment of the remaining amount also in the said bank account of the plaintiff and therefore, on the basis of principle of 'Debtor seeks creditor', the present court has territorial jurisdiction to decide the present case.
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.9 of 35 The, present court also has the pecuniary jurisdiction over the matter since the suit amount claimed by the plaintiff is more than the specified value of Rs.3 lacs of the Commercial Courts.
11. The Invoice(s) Ex.PW1/4 reveals that the last Invoices are of April, 2022. The perusal of the bank statement filed by the plaintiff which is Ex. PW-1/9A also reveals that the last payment has been made by the defendant on 15.02.2022. Thus, the period of limitation of three years would commence from the last date of payment i.e. 15.02.2022 and would continue till 15.02.2025. The Non-Starter Report is dated 01.02.2023 Ex.PW1/11 and thus, the present suit instituted on 22.12.2023 is filed within the prescribed period of limitation.
12. The ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that Mr. Sudhanshu Sharma (PW-1) is not properly authorized to depose before the court as no Board Resolution or Authority letter in his favour is filed and thus, his testimony should be discarded and suit must be dismissed. Since this contention of the defendant pertains to the maintainability of the suit, thus, it is considered at the outset. This contention of the defendant is being decided on two aspects, namely, whether the suit is properly instituted and whether Sudhanshu Sharma was properly authorized or not.
13. Ld. Counsel for defendant has not challenged the institution of the suit and in fact as per his written arguments, the plaintiff company has made Mr. Ravi Gupta his authorized representative vide Board Resolution dated 03.05.2023 and Sh. Sudhanshu Sharma was never authorized by the plaintif company in order to represent the plaintiff company in the present case and therefore, the documents exhibited by Sh. Sudhanshu Sharma in Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.10 of 35 the evidence are null and void. However, in support of his argument, ld. counsel for defendant has relied upon the judgment of State Bank of Travancore vs M/s Kingston Computers (I) P. Ltd. Civil Appeal no. 2014 of 2011, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that as no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors delegating his power to CEO of the company to represent or to authorize any person to file suit on behalf of company, therefore, the suit was dismissed. The said judgment pertains to institution and filing of the suit and not as to who is authorized to depose in a court. However, as the ld. counsel for the defendant has relied upon the said judgment (though, reliance is in respect that there is no board resolution in favour of Sh. Sudhanshu Sharma), this aspect whether the suit is properly instituted or not is also considered.
14. Order 29 Rule 1 CPC provides for suit by or against corporations. It provides that in suit by or against the corporation the pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of corporation, by any director or other principal officer of the corporation.
15. Perusal of the record reveals that the plaint alongwith the statement of truth, affidavit under Order XI Rule 6(3) CPC and all other affidavits and document are signed and verified by Mr. Ravi Gupta stating to be Director and Authorised Representative of the plaintiff.
16. At this stage it will be appropriate to refer to some of the precedents in this regard. In the case of Nibro Limited Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. MANU/DE/0005/1991, the Hon'ble Delhi HC was dealing with the similar issue, that is whether the suit is duly instituted by an authorized agent or not? In this case, Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.11 of 35 the plaint was signed by one Sh. G. Jhajharia claiming to be principal officer of the company. However, plaintiff examined Ashok Kumar Jhajharia, Director of the plaintiff company, who stated that Shri G. Jhajharia is his elder brother. However, the plaintiff had not filed any board resolution in favour of either of the two. The Hon'ble HC has observed as follows:
"11. It will be useful to reproduce the two provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure; namely Order 3, Rule I and Order 29, Rule I on which the plaintiff relies.
.....
12. Order 3, Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure reads thus: "Any appearance, application or act in or to any Court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such court, may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent or by a pleader appearing applying or acting, as the case may be, on his behalf :
Provided that any such appearance shall, if the Court so directs, be made by the party in person."
.....
13. Order 29, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads thus: "In suits by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the corporation by the secretary or by any director or other principal Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.12 of 35 officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case."
.....
