Delhi District Court
Sh Raman Gandhi vs Mr Shanker Lal on 28 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF
SH. N. K. MALHOTRA
DISTRICT JUDGE, (COMMERCIAL COURT)-06,
EXTENSION BLOCK, WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI
CNR No. DLWT010071792024
CS(COMM) 731/2024
Sh Raman Gandhi,
Proprietor of
M/s Sadbhavana Enterprises,
At Plot No. 56-A, Rama Road,
Najafgarh Road, Delhi-110015
Through his A.R/Attorney
Sh Santosh Sharma. ....Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Shanker Lal,
Proprietor of
M/s Saurabh Traders,
At: 8/171, Bheron Bazar,
Jeoni Mandi, Agra,
Uttar Pradesh-282004. ...Defendant
Date of Institution : 24.08.2024
Date of Arguments : 28.11.2025
Date of Judgment : 28.11.2025
Suit for recovery of Rs.15,82,933/-.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment I am deciding the suit for CS(COMM)731/2024 Raman Gandhi Vs Shanker Lal Page No. 1 of 20 recovery of Rs. 15,82,933/- filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. In the plaint, it is mentioned that plaintiff is the proprietor of M/s Sadbhavana Enterprises and engaged in running the business of sale of lamination emulsions and other allied products. The plaintiff is having his office at Plot No. 56- A, Rama Road, Najafgarh Road, Delhi-110015. The present suit is filed by the attorney of the plaintiff Sh Santosh Sharma who is duly authorized by virtue of General Power of Attorney dated 20.07.2024 executed by the plaintiff in his favour. Sh Santosh Sharma is competent to file and prosecute the present suit as he has dealt with the defendant/his firm and is having personal knowledge of all the transactions.
3. The defendant is the proprietor of M/s Saurabh Traders. He had been purchasing the goods from the plaintiff through various bills/invoices being raised/issued in the name of his proprietorship firm. The plaintiff is maintaining the accounts of the defendant in his books of accounts in the normal course of business and as per the statement of account, an amount of Rs.11,86,040/- was due towards the defendant to be paid to the plaintiff as on 31.10.2021. Despite the material/goods supplied by the plaintiff and despite passing of considerable period, the defendant has failed to make the complete payment of outstanding dues of plaintiff. As per the plaintiff, the defendant is also liable to pay the interest on the outstanding amount @ 12% p.a. from 01.11.2021 to 31.07.2024 amounting to Rs.3,91,393/-. The plaintiff has also claimed a sum of Rs.5,500/-
CS(COMM)731/2024 Raman Gandhi Vs Shanker Lal Page No. 2 of 20 as legal notice charges. The plaintiff sent a legal demand notice dated 22.04.2024 to the defendant through registered post and the defendant was called upon to make the payment of outstanding amount within 15 days. The plaintiff filed the application for pre- institution mediation before the West District Legal Services Authority on 27.05.2024. Notices were issued to the defendant but the defendant did not appear before the DLSA (West) and non-starter report dated 22.07.2024 was issued. As per the plaintiff, this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as the plaintiff is having his office at Plot No. 56-A, Rama Road, Najafgarh Road, Delhi-110015 where the dealings/transactions between the parties had taken place. The defendant had placed the orders and defendant has also made part payment to the plaintiff at the said office.
4. It is prayed by the plaintiff that a decree of Rs.15,82,933/- be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff has also claimed interest @ 12% per annum on the suit amount.
5. Notice of the suit was sent to the defendant. The defendant filed written statement and has taken preliminary objection that the suit is barred by limitation. This Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. The suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. There is no cause of action in filing the present suit.
6. In reply on merits, it is mentioned that para no. 1 of the plaint is correct. Defendant admitted the para 2 of the plaint CS(COMM)731/2024 Raman Gandhi Vs Shanker Lal Page No. 3 of 20 and admitted that he has purchased the goods from the plaintiff and paid some amount during the business transactions. The plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate of 12% p.a. without any basis. It is denied that the notice was served upon the defendant from the Secretary, DLSA (West). The defendant has mentioned that para 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 are legal paras and need no reply. Dismissal of the suit is prayed by the defendant.
