Delhi District Court
Napin Impex Limited vs Vaibhav Plastics on 8 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA, DISTRICT
JUDGE, (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02, WEST, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, EXTENSION BLOCK, DELHI
CS (COMM) No. 516/2022
CNR NO.DLNW010058642022
NAPIN IMPEX LIMITED.
(Earlier Known As M/s Napin Impex Pvt. Ltd.)
Through its Director GAURAV SINGHAL
Office at:
H-1419, DSIIDC Narela, Delhi - 110040,
Also at:
405 KLJ tower 4th Floor Netaji Subhash Palace
Pitampura Delhi-110034
Tele-9911000199, 9911007980
[email protected],
[email protected]
...Plaintiff
Vs.
1. VAIBHAV PLASTICS
(A Partnership firm)
Office:- 132/A Bombay Talkies Compound,
Himanshu Rai Road, Malad West,
Mumbai city Maharashtra 400064
Also at:
240/41/42, Neo Corporate Plaza,
Opp. Kapol Banquet Hall, Ex. Ramchandra Land,
Kachpada, Malad (W), Mumbai - 400064
Mobile-9320055101, 9987099991, 9920699991
Email:[email protected] [email protected]
2. ASHOK JAYANTILAL SHAH
(Partner of Vaibhav Plastics)
3. KISHOR JAYANTILAL SHAH
(Partner of Vaibhav Plastics)
... Defendants
CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. Digitally 1/27
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 57,75,000/- (RUPEES FISTY
SEVEN LAKHS SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND ONLY) WITH
PENDENTELITE AND FUTURE INTEREST @18% PER
ANNUM, TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION
Date of institution of Suit : 09.06.2022
Date of Assignment to this court : 10.06.2022
Date of hearing of final argument : 03.11.2025
Date of Judgment : 03.11.2025
Pursuant to orders No.40/D-3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025 dated
17.10.2025, of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the undersigned has
been transferred from previous posting (as District Judge
(Commercial Court)-01, North-West, Rohini, Delhi) and posted as
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02, West, Tis Hazari Courts,
Extn. Block, Delhi.
In terms/compliance of the transfer/posting orders dated
17.10.2025, present case was duly notified, as the same was heard
and reserved for orders, before relinquishment of charge of the
previous Court. Therefore, the present judgment has been
pronounced today, as District Judge (Commercial Court)-02, West,
Tis Hazari Courts, Extn. Block, Delhi.
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, I shall conscientiously adjudicate upon the Suit of plaintiff for Recovery of Rs.57,75,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum pendentlite and future, till its realization alongwith costs of the Suit.
Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. AGRAWAL PREETI 2/27 GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025
2. As derived from the pleadings, the concise facts of the plaint are being summarised hereunder.
2.1 The Plaintiff, formerly known as M/s Napin Impex Pvt. Ltd., is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having CIN: U27106DL2004PLC129665 with its registered office at H-1419, Basement, DSIIDC, Narela, Delhi-110040 and is engaged in marketing and sale of polymer raw materials i.e. PVC, LLDPE, LDPE, HDPE, EVA Resin, related chemicals and other petrochemicals to nationwide clients. The present suit is filed through its Director and Authorized Representative, Mr. Gaurav Singhal, duly empowered by Board Resolution dated 20.12.2021, who is competent and well conversant with the facts of the case as per information received and derived from the records and books of the plaintiff, maintained in the regular course of its business. 2.2 Defendant M/s VAIBHAV PLASTICS is a Partnership firm, registered under GST authority in Maharashtra (Mumbai) and others States, having Registered Address at 132/A Bombay Talkies Compound, Himanshu Rai Road, Malad West, Mumbai city Maharashtra 400064. 2.3 In March 2017, officials of the Defendant Firm approached the Plaintiff at its Delhi office i.e 405, 4th Floor, KLJ Tower, NSP, Pitampura, Delhi-110034, for supply of Petrochemicals and Polymer Raw Materials. After discussions and inspection of samples, the Plaintiff placed an order upon the defendant for PVC resin (pure suspension grade, with K-value 67 @ Rs.50 per kg, inclusive of taxes). The Defendants sought full advance payment to Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. AGRAWAL PREETI 3/27 GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025 lock the price, citing rising market rates post-demonetization, and assured delivery within 3-4 days, but not later than April 2017, to the Plaintiff's Delhi godown i.e. 1419, H-Block, Narela DSIIDC Industrial Area, Delhi-110040. All communications regarding payment, confirmation, and services were conducted via telephone and email.