16. This Court in Oberoi Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while dealing with the scope of Order 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure has observed as follows:
"Learned counsel for the plaintiff lastly argued that Shri Ram Lal Chaudhary had stated that he had authority to file the suit as a principal officer of the plaintiff company even apart from the resolution marked 'A'. He did not say so. But how does that help? The authority of a principal officer of a company in relation to suits filed on behalf of limited companies does not extend beyond what is laid down in Order 29, of the Code of Civil Procedure. That provision does not entitle the principal officer of a company to file a suit on its behalf for that the authority has to be found either in the Articles of Association of the Company or in the resolution of its Board of Directors. In the Articles of Association of several companies provision is generally made authorising their Managing Directors and other officers to file and defend suits on their behalf. Similarly, the Board of Directors of a company can authorise the institution of a suit on behalf of the company by a resolution. In the case of some companies the Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.13 of 35 Articles empower the Managing Directors or Directors to appoint General Attorneys and General Managers and give them authority to institute suits on behalf of the company. But, in the absence of any proof in regard to any such power having been conferred on Shri Ram Lal Chaudhary it is not possible to accept his statement that he was authorised to file the suit as the principal officer of the plaintiff Hotel.
I, Therefore, hold that although the plaint has been signed and verified by person duly authorised to do so on behalf of the plaintiff company, it has not been provided that the suit has been instituted by any such person. The issue is consequently decided against the plaintiff."
.....
23. On the analysis of the judgments, it is clear that Order 29, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not authorise persons mentioned therein to institute suits on behalf of the corporation. It only authorises them to sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation.
.....
27. The plaintiff has not placed on record any resolution passed by the company authorising Shri G. Jhajharia to institute the suit. Shri G. Jhajharia did not come forward to make a Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.14 of 35 statement that he was in a position to depose to the facts of the case. In the plaint signed by him, he claims to be a principal officer and director, but there is no evidence on record to indicate that he had the authority to institute the suit. The Memorandum and Articles of Association of the plaintiff company are also not placed on record. Even after the suit was instituted by Shri G. Jhajharia, no resolution was passed by the company ratifying this action. No such decision of the Board of Directors is placed on record in the record in the present case. The plaintiff has examined Shri Ashok Kumar Jhajharia. He has placed on record Ext.PW2/1 which is the resolution of the Board of directors re-appointing shri G. Jhajharia as the, Director but this resolution does not empower shri G. Jhajharia as a Director to institute the present suit. Shri Ashok Kumar Jhajharia has stated that he was handing day to day management of the plaintiff company including the, insurance part of it. He however does not state that Mr. G. Jhajharia was handling day to day management or was in charge of the insurance claim.
.....
28. Thus, there is no evidence to prove that Shri G. Jhajharia had the authority to institute the present suit.
.....
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.15 of 35
29. Issue No. 4 is thus decided against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant."
17. Thus, on the basis of the above said judgement it can be concluded that Order 29 Rule 1 only provides for the signing and verification of the plaint and does not contemplates for the institution of the suit.
18. However, in the above said case, no board resolution was filed by the plaintiff but it is not so in the present case. Perusal of file reveals that one certified True copy of the Board Resolution dated 03.05.2023 is placed on record. The said board resolution specifically provides that the said board resolution was passed by the Board of Directors of VEE PEE Fabric Private Limited in meeting held on 03.05.2023 at its registered address. The said board resolution also specifies that Mr. Ravi Gupta is authorized to appear, sign and verify, declare, affirm, make, present, submit and file all necessary notices, plaints, petitions, written statement, affidavit, undertakings etc in connection with any suit(s) or proceedings(s) filed by or against the company before any court. The said board resolution is also signed by the director Mr. Deepak Gupta and also bears the seal of the plaintiff company.
19. It is also pertinent to mention here that the board resolution was initially filed by the plaintiff with his suit and the same finds its mention in the list of documents initially filed with the plaint. Neither the defendant has opposed the fact that Mr. Ravi Gupta was not authorized to institute the suit. Thus, it can be said that suit is properly instituted by the plaintiff.
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.16 of 35
20. As to the second aspect, the defendant has argued that Mr. Sudhanshu Sharma was named as a witness and had tendered the evidence by way of affidavit without any authorization of the plaintiff company and therefore, the documents exhibited and the evidence tendered by PW-1 is null and void as there is no authorization in the form of Board Resolution in favour of Mr. Sudhanshu Sharma.
21. The perusal of the testimony of PW-1 (Sudhanshu Sharma) reveals that though no authorization letter was placed on record in his favour but he has personal knowledge of the facts of the case in as much as he is working with the plaintiff company since 2018 and has also attended the business dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant through call. The relevant part of the testimony of PW-1 is as follows:
"I am working in the plaintiff company as a Sales Manager since 2018.