7. Plaintiff has filed replication and has controverted each and every allegations made in the Written Statement and further re-affirmed the averments made in the plaint.
8. On 10.07.2025, following issues were framed by this Court:-
Issues
(i) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit ? (OPP)
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 15,82,933/- from the defendant, as prayed ? (OPP)
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest on the amount of Rs. 15,82,933/-, if yes then at what rate and for what period ? (OPP)
(iv) Relief.
9. In evidence, the plaintiff has produced his Attorney Holder Sh Santosh Sharma as PW1. This witness filed affidavit on the lines of the plaint and proved the computerized copy of GST details of the plaintiff's firm as ExPW1/1, computerized copy of GST details of the defendant as ExPW1/2, the copy of the GPA dated 20.07.2024 executed by the plaintiff in his favour CS(COMM)731/2024 Raman Gandhi Vs Shanker Lal Page No. 4 of 20 as ExPW1/3, computerized statement of account/ledger of defendant maintained by the plaintiff as ExPW1/4, Bills/Invoices as ExPW1/5 collectively, Legal demand notice dated 22.04.2024 as ExPW1/6, Postal receipt of the legal demand notice as ExPW1/7, Tracking report as ExPW1/8, Screeshot of whatsapp message as ExPW1/9, Non starter report dated 22.07.2024 as ExPW1/10 and the certificate under Section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 as ExPW1/11.
10. In cross examination, this witness stated that he is working with the plaintiff since August 2022. The defendant is dealing with the plaintiff since the year 2019. He stated that the plaintiff has filed the present suit on the basis of the invoices issued in the year 2021 and on the basis of the ledger account. The present suit is filed on the basis of the unpaid invoices for the year 2020 and 2021. The plaintiff used to supply the goods to the defendant through transport. He stated that if the plaintiff supplied defective goods to any customer, then the technical representative of the plaintiff visits the premises of the customer to check the quality of the goods. He also stated that if the goods are found defective, then the plaintiff used to take back the goods.
11. On the other hand, the defendant has examined himself as DW1 and filed affidavit on the lines of the written statement.
12. In cross examination, this witness stated that he has not mentioned his name, parentage, address either residential or CS(COMM)731/2024 Raman Gandhi Vs Shanker Lal Page No. 5 of 20 official. He stated that he is having business dealings with the plaintiff since the year 2010. He stated that the last transaction between him and the plaintiff was in the year 2020. Witness also stated that he used to purchase the lamination fevicol from the plaintiff. He is not maintaining any ledger in respect of the transactions between him and the plaintiff. Lastly, he made the payment to the plaintiff in the year 2019. He admitted that he had made the payment of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff through bank transfer on 10.10.2021. He also admitted that he had made the payment of Rs. One lac to the plaintiff through bank transfer on 21.09.2021. He further admitted that he had made the payment of Rs. One lac to the plaintiff through bank transfer on 27.08.2021. He admitted that he had made the payment of Rs. 2 lacs to the plaintiff through bank transfer on 03.04.2021. He also admitted that during the above said payments, he received the goods from the plaintiff through bill dated 16.08.2021 and 24.09.2021. He admitted that the payments and details of invoices is correctly mentioned in Ex. PW-1/4. He stated that he had not issued any letter in writing or through Whatsapp to the plaintiff regarding the defective goods. He also admitted that he has not returned any goods till date to the plaintiff. The witness voluntarily stated that the goods were spoiled at his godown. He stated that he has not filed any document on court record to show that goods supplied by the plaintiff were defective and were spoiled at his godown. He stated that plaintiff is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 3-4 lacs as he suffered loss due to the plaintiff. He stated that he has filed a suit for recovery against the plaintiff at Agra Court. He admitted that he has not filed any copy of plaint filed by him in the present case. He also admitted that he has not placed on CS(COMM)731/2024 Raman Gandhi Vs Shanker Lal Page No. 6 of 20 record any document to show that he suffered losses due to the acts of the plaintiff. This witness admitted that he had not filed any suit against the plaintiff but he has filed the suit against the parties at Agra Court, who defaulted in making payment to him due to the substandard material supplied by the plaintiff. He admitted that he had not filed any copy of the plaint filed by him against the Parties mentioned in para no. 6 of his affidavit in evidence on the judicial file. He admitted that no written agreement was executed between him and the plaintiff that the plaintiff cannot sell his goods to any other person except him at Agra. This witness had voluntarily stated that only oral agreement was executed. He admitted that he has received the legal demand notice Ex. PW-1/6 but he has not given any reply to the legal notice Ex. PW-1/6.
13. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. My issue wise findings are as under:-
Issue No. (i)
(i) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit ? (OPP)
14. The burden to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. To prove this issue, ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that plaintiff is having his office at plot no. 56-A, Rama Road, Delhi-110015 where the dealings/transactions between the parties took place. The defendant placed orders at the office of the plaintiff and accordingly bills/invoices were raised by the plaintiff. Goods were supplied and part payment of the same was also made by the defendant at the office of the plaintiff situated CS(COMM)731/2024 Raman Gandhi Vs Shanker Lal Page No. 7 of 20 within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that this Court does not have jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as the office of the defendant is situated at Agra, UP. However, defendant has not denied paragraph no. 10 of the plaint which pleads about jurisdiction of this Court. In the written statement, defendant has not denied this pleading and stated that paragraph no. 10 is of the legal paragraph of the plaint and needs no reply. Moreover, invoices (Ex. PW1/5 Colly) clearly shows that goods were dispatched from the office of the plaintiff situated at Rama Road, Delhi-110015 to the defendant at Agra, Uttar Pradesh. Furthermore, these invoices clearly mention at the bottom in capital letters "SUBJECT TO DELHI JURISDICTION". Even during cross-examination no suggestion was put to PW-1 that this Court has no jurisdiction. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on judgment titled "Boston Scientific International B.V. vs. Metro Hospital" [136 (2007) DLT 278) passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Relevant paragraph of this judgment is reproduced as under :-
9. The learned Counsel for the defendant then submitted, placing reliance on Meghraj v. M.R. and O. Mills, AIR 1975 Patna 148 (at para 6) and Prem Nath v. Kaudoomal Rikhiram, AIR 1958 Punjab 361 (Pr 14), that place of payment does not necessarily mean the place where the money was payable. He submitted that in paragraph 17 of the plaint it is merely alleged that payments were received at Delhi. It did not specify that payments were also receivable at Delhi.
It is the place where money is payable which gives jurisdiction and not the place where it is, in fact, paid. While this may be true as an abstract proposition, it must not be forgotten that the general rule cited in Soniram Jeetmull (supra) would apply and the plaintiff being CS(COMM)731/2024 Raman Gandhi Vs Shanker Lal Page No. 8 of 20 the creditor and residing at Delhi would clearly make the money payable at Delhi. So, on the basis of averments contained in the plaint, if taken at face value,-Delhi was both the place where the money was payable and, in fact, paid.
(Emphasis supplied)
15. Furthermore, the defendant has also admitted paragraph no. 9 of the plaint which avers the cause of action. Therefore, the defendant has admitted to having made transactions in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In judgment titled "M/S. AUTO MOVERS vs. LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD" (CM (M) 604/2020) Passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Relevant paragraph of this judgment is as follows:-
22. When, in the present case, the part cause of action has arisen also on account of the payments made by the petitioner/defendant directly into the bank account of the respondent/plaintiff, even if these were not on regular basis, since there is nothing to show that the place of payment had been fixed, even without following the principle that the 'debtor must seek out the creditor', it is clear that the Delhi Courts have jurisdiction to try the suit and the invoice does not vest jurisdiction in a court which had no jurisdiction at all.