2.4 Payments were made to the Defendant as per the deal fixed/agreement in March 2017 at the Plaintiff's Delhi office. Each payment was confirmed telephonically, upon credit to the Defendant's bank account, detailed in date-wise tabular form, as under :
Napin Impex Ltd.
Vaibhav Plastics Ledger Account 132/A Bombay Talkies Compound, Himansu-Rai, Road, Malad (West), Mumbai city Maharashtra 400064 1-Apr-2016 to 31-Mar-2022 Date Particulars Vch Type Vch No. Debit Credit 30-03-17 To ICICI Bank Ltd. A/c Payment 10,00,000 (083051000021) 30-03-17 To ICICI Bank Ltd. A/c Payment 2,75,000 (083051000021) 31-03-17 To ICICI Bank Ltd. A/c Payment 5,00,000 (083051000021) 03-04-17 To ICICI Bank Ltd. A/c Payment 30,00,000 (083051000021) 13-04-17 To ICICI Bank Ltd. A/c Payment 10,00,000 (083051000021) Total Final Payment outstanding From Vaibhav Plastics is Rs.
57,75,000/-
2.5 As per the Plaintiff's books of accounts, a sum of Rs.57,75,000/- is legally recoverable from the Defendant, along with interest @18% p.a. as per commercial usage, practice, and costs.
Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. AGRAWAL PREETI 4/27 GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025 2.6 The Defendants repeatedly demanded further advance for supply of raw material but made no supply. Despite several requests and reminders by the plaintiff through emails and telephone for clearance of the outstanding amount, the Defendants failed to respond. Defendants acknowledged their liability via email dated 23.06.2017 and assured clearance of dues, but failed to do so despite repeated reminders. Defendants are liable to pay Rs.57,75,000/- with pendentelite interest @18% p.a. and costs.
2.7 After issuing legal notice, the Plaintiff approached North-West District Legal Services Authority, Rohini, Delhi on 23.12.2021 for pre-litigation mediation, but the Defendants failed to appear before the Legal Services Authority and consequently, a Non- Starter Report dated 02.02.2022 was issued. The Plaintiff has complied with Order 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, yet the Defendants showed no interest in settlement. From the overall conduct behavior of the defendants, it is apparent/reflected that defendants are not wiling and intending to repay the suit amount of the plaintiff.
2.8 The cause of action arose in March 2017 when the Defendant first approached the Plaintiff and received advance payment for supply of raw material. It further arose upon maintenance of the running account and confirmation of liability via email dated 23.06.2017, and again when the Plaintiff approached North-West Legal Services Authority for pre-litigation mediation, resulting in a Non-Starter Report due to Defendant's non-appearance. The cause of action continues as the Defendants have failed to make Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. AGRAWAL PREETI 5/27 GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025 payment. Hence, the present suit.
2.9 The plaintiff prays for a decree against the defendants for the recovery of Rs.57,75,000/- along with pendentelite and future interest at 18% per annum and cost of litigation, in its favour.
3. Upon issuance of Summons for settlement of Issues, defendants appeared through Ld. Counsel and filed joint Written Statement alonwith application U/O VIII Rule 1 RPC r/w Section 5 of Limitation Act. Thereafter, vide orders dated 12.07.2023, application seeking condonation of delay in filing WS, was dismissed and Written Statement already filed with the condonation application, was taken off the record. As per law, defendants were granted opportunity to cross examine the plaintiff witness(s).
4. As has been considered, the Written Statement on record was directed to be struck off with limited right to cross examine the plaintiff witness(s). Written statement filed by defendants has been perused in order to appreciate any legal objections taken for the purpose of examining the case of the plaintiff. The defendants have outrightly denied the outstanding liability against them and in favour of the plaintiff, but have not raised any triable legal issue, except point of limitation.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues arise to adjudicated upon by the Court:
Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. GUPTA AGRAWAL 6/27 GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a Decree for recovery in the sum of Rs.57,75,000/- or any other amount, against the defendant(s) ? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to to any interest on the decretal amount ? If Yes, at what rate and for which period ? OPP
3. Relief.
6. Plaintiff in support of its case got examined the sole witness Sh. Gaurav Singhal, Director of plaintiff company himself, as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at Point A and Point B. By way of affidavit of chief-examination, the plaintiff witness has deposed as per the averments in the plaint and has relied upon documents, detailed as under:-
1. Copy of certificate of Incorporation of Plaintiff issued by Registrar of companies exhibited as Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
2. Copy of Board of Resolution dated 20.12.2021 of plaintiff company exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 (OSR).