.....
It is wrong to suggest that I am not competent to represent the plaintiff company. I am well aware the business dealings between the plaintiff company and defendant. The Business dealings between the plaintiff company and defendant are since 2017. Sometimes business dealings used to be on phone call which was attended by me and sometimes through sales executives"
22. The defendant has only contended that PW-1 was not authorize as there is no authorization letter by the plaintiff company to authorize Mr. Sudhanshu Sharma to tender the Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.17 of 35 affidavit and depose on behalf of the plaintiff. However, as seen from the above referred testimony of PW-1, he has personal knowledge of the facts of the case and he is deposing it on the basis of personal knowledge and on the basis of the documents filed by the plaintiff.
23. There is no restriction on any person to depose before the court in a case, if he has personal knowledge of the same. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to section 118 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 124 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). The said provision provides that all persons are competent to testify unless they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind.
24. In this regard, the plaintiff has relied upon Central bank of India vs Tarseema Compress Wood Manufacturing Company and Others BOM 225 AIR 1997 wherein the defendant has argued that PW-1 had no right to depose about the facts of the case as there was no power of attorney or written authorization in his favour. The relevant part of the judgement is as follows:
"7. To prove this Issue No. 1 apart form producing number of documents, the bank has examined P. W. 1 N. R. Koramne, who is the present Manager in the concerned Branch of the plaintiff-bank. He has given evidence on the basis of documents. In particular, he has told the Court that the first Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.18 of 35 defendant and its partners have executed and signed many documents and letters which are marked as Exhibits A to Z-2. He has also stated that the parties sign the papers only after all the columns are filled up. He has also stated that after executing the documents, the defendant has fully utilised the sanctioned loan up to the sanctioned limit, that the bank has maintained regular account. He has sworn that as on the date of suit, the defendants were due in a sum of Rs. 4,19766.98 P. His evidence on this point is corroborated by the two ledger extracts Exhibits BB and CC.
In his cross-examination it is elicited that the witness has no power of attorney or written authorisation to give evidence in the Court. The learned Counsel for the defendants contended at the time of arguments that P. W. 1 has no right to give evidence on behalf of the bank without power of attorney or written authorisation. In my view, this argument, has no merit. Anybody can come and give evidence in Court provided that he is acquainted with the facts of that case. No power of attorney or authorisation is necessary for any witness to give evidence in Court. It may be for filing the plaint, or signing the plaint or signing a written statement an authorisation may be necessary, but to give evidence on oath, anybody, who is acquainted with the facts can give evidence."
The above said observation by the Hon'ble BOM Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.19 of 35 HC is squarely applicable on the facts of the present case. Thus, the contention of the defendant is liable to be dismissed.
25. Though, the ld. counsel for defendant has also relied upon the case of State Bank of Travancore vs M/s Kingston Computers (I) P. Ltd. Civil Appeal no. 2014 of 2011, but, he has relied upon the same to argue that Board Resolution in favour of Mr. Sudhanshu Sharma, PW-1 is not filed by the plaintiff. In this case the issue before Hon'ble SC was whether the suit filed by respondent through Sh. Ashok K. Shukla was properly instituted or not. The main contention was that Sh. Ashok K. Shukla was claimed to be authorized by Shri Raj K Shukla, the CEO of the company vide authority letter dated 02.01.2003. It was contended that respondents have not produced any evidence to prove that Shri Ashok K. Shukla was a director of the company had been authorized by the company to file the suit. In the said case, it was admitted by Ashok K. Shukla, that no resolution was passed by the board of directors authorizing him to sign, verify and file the plaint.
26. The Hon'ble SC held that since the respondents did not produce any evidence to prove that Ashok kr. Shukla was the director of the plaintiff and held that the board resolution was merely a scrap of paper because no board resolution was passed in favour of Raj K Shukla to authorize another person to institute the suit.
27. The said case is not applicable in the facts of the present case, for two reasons viz. firstly, that the defendant has not challenged the institution of the suit. The contention of the defendant is limited to the fact of authorization of Mr. Sudhanshu Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.20 of 35 Sharma to depose before the court. Secondly, the judgement of the Hon'ble SC was based on the fact that suit is not properly instituted by the duly authorized persons as there was no board resolution to this effect. The fact that board resolution authorizing Mr. Ravi Gupta has been filed or not has already been discussed above. The present suit is filed by the duly authorized person and therefore, the suit is validly instituted.