(Emphasis supplied)
16. In view of the forgoing discussion, the plaintiff is able to prove that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
17. Issue no. (ii)
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 15,82,933/- from the defendant, as prayed ? (OPP) CS(COMM)731/2024 Raman Gandhi Vs Shanker Lal Page No. 9 of 20 The burden to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. To prove this issue, ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff sold lamination emulsion to the defendant through various bills/invoices. The defendant duly received the goods but failed to clear outstanding dues of the plaintiff. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that plaintiff supplied defective goods and failed to pick up such goods from the godown of the defendant.
18. The plaintiff has examined his Attorney Holder Sh Santosh Sharma as PW1. This witness proved the bills/invoices as ExPW1/5 collectively and statement of account/ledger of defendant maintained by the plaintiff as ExPW1/4. The defendant in the written statement has admitted that he was having business dealings with the plaintiff. In para 2 of the written statement, the defendant admitted that he has taken the goods from the plaintiff in the business and paid some amount during the business transactions. Moreover, when the defendant appeared in the witness box for cross examination, he admitted that he is having business dealings with the plaintiff since the year 2010. He used to make payment to the plaintiff in cash. DW1 has also admitted that last transaction between him and the plaintiff was in the year 2020. DW1 admitted that he had made the payment of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff through bank transfer on 10.10.2021. He also admitted that he had made the payment of Rs. One lac to the plaintiff through bank transfer on 21.09.2021. He further admitted that he had made the payment of Rs. 2 lacs to the plaintiff through bank transfer on 03.04.2021. He admitted that during the above said payments, he received the goods from the CS(COMM)731/2024 Raman Gandhi Vs Shanker Lal Page No. 10 of 20 plaintiff through bill dated 16.08.2021 and 24.09.2021. The plaintiff has placed on record the bills/invoices dated 16.08.2021 and 24.09.2021. Thus the defendant had specifically admitted to have received the goods vide invoices dated 16.08.2021 and 24.09.2021. In view of clear admission by DW1, it is proved that defendant used to purchase goods from the plaintiff. The ledger account placed on record by the plaintiff also shows that defendant used to make payments to the plaintiff. In ExPW1/4, the plaintiff has shown all the transactions made between him and the defendant. The plaintiff has also shown all the payments made by the defendant in the ledger account. DW1 had categorically admitted that he had made payment of Rs.25,000/- on 10.10.2021, Rs. One lac on 21.09.2021, Rs. One lac on 27.08.2021 and Rs. 2 lacs on 03.04.2021 and all these payments have been shown in the ledger account ExPW1/4. DW1 in clear terms admitted that the payments and details of invoices is correctly mentioned in ExPW1/4. Thus, DW1 admitted all the transactions made between him and the plaintiff.
19. Ld. Counsel of the defendant has raised a preliminary objection that the present suit is barred by limitation. It is argued that the present suit is pertaining to transactions between 2019-2020 and the period of limitation to file the present suit has already lapsed.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India took suo moto cognizance during COVID-19 pandemic in writ petition (C) 3/2020 wherein, it is held that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and CS(COMM)731/2024 Raman Gandhi Vs Shanker Lal Page No. 11 of 20 Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe periods of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. The same observation is given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as "M/s. Arif Azim Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Aptech Ltd." Arbitration Petition No. 29/2023. Furthermore, period utilised for the purpose of pre- institution mediation under Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act deserves to be excluded. In the present matter plaintiff filed per-institution of mediation application before the DLSA (West) on 27.05.2024. Non-starter report was issued on 22.07.2024. Thus, a total of 57 days were utilised for the purpose of pre- institution mediation. As such DW-1 had admitted the payment made by him to the plaintiff on 10.10.2021, 21.09.2021, 27.08.2021 and 03.04.2021. If we calculate the period of limitation from 10.10.2021, in view of direction laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and exclusion of 57 days the present suit is well within the period of limitation.