3. Copy of the search report (GSTIN) Maharastra of the defendant exhibited as Ex.PW1/3 (Colly).
4. The copy of statement of account of the defendants exhibited as Ex.PW1/4.
5. The printed copy of the confirmation of accounts sent by defendant through email dated 23.06.2017 in regular course of its business exhibited as Ex.PW1/5 (Colly).
6. The certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act exhibited as Ex.PW1/6.
7. Affidavit under Order XI Rule 6(3) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 exhibited as Ex.PW1/7(Colly.).
7. Defendants were granted right/liberty to cross-examine the plaintiff witness(es), as per law. Despite opportunity to cross-
Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. AGRAWAL PREETI 7/27 GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025 examine the plaintiff witness(es), defendants failed to avail the opportunity and did not cross-examine the plaintiff witness. Defendants failed to support its defence during trial and did not participate to cross-examine the plaintiff witness/PW1 to challenge and rebut the evidence of the plaintiff. The defendants have also not examined any of their witness in DE as there defence was struck off and therefore, no opportunity was available to the defendants in this regard. Accordingly, the evidence on record comprises of sole plaintiff witness who has been examined as PW1 and not cross- examined by the defendants despite opportunity. The trial in the case concluded with sole testimony of the plaintiff witness, as no other witness(es) have been examined.
8. Final arguments addressed by ld. Counsels for the parties have been heard at length. The entire judicial record including the pleadings, evidence and documents on record have been carefully perused. The applicable law has been duly appreciated. Issue-wise findings are being discussed hereunder:-
ISSUE NO.1
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a Decree for recovery in the sum of Rs.57,75,000/- or any other amount, against the defendant(s) ? OPP.
9. The Plaintiff namely M/s Napin Impex Ltd. (formerly M/s Napin Impex Pvt. Ltd.), is a company incorporated under Companies Act 1956 and stated to be engaged in marketing and sale Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. AGRAWAL PREETI 8/27 GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025 of polymer raw materials. The Defendant, M/s Vaibhav Plastics, a registered partnership firm and stated to have approached the Plaintiff in March 2017, for seeking supply of PVC resin, which the plaintiff agreed and placed orders for specific supplies upon the defendant. It is case before the Court that the defendant sought full advance payments for locking the prices of the goods before supply owing to fluctuating market prices, with assurance to the plaintiff that delivery would be made within 3 to 4 days with maximum timeline till April 2017. The Plaintiff claimed to have paid a total sum of Rs.57,75,000/- through bank transfers, and as averred that the defendants did not make any supply, despite receiving the advance payments. Despite repeated reminders, including acknowledgment of liability by the Defendant through Ex. PW 1/5 e-mail on 23.06.2017, the outstanding dues in avour of the plainiff, remained unpaid. A legal notice and pre-litigation mediation attempt before the Delhi Legal Services Authority also failed, leading to issuance of a Non- Starter Report. The Plaintiff, therefore, seeks a decree for recovery of Rs.57,75,000/- with interest @18% p.a. and litigation costs.
10. The Court shall first examine the aspect of territorial jurisdiction of this Court. As per the facts on record, it is the case of the plaintiff that the entire course of commercial dealings and financial transactions between the parties took place within Delhi. The payments were made in favour of the defendants, through its bank accounts situated at Delhi, and further that the correspondence exchanged between the plaintiff and defendants regarding the outstanding balance amount were also made from and to the office of Digitally CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. PREETI signed by 9/27 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025 he plaintiff located at Delhi. It is case of the plaintiff that the confirmation of balance was received received from the defendants via e-mail dated 23.06.2017 addressed to the plaintiff at its Delhi office, thereby, asserting a substantial and material part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon it under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. As such, Written Statement of defendants has been struck off from record. However, during arguments, it has been contended for the defendants that this court lacks territorial jurisdiction as the firm of defendants namely M/s Vaibhav Plastics, is registered and carrying on business in Mumbai, Maharashtra. It is contended that no part of the cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. It has been submitted that the Plaintiff has failed to establish any transaction, payment, or communication that took place within the territorial limits of this Court, and therefore, the present suit is liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
11. The Court has duly considered the objection raised on the aspect of territorial jurisdiction, at the first instance as it goes to the root of the matter. The Plaintiff has pleaded and led unrebutted evidence that the payments as per plaintiff's ledge Ex.PW1/4 were made by the plaintiff from the bank account of plaintiff company maintained at Delhi. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the employees of the defendants approached the plaintiff at it office situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court for seeking the Digitally CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. PREETI signed by 10/27 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025 orders for supply of goods to the plaintiff. In support of its averments PW1 has supported the averments by way of testimony vide Ex.PW1/A testifying that the employee of the defendant visited the office of the plaintiff in March 2017 with samples of petrochemicals and polymer raw material for inspection. It is further testified that discussion and consultation between the plaintiff and on behalf of defendants regarding the price, specification of goods and the quantity of orders were discussed at the office of the plaintiff. The testimony of PW1 remained unbreached as the defendants did not cross-examined witness despite opportunity. There is no counter material or evidence on record to issue the veracity of the plaintiff witness in respect of initiation of business and placement of orders by the plaintiff upon the defendants, at its office.