28. In the present case, the defendant had not challenged the fact that Mr. Ravi Gupta is director of the plaintiff company of not. PW-1 has also stated that the plaintiff company has two directors namely Mr. Ravi Gupta and Mr. Deepak Gupta. The relevant part of the cross examination is as follows:
"Plaintiff company is registered under the Companies Act. There are two Directors Ravi Gupta and Deepak Gupta. Plaintiff company is registered under GST."
29. Moreover, the board resolution placed on record is also signed by the director. Thus, the said case is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
30. Also, during the course of proceedings, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order VI Rule 15A CPC for filing amended statement of truth. The said application was filed in January 2025 which is much after the testimony of the PW-1. The amended statement of truth is signed and verified by Mr. Ravi Gupta. Since it was filed much after the testimony of PW-1 was concluded, thus, the plaintiff company can be assumed to be aware of the fact that Mr. Sudhanshu Sharma has deposed and Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.21 of 35 the plaintiff has not objected to it, thus, it can also be said that plaintiff has impliedly ratified the acts of PW-1. In this regard, reference can be made to Section 197 of the Indian Contract Act, 18721.
Thus, this plea of the defendant is not sustainable and is liable to be dismissed.
31. Before coming to the merits, it is also necessary to discuss another argument raised by the defendant qua the statement of truth filed by the plaintiff. It is stated that the plaintiff has filed a defective statement of truth and thus, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. The defendant has relied upon the order passed in M/s Secrets of India Tours Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sh. Sriganesh Eswaran, Order dated 01.09.2023 passed by District Judge (Commercial Court-03), South West, Dwarka Court, in CS (COMM) No. 77/2021. On the other hand, the plaintiff has also relied upon the case of Prayag Polytech Pvt Ltd & Anr. vs Raj Kumar Tulsina 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6058 to contend that it is a curable defect and technical defect is not sufficient to dismiss the suit.
32. It is pertinent to note that order of Ld. Commercial Court relied upon by the defendant has been set aside by the Hon'ble Delhi HC in Sh. Sriganesh Eswaran vs M/s Secrets of India Tours Pvt Ltd 2023:DHC:9069. Moreover, the order relied by defendant has only persuasive value and is not binding on the present court.
1 197. Ratification may be expressed or implied- Ratification may be expressed or may be implied in the conduct of the person on whose behalf the acts are done.
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.22 of 35
33. It is also pertinent to mention here that an application was filed by the plaintiff to file amended statement of truth and the same was allowed vide order dated 28.02.2025 and therefore, the said defect in the statement of truth has been cured by the plaintiff. Thus, this contention of the defendant is no longer res integra.
34. Now coming to the merits, the plaintiff's case is that it is the fabric sourcing company and has time to time supplied and sold knitted fabrics to the defendant. For the said supply/ sale, the plaintiff has raised the invoice. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had not made full payment towards the outstanding amount. The plaintiff has prayed for a sum of Rs.13,55,882/-, as outstanding amount including interest to be paid by the defendant.
35. The defendant in his WS has stated that defendant has business relations with the plaintiff and that the defendant has purchased goods from the plaintiff in the regular course of business and the same was paid in cash. Also, the defendant has taken the stand that goods supplied by the plaintiff were not up-to the mark and were defective. The defendant has also stated that the plaintiff has not delivered the complete products as ordered by the defendant. The defendant has stated that the sum as calculated by the plaintiff is not properly calculated and also the interest calculated by the plaintiff is totally unjustified. Thus, the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
36. From the averments of the plaintiff and defendant, both the parties admit the business relations and the fact that the defendant was purchasing the goods from the plaintiff in the Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.23 of 35 regular course of business.
37. The defendant has also admitted the said facts in his cross examination. The relevant part of the cross examination of DW-1 is as follows:
"I can read Hindi and sign in English. I am the proprietor of 4-ways 55-collection since last 17 years and still continuing. I know the Maps Creation since last 10 years.
Q. Do you know the Vee Pee Fabric Pvt.
Ltd. ?