20. Main contention raised by Ld. Counsel for the defendant is that goods supplied by the plaintiff were defective and the plaintiff failed to pick defective goods from the godown of the defendant. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the defence regarding goods being defective is not mentioned in the written statement and has only been pleaded in evidence affidavit Ex. DW1/A for the first time. I have carefully perused the written statement filed by the defendant CS(COMM)731/2024 Raman Gandhi Vs Shanker Lal Page No. 12 of 20 and at the outset no such plea was raised in the written statement and this plea was only brought to the notice of this Court through evidence affidavit Ex. DW1/A. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on judgement titled "Kattinollula Murali Krishna vs. Veeramalla Koteswara Rao and Ors." [2010 AIR (SC) 24] passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Relevant paragraph of this judgement is as follows:-
15. Having viewed the matter in the light of the principles enunciated above, we are constrained to hold that the Election Tribunal as also the High court lost sight of the parameters to be applied while considering the petition seeking re-counting of votes.
It is manifest from the afore-extracted paragraph 4 of the election petition, containing the grounds of challenge, the allegations regarding irregularity or illegality in the counting of votes were not only vague, even the basic material facts as could have made the Election Tribunal record a prima facie satisfaction that re-count of ballots was necessary, were missing in the petition. It is pertinent to note that upon consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Election Tribunal had itself observed that the election petitioner had failed to state any material facts regarding the failure of the Election Officer to mention reasons for rejection of votes and further there was no specific allegation as to on which table the votes polled in favour of the election petitioner were mixed with the votes polled in favour of the appellant; and on which table the votes polled in his favour were rejected as invalid. Precisely for this reason, and in our view rightly, the Election Tribunal had declined to take into consideration the evidence adduced by the election petitioner on the point. It is a settled principle of law that evidence beyond the pleadings can neither be permitted to be adduced nor such evidence can be taken into consideration. Moreover, even the two material issues, viz. as to whether the counting of votes by the Election Officer was in accordance with the rules and regulations as also whether the votes polled in favour of the election petitioner were rejected as invalid or there was improper mixing of the votes have CS(COMM)731/2024 Raman Gandhi Vs Shanker Lal Page No. 13 of 20 been found in favour of the appellant. It is evident from the observations of the Election Tribunal, extracted in Para 7 above, that the sole factor which had weighed with it to order re-count was that no prejudice will be caused to the appellant if the ballot papers are re-counted. Similarly, the factor which weighed with the High Court to affirm the view of the Election Tribunal is that re-counting of votes will reinforce the transparency in the process of election, particularly when the margin of votes was very narrow. It needs to be emphasised that having regard to the consequences emanating from the direction of re-counting, which may even breach the secrecy of ballot, the doctrine of prejudice is an irrelevant factor for ordering re-count. Similarly, a narrow margin of votes between the returned candidate and the election petitioner does not per se give rise to a presumption that there had been an irregularity or illegality in the counting of votes. In the first instance, material facts in this behalf have to be stated clearly in the election petition and then proved by cogent evidence. Undoubtedly, the onus to prove the allegation of irregularity, impropriety or illegality in the election process on the part of the Election Officer is on the election petitioner and not on the Election Officer, as held by the authorities below. In the present case, both the forums below have found that material facts were lacking in the election petition. Having held so, in our view, the election petition should have been dismissed on this short ground alone. In that view of the matter, the observation of the Election Tribunal, as affirmed by the High Court, that the Election Officer had failed to say anything regarding corrections and over- writings in Form 26, are neither factually nor legally sound.
(Emphasis Supplied)
21. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has also placed reliance on judgment titled "Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta vs. New Era Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. And Ors." [2016 (1) Civil Court Cases 270 (S.C.) ] passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Relevant paragraph of this judgment is as under:-
27) It may be mentioned that in the plaint filed by the appellant, the CS(COMM)731/2024 Raman Gandhi Vs Shanker Lal Page No. 14 of 20 plea set up was that at the instigation of the defendants and in collusion with them, the Mill Mazdoor Sabha has refused to give its permission to the sale of the mill premises of Defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff. It was not a case set up by the appellant that the Mill Mazdoor Sabha had agreed to the proposed sale on certain conditions offered by the respondents. In view of the settled position of law, fresh pleadings and evidence which is in variation to the original pleadings cannot be taken unless the pleadings are incorporated by way of amendment of the pleadings. In our considered opinion, the Division Bench of the High Court was perfectly justified in holding that unless the plaint is amended and a specific plea is taken that the Mill Mazdoor Sabha had agreed for the proposed sale on certain terms and conditions offered by the respondents herein, the two letters viz., Exh Nos. P-27 and P-28 could not have been taken into consideration at all.