12. This is well settled position of Law that the principle of debtor must seek creditor is applicable where demand of payment, preceding the suit, was made from Delhi for payment made from Delhi. Reliance is placed on pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'A.B.C Laminart Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.P. Agencies', (1989), 2 SCC 163, wherein the Hon'ble court has laid down that if a demand of the payment, preceding the suit, was made from Delhi for payments at Delhi, the principle of debtor must seek the creditor applies, with exception of a promissory notes. The principle is applied in respect of payments received at the place of plaintiff under an express or implied contract and unless there is a clear ouster of jurisdiction, the place of the plaintiff shall also be the place where a Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. AGRAWAL PREETI 11/27 GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025 legal action can be filed.
13. As per Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a Court within whose local limits the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises shall have jurisdiction to try the suit. The averments in the pleadings and the supporting testimony of the plaintiff witness have sufficiently established that the transactions and obligations giving rise to the present dispute occurred within Delhi at the office of the plaintiff which is located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is further the case where the plaintiff made demand of payment, from the defendants for return of the money paid from Delhi and it is a matter of record that the place of the plaintiff lies within the jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present suit.
14. It may be now relevant to examine the only other legal objection raised during trial as regards the maintainability of the present suit on the aspect of limitation, which is a legal issue going into the root of maintainability of the present suit. It is considered that the present suit has been filed seeking recovery of alleged outstanding dues from the defendants against advance payments made by plaintiff in favour of the defendants for proposed supply of goods. As per the facts of the case, the first payment for a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs was transacted from the bank account of plaintiff to the defendants as on 30.03.2017. As per the case of the plaintiff, by way of cause of action in the present suit, the last payment of Rs.10 Lakhs Digitally CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. PREETI signed by 12/27 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025 was also made from the bank account of the plaintiff on 13.04.2017. It is case of the plaintiff that it was maintaining a running account qua the transactions for the defendants which started from 30.03.2017, which is the first date of payment, to 13.04.2017, which is the last alleged payment made by the plaintiff to the defendants against the proposed supply of orders to be received from the defendant. Although, the plaintiff has claimed it to be a running account, it is not the before the Court that there were any mutual or reciprocal demands and payments between the parties. The Suit of the plaintiff is entirely based on the cause of action arising owing to failure to deliver goods by defendant(s) despite advance payments. Accordingly, the relevant statutory provision applicable for the purpose of determining the limitation in the present case, is provided under Article 13 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act,1963.
15. As per Article 13 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act,1963, the stipulated period of limitation is 3 years from the time when the goods ought to be delivered. The description against which the stipulated period of limitation applies as per Article 13 envisages a suit filed for the balance of money advanced in payment of goods to be delivered. That being the relevant statutory provision, for computing the limitation in the present case, the period of limitation would commence from 01.05.2017, against each of the alleged payment made by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant, against assured deliveries of goods, which were not delivered, as per case of the plaintiff. It may not be out of place to consider that the defendant was legally precluded from leading affirmative defence but was Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. AGRAWAL PREETI 13/27 GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025 granted an opportunity to challenge the case of the plaintiff by way of cross-examining the plaintiff witness, which the defendants themselves did not avail the opportunity. However, as per law, the limitation shall be computed from the period of three years from the time when the goods ought to be delivered. In the facts of the present case, several claimed advance payments were made by the plaintiff from the period of 30.03.2017 to 13.04.2017 with assured delivery timeline of 3 to 4 days and not exceeding to April-2017. This aspect of testimony of PW1 supporting the averments in the plaint remained unrebutted and accordingly, the timeline, from which the limitation shall start to run, would be w.e.f.01.05.2017, after lapse of the stipulated time when the goods ought to be delivered.