A. I only know Maps Creation Pvt. Ltd. and not Vee Pee Fabric Pvt. Ltd.
I cannot say whether Maps Creation Pvt. Ltd. has changed its name as Vee Pee Fabric Pvt. Ltd. I have business relationship with the Maps Creation since last 10 years. I used to purchase fabric from Maps Creation Pvt. Ltd. I have lastly received the goods from the Maps Creation Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2022."
38. One of the defence taken by the defendant is that the plaintiff has supplied the defective goods which were not upto the mark. In this regard, the defendant was cross examined by the counsel for the plaintiff where the defendant has stated that the plaintiff was informed telephonically. The relevant part of the cross examination of DW-1 is re-produced as follows:
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.24 of 35 "Q. I put to you whether you have ever complained either by written notice or email about the defective goods to the plaintiff company.
A. It was only done telephonically or through the staff of the Maps Creation Pvt. Ltd.
I do not remember the name of the said staff official."
39. The plaintiff has produced the invoices raised by them towards the defendant which are Ex.PW-1/4. The defendant during his cross examination has stated that as far as total number of bills are concerned there may be total of six invoices however, the goods being defective are only with respect to one or two invoices. The relevant part of the cross examination of the defendant DW-1 is as follows:
"Q. Can you tell out of six invoices the goods against which of the invoices were defective?
A. There were no six invoices. There were only one or two invoices, maximum two.
Goods against both the invoices were defective. I had returned the goods against one invoice and I was asked to use the goods against the other invoice which was less defective and I used the said fabric for making the garments. Again said, there might be six invoices, but I understood the question in the context of defective goods and invoices related to defective goods and that's why I Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.25 of 35 said one or two."
40. Thus, the defendant through the abovesaid testimony has admitted the invoices filed by the plaintiff. Further relevant cross examination of the defendant is as follows:
"At this stage invoice dated 03.03.2022 part of Ex.PW1/4 is put to the witness and the witness after seeing the invoice submits that the goods in connection with the said invoice were returned to a staff of Maps Creation Pvt. Ltd. I do not remember the name of the said staff official. It is wrong to suggest that no such goods were returned. I do not have any documentary proof in regard to the fact that the goods were returned. I have not signed any MoU."
41. Though, the defendant has not produced any evidence in respect of the plea that the goods in said invoice were returned. However, PW-1 in his cross examination has admitted that the defendant has once complained about the quality of the goods and the same were returned on 01.03.2022 amounting to Rs. 54,443/-. The relevant part of the Cross of the PW-1 is as follows:
"Defendant had once complained about the quality of goods and that clothes were returned and we had accepted the return on 01.03.2022 amounting to Rs.54,443/-."
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.26 of 35
42. Perusal of the record reveals that the plaintiff has not filed any invoice which pertains to the said amount. Also, in view of the clear admission by PW-1, it can be believed to be true. On the otherhand, DW-1 has not filed any proof regarding return of defective goods. Rather he has not even specifically stated as to goods against which of the invoices were defective. He has also admitted that the goods were returned against one invoice only and regarding the other invoice the goods against was less defective and he used the said fabric for making the garments. Thus, even as per defendant the goods against only one invoice were returned. PW-1 has also admitted that they had once accepted the return on 01.03.2022 amounting to Rs.54,443/- and due credit regarding the same has been given in the ledger Ex.PW1/8 filed by the plaintiff. Defendant has stated that the goods against one of invoice were less defective, however, he has failed to point out that specific invoice. He has also not led any evidence as to how much loss he has suffered due to the alleged "less defective" goods/fabric supplied by the plaintiff. He has admitted that he has used that fabric for making garment. Once the fabric was used by the defendant, it was upon the defendant to lead cogent evidence to prove how much loss he has suffered due to the alleged 'less defective' goods and also specify against which of the invoice the goods were defective. In the absence of pointing out the specific invoice by the defendant, it has to be presumed that the defendant had accepted the goods. At this stage it is also necessary to refer to section 42 of The Sale of Goods Act which provides that when after a reasonable point of time, a buyer retains the goods without intimating the seller that he has rejected it, he is deemed to have accepted the goods. Section 42 is as follows:
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.27 of 35 "42. Acceptance: The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them, or when the goods have been delivered to him and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller, or when, after the lapse of a reasonable time, he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them."