(Emphasis supplied)
22. Moreover, in cross-examination DW-1 admitted that he had not issued any letter in writing or WhatsApp to the plaintiff regarding the defective goods. He also admitted that he has not returned any goods till date to the plaintiff. He also admitted to have not filed any document on record to show that goods supplied by the plaintiff were defective and were spoiled in his godown. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on judgment titled "SCJ PLASTICS LTD. Vs. CREATIVE WARES LTD." [192 (2012) DLT 237] passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Relevant paragraph of this judgment is as below :-
7. Object of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is that in appropriate cases litigations should not continue unnecessarily once it is found that there are categorical admissions. Judicial process cannot be abused for delaying passing of a decree in favour of a seller when the buyer categorically admits the dues of the plaintiff in "pleadings or otherwise". In view of the categorical admissions in BIFR CS(COMM)731/2024 Raman Gandhi Vs Shanker Lal Page No. 15 of 20 proceedings, I find that merely because in written statement there is a denial, and which denial of course is only for the sake of convenience, I find that the present is a fit case for exercise of power under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC inasmuch as the debt due to the plaintiff has been admitted in „pleadings or otherwise‟ i.e. in judicial proceedings before BIFR. I have also examined the written statement filed. In the written statement it is not denied that defendant has purchased and received „Master Batches‟ from the plaintiff and which is said to be for manufacturing polystyrene/polypropylene disposable cups and glasses. The only dispute raised in the written statement is the alleged inferior quality of the material, however no particulars of any letter/letters written by the defendant to the plaintiff rejecting the goods or objections to the same on account of alleged inferior quality are mentioned. In terms of Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, once the defendant has retained the goods without intimating to the seller that it has rejected the goods, the goods are deemed to be accepted and hence liability arises. Thus the defence of rejection in the written statement is only a vague/inadequate device and hence by applying Order 8 Rule 5 CPC, the contents of the plaint can also be deemed to be admitted as regards the liability of the defendant.
(Emphasis Supplied)
23. In M/s PVT Ltd. Vs. Kedar Nath Gupta (2008:
DHC:3168-DB) passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. This judgment observed that a buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods if within a reasonable time he does not intimate the rejection of the goods. relevant paragraph of this judgment is as follows: -
"9. Learned Trial Judge has noted that the goods were supplied on various dates between 29.07.2000 till 21.10.2000 and bills raised and that for the first time an issue pertaining to the price was raised when the appellant wrote a letter on 15.02.2001 and that too after the respondent had pestered the appellant for release of payment. Learned Trial Judge has held that the contemporaneous CS(COMM)731/2024 Raman Gandhi Vs Shanker Lal Page No. 16 of 20 conducted evidenced appropriation of the goods without demur requiring an inference to be drawn that the appellant had no grievance qua the price at which the bills were raised since the issue of the price was raised after nearly 6 months of the receipt of the first lot of goods.
10. The result is that the suit has been decreed.
11. Conceding that there is no written contract evidencing the price which was agreed between the parties, only submission urged by learned counsel for the appellant is that the newspaper cutting being extracts from the Economic Times listing price of refined coconut oil was good evidence to determine the price thereof.
12. .......
13. We take guidance from Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 which stipulates that a buyer is deemed to have accept the goods if within a reasonable time he does not intimate the rejection of the goods.