16. It may be further relevant to consider that as per the binding authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Misc. Application no. 21 of 2022, Misc. Application no. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition © No. 3 of 2020, passed on 10.01.2022, whereby it has been directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. Hence, as per the binding legal position, on account of COVID-19 pandemic situation, a period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is required to be excluded from the period of limitation. It was further held that where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. AGRAWAL PREETI 14/27 GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025 limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, w.e.f 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, then longer period shall apply.
17. Now, considering the facts of the present case, the prescribed period of three years of limitation as per Article 13 commenced on/from 01.05.2017. The plaintiff is entitled to exclusion of a period from 15.03.2020 to 30.04.2020, since the period of three years available to the plaintiff would have lapsed during the exclusion period of COVID i.e. on 30.04.2020 (when computed from 01.05.2017). As per operation of law, the balance period thus comes to one month 17 days. As per the law laid down, in the Suo Motu case No.3 of 2020 (Supra), since the actual period of limitation remaining w.e.f.01.03.2022 is lesser than 90 days, the plaintiff is entitled to have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022 i.e. upto 01.06.2022. However, the suit of the plaintiff has been filed beyond the period of 90 days w.e.f. 01.03.2022, having been filed on 09.06.2022.
18. The Court has further considered the legal position as regards the extension of Limitation in view of Section 12A(3) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which excludes the period taken for mediation, from the limitation period for filing the Suit. The legal position has been dealt with by our own Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS(COMM) 582/2022 & I.As.13529-32/2022 titled as 'BOLT Technology OU Vs. Ujoy Technology Private Limited & Anr.' vide orders dated 29.08.2022. It has been held that where the Suit before Digitally CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. PREETI signed by 15/27 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025 the Commercial Court do not contemplate urgent interim relief, it is mandatory for the parties to comply with the intent of the Commercial Courts Act. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi considered the reasoned judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case titled 'Patil Automation Private Limited & Ors. Vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited, Civil Appeal Nos.5333-34/2022 decided on 17.08.2022, has been pleased to lay down that :-
"We declare that Section 12A of the Act is mandatory and hold that any suit instituted violating the mandate of Section 12A must be visited with rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11."
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi further considered the ruling of Bombay High Court in Deepak Raheja Vs. Ganga Taro Vazirani; 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3124, wherein it was held that:-
"14...The period of pre-institution mediation shall not be computed for the purpose of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963, and Section 12A(3) excludes the period taken for mediation from the limitation period for filing the suit."
Accordingly, the plaintiff is further entitled to exclusion of the time spent during pre-litigation mediation process, which in the present facts of the case took 41 days. Therefore, extending the period of limitation by 41 days, w.e.f. 01.06.2022, the Suit of the plaintiff is within limitation, having been filed on 09.06.2022. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff has been found to be within limitation, as per law.
19. The suit of the plaintiff shall now be examined on merits of the case. As per law of the land, the onus to prove is upon the plaintiff and if the plaintiff discharges that onus and makes out a case Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. AGRAWAL PREETI 16/27 GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025 in its favour by preponderance of probabilities, then the plaintiff is able to successfully discharge the onus laid upon it, by law. In order to discharge the burden of proof laid upon the plaintiff by law, the plaintiff has tendered its sole witness PW1 who has testified by way of his affidavit of chief-examination Ex.PW1/A asserting the facts as averred in the plaint. During its testimony, PW1 has relied upon its statement of account Ex.PW1/4 stated to be maintained by the plaintiff in respect of the business transactions with the defendant firm.