43. In the present case, the plaintiff admits that the goods were returned only once and the same is also supported by the ledger. As far as the plea of defendant regarding the defective goods is concerned, it is clear that defendant has used the said goods, thus, the defendant is deemed to have accepted the goods. Mere bald averment of defect in the goods, if not substantiated by the cogent evidence, is not of any avail to the defendant. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay for the goods which he has accepted.
44. As far as the entry reflected in the ledger filed by the plaintiff pertaining dated 13.04.2022 is concerned, the details of the said entry is exactly same as the entry dated 06.04.2022. In this regard, the relevant part of the cross examination of PW-1 is as follows:
"One entry in Ex.PW1/8 dated 13.04.2022 is a valid entry and the plaintiff have adduced all the relevant documents (bill, builty, e-way bill) in support of the same. The witness has shown the invoice dated 06.04.2022, 13.04.2022, builty dated 01.04.2022, e-way Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.28 of 35 bill dated 01.04.2022 in reply to the same.
The plaintiff company have adduced e-way bill dated 01.04.2022 along-with the invoice dated 13.04.2022."
45. Perusal of the record reveals that the plaintiff has filed two Invoices dated 06.04.2022 and 13.04.2022 of the same amount but has filed only one E-way bill and builty in this regard. However, the entry dated 13.04.2022 reflected in the ledger filed by the plaintiff has also been reversed on the same day and thus, in the ledger there is only one entry dated Rs.4,26,024/-, dated 06.04.2022.
46. Ld. counsel for the defendant has argued that the calculation carried on by the plaintiff in the para 6 of the plaint is incorrect and the amount mentioned against the total is wrongly calculated. Table as contained in para 6 of the plaint is re-produced as follows:
S. No. Dates Invoice Number Amount (INR)
1 14.07.2017 MAPS-8/17-18 8,91,505/-
2 22.07.2017 MAPS-36/17-18 7,89,451/-
3 22.07.2017 MAPS-37/17-18 1,95,615/-
4 05.11.2017 MAPS-212/17-18 93,768/-
5 14.11.2021 MAPS-448/21-22 10,58,682/-
6 28.11.2021 MAPS-498/21-22 10,97,035/-
7 10.02.2022 MAPS-763/21-22 7,897/-
8 10.02.2022 MAPS-764/21-22 7,08,330/-
9 03.03.2022 MAPS-902/21-22 51,589/-
10 06.04. 2022 MAPS-14/22-23 4,26,024/-
11 13.04.2022 MAPS-60/22-23 4,26,024
Total- 58,96,038/-
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.29 of 35
47. However, upon calculating the amount as mentioned in the table, it is revealed that the actual total amount is Rs. 57,45,920/- and not Rs. 58,96,038/-. The plaintiff has stated in their plaint that the defendant has made payment of Rs. 47,56,641/-. This amount of Rs.47,56,641/- is an amount which reflects on the credit side of the Ledger at the bottom as per Ex.PW1/9 and includes the amount of credit entry of Rs.4,26,024/- dated 13.04.2022. Thus, the amount of Rs.47,56,641/- is not only the amount of the payment made by the defendant, but, also includes a credit of Rs.4,26,024/- as well as a credit for an amount of Rs.54,443/- dated 01.03.2022 regarding goods returned to the party. The Ledger Ex.PW1/9 also reveals that the payment till the year 2019 was clear and after 2019, there was no balance. The goods were again sold vide Invoice dated 14.11.2021 and from 14.11.2021 till April, 2022 there were 6 (six) valid Invoices. Perusal of the ledger account Ex.PW1/9 also reveals that a debit entry of Rs.1 lakh was made on 20.03.2019 by the plaintiff as late payment charges against bill dated 22.07.2017. Also, one of the cheque of the defendant for an amount of Rs.50,000/- was rejected for insufficient funds on 21.09.2019 and due to this an amount 118/- was debited as charges against the defendant. These facts have not been mentioned by the plaintiff in the plaint or in the above table.