(Emphasis Supplied)
24. Thus, from the forgoing discussion it can be concluded that defendant has failed to plead in his written statement that the goods supplied by the plaintiff were defective and defendant has only taken this defence for the first time in affidavit of evidence. The same cannot be taken into consideration as defendant has not preferred to amend his pleadings. Moreover, in cross-examination DW1 has clearly stated that no document has been placed on record by him to suggest that goods supplied by the plaintiff were of inferior quality. He has also admitted to have not returned these goods to the plaintiff till date. Thus, in view of Section 42 of the Sales of Goods Act defendant is deemed to have accepted the goods. Therefore, this contention of the defendant carries no force.
25. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has also argued that CS(COMM)731/2024 Raman Gandhi Vs Shanker Lal Page No. 17 of 20 plaintiff has breached the terms of the market by supplying the goods to other distributors and traders. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that there was no agreement between the parties that puts trade restrictions on the plaintiff. At the outset defendant has not placed on record any exclusivity agreement on record that bars the plaintiff from supplying goods to any other distributor or trader. In cross-examination DW-1 admitted that there was no written agreement executed between him and the plaintiff stating that plaintiff cannot sell his goods to any other person except to him at Agra, U.P. Thus, it is clear that there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant that bars the plaintiff to sell his goods to other distributors or traders. Thus, this contention of ld counsel for defendant carries no force.
26. Thus, the plaintiff is able to prove this issue in view of clear admission by DW1. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. As per the ledger account of the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.11,86,040/- was due as on 10.10.2021.
Issue No. (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest on the amount of Rs.15,82,933/-, if yes then at what rate and for what period ? (OPP)
27. The plaintiff has claimed interest @ 12% p.a. I have perused the invoices placed on record. However, there is no mention about the rate of interest. It is admitted that no rate of interest has been agreed between the parties. Further, the rate of CS(COMM)731/2024 Raman Gandhi Vs Shanker Lal Page No. 18 of 20 interest claimed by the plaintiff is just and fair and as per the market rate.
28. Reliance can be placed in this regard on the judgment of Central Bank of India Vs Ravindra & Ors MANU/SC/0663/2001 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In this judgment it is held that according to stroud's Judicial dictionary of Words and Pharases interest means, inter alia, compensation paid by the borrower to the lender for deprivation of the use of his money. In Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa & Ors Vs G. C. Roy Manu/ SC/0297/1992 (1992) 2 SCC 508, it is held that the constitution bench opined that a person deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name. It may be called interest, compensation or damages. This is the principles of Section 34 CPC.
In this judgment, Judgment of Dr. shamlal Narula Vs CIT Punjab MANU/ SC/0109/1964 (53) was also relied upon wherein it is held that interest is paid for the deprivation of the use of the money. In this judgment it is also held that in whatever category "interest in a particular case may be put, it is a consideration paid either for the use of money or for forbearance in demanding it, after it has fallen due, and thus, it is charge for the use of forbearance of money. In this sense, it is a compensation allowed by law or fixed by parties, or permitted by customs or usage, for use of money, belonging to another, or of the delay in paying money after it has become payable.
CS(COMM)731/2024 Raman Gandhi Vs Shanker Lal Page No. 19 of 20
29. Reliance can also be placed on the judgment of Aditya Mass Communication (P) Ltd Vs APSRTC MANU/SC/0759/2003 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court granted interest @ 12% per annum. Reliance can also be placed on the judgment of "M/s IHT Network Limited Vs. Sachin Bhardwaj"
in RFA No. 835/2016 & CM Appl.14617/2020 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has granted interest @12% per annum. Accordingly, plaintiff is granted interest @ 12% per annum which is reasonable and usually prevailing market rate of interest.
RELIEF.
30. In view of my above discussions, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and a decree of Rs. 11,86,040/- is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff is also entitled to interest on the amount of Rs. 11,86,040/- @12% per annum from 10.10.2021 till realization along with cost of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court on 28.11.2025. (N. K. Malhotra) Distt. Judge, (Comm. Court)-06, West District, Extension Block, THC, Delhi/28.11.2025.
Digitally signed by NARESH NARESH KUMAR
KUMAR MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date:
2025.11.28
16:57:50 +0530
CS(COMM)731/2024 Raman Gandhi Vs Shanker Lal Page No. 20 of 20