20. The plaintiff's Director, PW-1 Gaurav Singhal, has reiterated in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A the averments of the plaint and relied upon supporting documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/7. By way of his testimony, the plaintiff witness has tendered his own authority by way of Board Resolution in his favour, which remained proved as unchallenged. Further, the documents tendered by the plaintiff witness/PW1, other than ledger account Ex.PW1/4, is email dated 23.06.2017 by which defendant issued confirmation of accounts, in regular course of business and the said email is relied upon as Ex.PW1/5, duly proved being supported by the requisite certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, as Ex.PW1/6. The plaintiff has tried to prove its case to seek recovery of Rs.57,75,000/- towards alleged advance amount given to the defendant(s) for supply of goods, which, as per testimony of PW1, were never supplied by the defendant(s) to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed the return of the advance money allegedly transferred by plaintiff to the defendant(s) to the tune of the amount to recovery Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. AGRAWAL PREETI 17/27 GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025 sought in the present suit. PW1 has testified in favour and as per the case of the plaintiff that a order of supply PVC resin of specifications was placed upon the defendant and that the full advance payment was transferred to the defendants in order to lock the price of raw material due to fluctuating market prices, on the basis of assurance given by the defendant for maximum delivery time by end of month of April-2017. PW1 has further testified that the goods were not delivered at the plaintiff's godown, despite orders and advance payments. In order to support its case, the sole documentary evidence put on record in a bid to prove the payments allegedly made by the plaintiff from the account of the plaintiff to the defendant for variable amounts is by way of its ledger account, stated to be maintained qua the defendant firm, tendered as Ex.PW1/4. It has been strongly argued in favour of the plaintiff by the Counsel for plaintiff that the plaintiff has been able to duly prove the transfer of the amounts vide Ex.PW1/4 from the bank account of the plaintiff to that of the defendant, praying for decreeing the suit for the principal outstanding sum of Rs.57,75,000/-, sated to be outstanding and recoverable from the defendant(s).
21. As such, no defence evidence has been available with the defendant(s) owing to striking off their defence and the defendants themselves failed to avail the opportunity to cross- examine the plaintiff witness. However, during vehement arguments addressed before the Court by ld. Counsel for defendants, it has been contended that the ledger account statement (Ex.PW1/4) relied upon CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. Digitally 18/27 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025 by the Plaintiff in the present suit is wholly unreliable and further lacks veracity, and the same cannot be accepted as an admissible evidence for the purported claim of recovery against the Defendant. It is submitted that from the bare perusal of the Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is luculent that the entries in books of account do not, by themselves, constitute conclusive evidence of the transactions recorded therein. It is argued that such entries in Ex.PW1/4 claimed by the plaintiff, are self-serving document of the Plaintiff and must necessarily be supported by corroborative evidence such as bank account statement or transaction receipts. However, the Plaintiff had clearly failed to produce the same. Hence, the ledger account statement Ex.PW1/4 does not hold any probative value and cannot be relied upon in order to hold the defendant(s) accountable of false claims advanced by the plaintiff in the present suit. It is strongly contended that the ledger account statement filed by the Plaintiff is false, fabricated and entirely devoid of any merit. It is submitted that such glaring discrepancies further highlight the lack of credibility of the Plaintiff's claim, praying for outright dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff.
22. It may be now relevant to examine the well settled principle of law and statutory implications of Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 (Section 28 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). Section 34 of the Act, provides that entries in books of account, including electronic records, when regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into Digitally CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. PREETI signed by 19/27 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025 which the Court has to inquire. However, such entries shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. The meaning and purpose of Section 34 of the Act was examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India', (2017) 11 SCC 731 to determine what could be relied upon as evidence under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court reaffirmed the rule from V.C. Shukla's case, that loose papers and irregular records are inadmissible, only regular account books are relevant, and even those require corroboration before fixing liability and held :
280. This Court has further laid down in V.C. Shukla [CBI v. V.C. Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 410 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 761] that meaning of account book would be spiral notebook/pad but not loose sheets. The following extract being relevant is quoted hereinbelow:
"14. In setting aside the order of the trial court, the High Court accepted the contention of the respondents that the documents were not admissible in evidence under Section 34 with the following words:
'70. ... an account presupposes the existence of two persons such as a seller and a purchaser, creditor and debtor. Admittedly, the alleged diaries in the present case are not records of the entries arising out of a contract. They do not contain the debits and credits. They can at the most be described as a memorandum kept by a person for his own benefit which will enable him to look into the same whenever the need arises to do so for his future purposes. Admittedly the said diaries were not being maintained on day-to-day basis in the course of business. There is no mention of the dates on which the alleged payments were made. In fact the entries therein are on monthly basis. Even the names of the persons whom the alleged payments were made do not find a mention in full. They have been shown in abbreviated form. Only certain "letters" have been written against their names which are within the knowledge of only the scribe of the said diaries as to what they stand CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. Digitally 20/27 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025 for and whom they refer to.' [Ed.: As observed in L.K. Advani v. CBI, 1997 SCC OnLine Del 382, para 70.] ***
17. From a plain reading of the section it is manifest that to make an entry relevant thereunder it must be shown that it has been made in a book, that book is a book of account and that book of account has been regularly kept in the course of business. From the above section it is also manifest that even if the above requirements are fulfilled and the entry becomes admissible as relevant evidence, still, the statement made therein shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. It is thus seen that while the first part of the section speaks of the relevancy of the entry as evidence, the second part speaks, in a negative way, of its evidentiary value for charging a person with a liability. It will, therefore, be necessary for us to first ascertain whether the entries in the documents, with which we are concerned, fulfil the requirements of the above section so as to be admissible in evidence and if this question is answered in the affirmative then only its probative value need be assessed.