48. However, upon perusal of the ledger filed by the plaintiff Ex.PW-1/8 and Ex.PW-1/9, it is revealed that the same reproduces the correct entries with regard to the transaction between the parties as compared to the table provided by the plaintiff in the plaint. The ledger Ex.PW1/9 is from 01.04.2017 to 22.11.2023, whereas, ledger Ex.PW1/8 is from 14.11.2021 to Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.30 of 35 19.05.2023. As far as the transactions prior to 14.11.2021 is concerned, as the payment against the said was stated to have been received by the plaintiff on record. Plaintiff has filed 7 (seven) Invoices on record which are Ex.PW1/4. Perusal of the 7 (seven) Invoices reveals that with respect to Invoice dated 13.04.2022, no E-way bill has been filed, however, the ledger also reflects the said entry was reversed and a credit entry for an amount of Rs.4,26,024/- dated 13.04.2022 was also made and therefore, as per ledger there were only 6 (six) valid Invoices from 14.11.2021. Even during cross examination of DW-1, ld. counsel for plaintiff has specifically asked as to the goods against which of the 6 (six) Invoices were defective and the defendant has stated that the goods against one Invoice was defective which were returned. The ledger Ex.PW-1/8 from 14.11.2021 is re-produced as below:
"MAPS CREATION PVT. LTD.
IX/3718, SHOP NO.-F1, GOURI SHANKAR, MARKET DHARMPURA GANDHI NAGAR, DELHI - 110031 GSTIN : 07AAJCS1334D1ZO LEDGER (From 14.11.2021 to 19.05.2023) Account : 4 way 55 Collection / Tirupur Date Type Vch No. Particulars Debit Credit (Rs.) Balance (Rs.) 14.11.2021 Sale MAPS-448/21-22 Cr. Sales 10,58,682.00 10,58,682.00 28.11.2021 Sale MAPS-498/21-22 Cr. Sales 10,97,035.00 21,55,717.00 10.02.2022 Sale MAPS-763/21-22 Cr. Sales 7,897.00 21,63,614.00 10.02.2022 Sale MAPS-764/21-22 Cr. Sales 7,08,330.00 28,71,944.00 10.02.2022 Rcpt REC - 980 Dr. ICICI BANK (A/c No.112605000254) 10,58,682 18,13,262 15.02.2022 Rcpt REC - 999 Dr. ICICI BANK (A/c No.112605000254) 5,00,000 13,13,262 15.02.2022 Rcpt REC - 1000 Dr. ICICI BANK (A/c No.112605000254) 5,00,000 8,13,262 15.02.2022 Rcpt REC - 1001 Dr. ICICI BANK (A/c No.112605000254) 97,035 7,16,227 01.03.2022 SIRt 77 Dr. Sales 54,443 6,61,784 03.03.2022 Sale MAPS-902/21-22 Cr. Sales 51,589 7,13,373 06.04.2022 Sale MAPS-14/22-23 Cr. Sales 4,26,024 11,39,397 13.04.2022 SIRt 19 Dr. Sales 4,26,024 7,13,373 13.04.2022 Sale MAPS-60/22-23 Cr. Sales 4,26,024 11,39,397 18.10.2022 Jrnl 22-23/78 Cr. Legal Expenses 21,000 11,60,397 Total 37,96,581 26,36,184 Debit Balance 11,60,397 Grand Total 37,96,581 37,96,581
49. Perusal of the above ledger reveals that there were only 6 (six) Invoices. The entry, as far as, 7th (seventh) Invoice is concerned, has been reflected, but, amount of only one Invoice i.e. Rs.4,26,024/- has been taken into account and the other entry seems Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.31 of 35 to have been reversed. As far as payment by the defendant is concerned, the same has also been reflected in the ledger. Though, the defendant has stated that he has made payment in cash, but, he has not specifically stated as to how much amount he has paid in cash and when this amount was paid. PW-1 has admitted during cross examination that some cash payments were made in the year 2017 - 2018. The defendant, however, has not provided any document along with WS. If the plea of the defendant that he has made payment in cash and had cleared all the amount is to be considered, then the defendant should have specifically stated as to how much amount and when he has paid the same or should have produced any ledger account maintained by him in this regard. In the absence of any documentary proof in this regard in the form of payment receipt, transaction details or ledger on behalf of defendant, the documents filed by the plaintiff have to be presumed to be correctly reflecting the transactions between the parties.
50. As far as the calculation of the amount is concerned, it is pertinent mention here that the plaint has been pathetically drafted by the counsel, however, as it has been held in the case of M/S Ansal Properties and Industries Pvt. Ltd. V. Ratnu (Deceased) Through LRs & Ors RFA 163/2002 decided on 12.11.2013, by the Hon'ble High Court Delhi that the litigants ought not to be penalized for the poor drafting skills of their Advocates particularly when on a reading of the pleading as well as the documents filed, the case put up was clear.