18. "Book" ordinarily means a collection of sheets of paper or other material, blank, written, or printed, fastened or bound together so as to form a material whole. Loose sheets or scraps of paper cannot be termed as "book" for they can be easily detached and replaced. In dealing with the word "book" appearing in Section 34 in Mukundram v. Dayaram [Mukundram v. Dayaram, 1911 SCC OnLine MP 1 : AIR 1914 Nag 44] a decision on which both sides have placed reliance, the Court observed: (SCC OnLine MP para 4) '4. ... In its ordinary sense it signifies a collection of sheets of paper bound together in a manner which cannot be disturbed or altered except by tearing apart. The binding is of a kind which is not intended to be movable in the sense of being undone and put together again. A collection of papers in a portfolio, or clip, or strung together on a piece of twine which is intended to be untied at will, would not, in ordinary English, be called a book. ... I think the term "book" in Section 34 aforesaid may properly be taken to signify, ordinarily, a collection of sheets of paper bound together with the intention that such binding shall be permanent and the papers used collectively in one volume.
Digitally CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. PREETI signed by 21/27 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025 It is easier however to say what is not a book for the purposes of Section 34, and I have no hesitation in holding that unbound sheets of paper, in whatever quantity, though filled up with one continuous account, are not a book of account within the purview of Section 34.' We must observe that the aforesaid approach is in accord with good reasoning and we are in full agreement with it. Applying the above tests it must be held that the two spiral notebooks (MR 68/91 and MR 71/91) and the two spiral pads (MR 69/91 and MR 70/91) are "books"
within the meaning of Section 34, but not the loose sheets of papers contained in the two files (MRs 72/91 and 73/91).
***
20. Mr Sibal, the learned counsel for the Jains, did not dispute that the spiral notebooks and the small pads are "books" within the meaning of Section 34. He, however, strongly disputed the admissibility of those books in evidence under the aforesaid section on the ground that they were neither books of account nor were they regularly kept in the course of business. He submitted that at best it could be said that those books were memoranda kept by a person for his own benefit. According to Mr Sibal, in business parlance "account" means a formal statement of money transactions between parties arising out of contractual or fiduciary relationship. Since the books in question did not reflect any such relationship and, on the contrary, only contained entries of monies received from one set of persons and payment thereof to another set of persons it could not be said, by any stretch of imagination that they were books of account, argued Mr Sibal. He next contended that even if it was assumed for argument's sake that the above books were books of account relating to a business still they would not be admissible under Section 34 as they were not regularly kept. It was urged by him that the words "regularly kept" mean that the entries in the books were contemporaneously made at the time the transactions took place but a cursory glance of the books would show that the entries were made therein long after the purported transactions took place. In support of his contentions he also relied upon the dictionary meanings of the words "account" and "regularly kept"."
(emphasis supplied) Digitally CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. PREETI signed by 22/27 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025 The Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to duly consider the evidentiary value of a regular account book which was regularly kept in ordinary course of business and was pleased to hold that it is not enough merely to prove that the books have been regularly kept in the course of business and the entries therein are correct. As per well settled law, it is incumbent upon the person relying upon this entries in Statement of account book, to prove that they were in accordance with facts. The Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that loose sheets of papers, without any corroboration, were not admissible under Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act and did not have any evidentiary value.
23. It is thus, well settled Law that as per Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that entries made in books of account including those maintained in electronic form are relevant when they are maintained in the ordinary course of its business, but such statement shall not alone be sufficient to charge any person with liability. In simple words, these Statement of Accounts so maintained are admissible subject to the condition that they are required to be corroborated by the plaintiff by way of other corroborating evidence for fastening any liability on the defendant.