51. When a litigant is represented by the counsel, it is the bounden duty of the counsel to ensure that pleadings presented before the court are intelligible, to say the least. However, it is also pertinent to note here that sometimes, the Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.32 of 35 pleadings are being drafted in a very clandestine and clever manner and on the other hand, sometimes pleadings are being drafted egregiously. However, the approach of the court in both the situations have to be different and tackled in a different manner. When the pleadings are drafted in a clever manner with the intent to take court on ride or to misled the court, the court will have to deal sternly. But in the case at hand, perusal of the pleadings reveals that it is not a case of clever drafting but is depiction of lackadaisical attitude and therefore, to deal with the situation at hand, the approach of the court has to be different and the court is required to adopt a liberal approach in the larger interest of justice, so that the litigant must not suffer.
52. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs.13,55,882/- and the court fees have been paid upon it. The amount of Rs. 13,55,882/- is inclusive of the interest of Rs.2,16,485/- as claimed by the plaint. As per ledger account Ex.PW1/8 and Ex.PW1/9, the total outstanding is Rs.11,60,397/-, however, the same includes legal expenses of Rs.21,000/- dated 18.10.2022. Nothing has been explained in the entire plaint as to on what account, that legal expenses were incurred and why the same has been debited against the defendant. The total principal outstanding as on 13.04.2022 is Rs.11,39,397/-. As far as para 12 and 13 of the plaint also, the principal outstanding is Rs.11,39,397/-. Thus, the plaintiff is not even claiming the amount of Rs.21,000/- as per the plaint which has been debited against the defendant as legal expenses on 18.10.2022. The defendant has not produced any document to show that he has paid the entire amount to the plaintiff and nothing remains to be paid. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.11,39,397/- as stated above. As already observed, the plaint has Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.33 of 35 been very poorly drafted by the ld. counsel for the plaintiff. Even the basic subtraction and addition and matching of figures has not been taken care of. However, the same is ignored in the interest of justice as stated above.
Thus, in view of above case laws, the court is adopting a liberal approach and ignoring the pathetic drafting by the counsel, in as much as, the documents filed by the plaintiff are reliable and corroborated by the testimony of PW-1. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to decree of Rs.11,39,397/- as principal.
Issue no. (1) is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No. (ii): Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest?
If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
53. The plaintiff has claimed and calculated the pre suit interest as Rs.2,16,485/- @ 24% per annum till 30.11.2023. As far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the plaintiff has claimed the interest @ 24% per annum on the basis of the condition mentioned in the invoices. Nothing has been stated in the plaint regarding the fact that within how much days the defendant has to make the payment to the plaintiff. As per Invoice Ex.PW1/4 raised by the plaintiff to the defendant, the payment was to be made within 90 days and thereafter, plaintiff has argued that they could charge interest @ 24% per annum. However, it is a settled law that such unilaterally appended stipulation on the invoice is not legally valid and cannot form the basis for the award of interest. Moreover, the plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove whether any rate of interest regarding delayed payments was agreed between the parties.
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.34 of 35
54. However, it is settled law that since the plaintiff is entitled to principal amount, they are also entitled to award of interest at reasonable rate of interest. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is entitled to simple interest @ 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.11,39,397/- from 06.07.2022 (90 days from the last Invoice) till its actual realization.
Thus, issue no. (ii) is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant.
Issue No.(iii). Relief.
55. In view of the findings on the above issue, the suit of the plaintiff bank is hereby decreed in its favour and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.11,39,397/- as principal alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.11,39,397 /- from 06.07.2022 till its realization. Plaintiff is not entitled to any amount on account of litigation expenses. Costs of the suit to the extent of court fees is, however, awarded to the plaintiff as per law.
Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN
KIRAN BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.05.24
15:57:20
+0530
Announced in the open court (Kiran Bansal)
on 24.05.2025 District Judge, Commercial Court-02
Shahdara, Karkardooma
Delhi/ 24.05.2025
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 644/2023 Vee Pee Fabric Private Limited Vs. Faqir Chand Ravinder Arora Page No.35 of 35