24. Considering the facts of the present case, the statement of account Ex.PW1/4 relied upon by plaintiff, may be relevant and admissible evidence as per Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act (Section 28 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023) , if such Statement of Account is duly corroborated and supported by sufficient and Digitally CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. PREETI signed by 23/27 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025 independent evidence, such as. acknowledgment, contract, or delivery documents, without which the ledger account Ex.PW1/4 cannot by itself, fasten liability upon the defendants for the entire claimed sum. On perusal of the statement of account Ex.PW1/4, as per the case of the plaintiff, payments totaling to Rs.57,75,000/- are stated to have been advanced against expected deliveries against orders placed upon defendant(s). In support of the entries of the ledger account statement Ex.PW1/4, the only supporting evidence has been led by way of email dated 23.06.2017 Ex.PW1/5 which is duly proved by way of an appended requisite Certificate U/S 65 B of Indian Evidence Act for proving the electronic evidence. The Court has carefully examined the content of Ex.PW1/5 and that of its annexures wherein the above email issued at the ends of the defendant clearly acknowledges the receipt of payments for the Financial Year 2016-2017, upto 31.03.2017 for a total amount of Rs.17,75,000/-. However, the plaintiff has not produced any other acknowledgment, delivery challan, written contract or correspondence to establish the balance claim of Rs. 40,00,000/- stated to have been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, by way of two installments of Rs.30 Lakh as on 03.04.2017 and by way of sum of Rs.10 lakh by way of the alleged bank transfer on 13.04.2017 from the account of the plaintiff to that of the defendant. The plaintiff has failed to produce the statement of account of even its own Bank account, in order to show the transfer of money, as shown against entries made in ledger account Ex.PW1/4. There has been no endeavour on behalf of the plaintiff to show bank transfers in the account of the defendant or any other admissible evidence to Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. AGRAWAL PREETI 24/27 GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025 corroborate the alleged transfers of money for a sum of Rs.40 Lakh during the month of April 2017 from the account of the plaintiff to that of the defendant. As per well settled position of law herein-above considered, the mere reliance on its own ledger of account Ex.PW1/4 without any supportive and corroborative evidence, is in itself not suffice to lend probative value to the entries made in Ex.PW1/4, as o 03.04.2017 and 13.04.2017 vide Ex.PW1/4.
25. In light of the above discussions, plaintiff has not been successful in proving its entitlement for seeking recovery of money to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/-, from the defendants as claimed outstanding and recoverable dues against the defendant(s), as per law. As has been further discussed, plaintiff has been able to successfully prove the entries in the Statement of Account Ex.PW1/4 to the tune of Rs.17,75,000/- as outstanding and recoverable against the defendant(s). It has already been considered that the claim of the plaintiff is within limitation. Accordingly, plaintiff has been successful in establishing and successfully proving its entitlement to recover a sum of Rs. 17,75,000/- in its favour and against the defendants.
26. As per well settled law, a Suit against the partnership firm is a Suit against all its partners. It is not a subject matter of challenge before the Court that defendant no.2 and 3 are partners of the registered partnership firm/defendant no.1. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.17,50,000/- in its favour and against all the defendants, jointly and severally.
Issue No.1 is accordingly, decided in favour of the Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. GUPTA 25/27 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025 plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.2.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover interest @ 18% per annum pendentelite and future, till its realisation ? OPP
27. The Suit of the plaintiff has been decreed for a sum of Rs.17,75,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally, by way of adjudication herein-above vide issue no.1. The plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18% per annum on the amount due, asserting that such rate is reasonable considering the commercial nature of the transaction. However, no written agreement, invoice, or contract stipulating the rate of 18% interest has been produced on record.
28. In the absence of any express agreement or documentary proof specifying the contractual rate of interest, the Court is guided by Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers the Court to award reasonable interest on the principal sum adjudged, having regard to the circumstances of the case.
29. Considering that the transaction in question pertains to a commercial dealing, but no contractual rate is proved, the Court deems it just and equitable to award interest at the rate of 8% per annum (simple interest) on the principal sum of Rs. 17,75,000/-, from the date of filing of the suit till realisation.
Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. GUPTA AGRAWAL 26/27 GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025
30. Accordingly, the issue is decided partly in favour of the plaintiff, holding that while the claim of 18% interest is not substantiated, the plaintiff is entitled to reasonable interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the suit, till realisation of the decreed amount.
Issue no.2 is accordingly, decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.3
3. Relief.
31. Keeping in view the above findings, suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, for a sum of Rs.17,75,000/- alongwith interest @8% per annum, from the date of filing of the suit, till its realisation.
There is no order as to costs.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room, after due completion.
Announced in the open Court today
on this 8th day of November, 2025
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025
CS (Comm.) No.516/2022 Napin Impex Limited Vs. Vaibhav Plastics & Ors. 27/27
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
08.11.2025