Delhi District Court
Ms M.M.Aggarwal Sons vs Ms Classic Airconditioner Through on 10 November, 2025
DLET030000062012
Presented on : 18-08-2012
Registered on : 21-08-2012
Decided on : 10-11-2025
Duration : 13 years, 2 months, 23 days
IN THE COURT OF
ACJ/CCJ/ARC AT EAST DELHI
Presided Over by Sh. Vinik Jain
Civ Suit/6403/2016
M/s M M Aggarwal & Sons
Through its Proprietor Sh. Vinod Aggarwal,
Address F-173, Jagat Puri, Delhi-51 .....Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Classic Air Conditioner
Through its Proprietor Sh. Javed,
Address F-1, Mrignani Chowk,
Dilshad Colony, Delhi ..........Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the present suit filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of recovery against the defendant.
2. For better appreciation, the brief facts of the suit as alleged VINIK Digitally signed by VINIK JAIN CS No. 6403/16 JAIN Page 15:37:31 Date: 2025.11.10 1 of 7 +0530 by the plaintiff in his plaint is summarized as follows:
(i) Vinod Aggarwal is the proprietor of business enterprise named M/s M.M. Aggarwal & sons - the plaintiff. The plaintiff trades in inverters, batteries and products allied.
(ii) The defendant purchased goods worth ₹2,74,750/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy-Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty only) from the plaintiff. On 09.02.2011, the defendant made a cash payment of ₹37,000/-
(Rupees Thirty-Seven Thousand only), and on 13.02.2011, a further cash payment of ₹46,700/- (Rupees Forty-Six Thousand Seven Hundred only) to the plaintiff. After these payments, a sum of ₹1,91,050/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety-One Thousand Fifty only) remained outstanding towards the plaintiff.
(iii) In discharge of this outstanding pecuniary liability, the defendant issued two cheques -- Cheque No. 820775 dated 13.02.2011 for ₹1,04,350/- and Cheque No. 820779 dated 23.02.2011 for ₹86,700/-. Upon presentation, both cheques were returned unpaid by the defendant's banker on 09.05.2011, with the remarks "Funds Insufficient."
(iv) The plaintiff, being an unpaid seller of goods, therefore claims a sum of ₹1,91,050/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety-One Thousand Fifty only) along with interest thereon from the defendant.
3. By order dated 27.05.2014, one Javed was added to the present suit as the proprietor of the defendant firm and all other defendants till then were deleted i.e. Shamshad, Raju Goyal and Preeti Goyal.
VINIK Digitally signed by
VINIK JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.11.10
15:37:37 +0530
CS No. 6403/16 Page 2 of 7
4. WS has been filed on behalf of the Javed (allegedly proprietor of the defendant firm) wherein all the averments in the plaint were denied and briefly averred that he has no concern whatsoever with the defendant firm.
Thus, it is prayed by way of WS that the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.
5. Replication was filed by the plaintiff whereby he has denied the contents of WS and has reiterated the contents of the plaint.
6. On completion of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 10.03.2015:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for an amount of Rs2,59,821?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if yes, then at
what rate and for what period ? OPP
(iii) Relief
7. PW1 Sh. Vinod Kumar Agarwal, tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and deposed on the same lines as stated in the petition. He has also relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Certified copies of statement of accounts is Ex PW-1/1.
(ii) Bill dated 13.02.2011 is Ex PW-1/2.
(iii) Bill dated 08.02.2011 is Ex PW-1/3.
(iv) Certified copy of cheques are Ex PW-1/4 and Ex PW-1/5.
VINIK Digitally signed by
VINIK JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.11.10
15:37:42 +0530
CS No. 6403/16 Page 3 of 7
(v) Certified copy of cheque return memos are Ex PW-1/6 and
Ex PW-1/7.
(vi) Legal notice dated 13.05.2011 is Ex PW-1/8.
(vii) Copy of postal receipt is Ex PW-1/9.
(viii) Copy of speed post is Ex PW-1/10.
(ix) Certified copies of DVAT form 11 are Ex PW-1/11 (colly 13
sheets).
8. PW-2 Sh. Santosh Kumar, Assistant Manager, Corporation Bank, F-14, Dilshad Colony, Dilshad Garden, Old Seemapuri Road, Delhi who has brought the record i.e original account opening form of Rajiv Goel and Preeti Goel is Ex PW-2/A (consisting of 4 pages). Copy of election ID card of Rajiv Goel is Ex PW-2/B. Copy of PAN card of Rajiv Goel is Ex PW-2/C. Copy of election ID card of Preeti Goel is Ex PW-2/D. Copy of PAN card of Preeti Goel is Ex PW-2/E. Copy of electricity payment receipt is Ex PW-2/F. Statement of account of Rajiv Goel and Preeti Goel which is Ex PW-2/G (consisting of 4 pages).
9. Perusal of the record shows that defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24.09.2015. Also, vide judgement dated 17.04.2018, the suit was dismissed. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff against the said order, and vide order dated 15.01.2024, the appeal was allowed and the suit was remanded back to the trial court for passing the judgment again after recording additional evidence.
VINIK Digitally signed by
VINIK JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.11.10
15:37:47 +0530
CS No. 6403/16 Page 4 of 7
10. In compliance of the Ld. Appellate Court order, PW-3 Sh.
Dinesh Kumar, Senior Assistant, Department of Trade and Tax, Vyapar Bhawan, ITO, Delhi-110002 was examined who has deposed that the certificate of registration of the firm namely Classic Airconditioner bearing Registration no. 07620358837 is Ex. PW-3/B. DVAT 16 (Returns) for the period of first quarter of 2009-2010 which is Ex PW-3/C (colly). DVAT 16 (Returns) for all 4 quarter from 2010-2011 which is Ex PW-3/D (colly) running 36 pages in which the name of the Proprietor Javed is mentioned at point A (colly). DVAT 16 (returns) for 1 st. 2Nd , and 4th quarter from 2011-12 which is Ex PW-3/E (colly) running 21 pages. Dealer profile which is Ex PW-3/F running in 3 pages. The certificate under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act is Ex PW-3/G. Copy of circular in respect of tracing the file which is Mark A. The other required documents are not brought as the file is non-traceable, the copy of the non-traceable report which is Mark B.
11. The court has already heard the final arguments. The entire record is also perused.
FINDINDS ISSUE NO. 1 AND 2
12. Both the issues will be decided together as they would entail consideration of the same facts and circumstances.
13. PW-1/2 and PW-1/3 are the invoices drawn by the plaintiff firm which reflects the sale of certain materials to the defendant firm. PW1/1 is the ledger statement which substantiates the invoices raised by the plaintiff firm and the due amount of Rs 1,91,050/- towards the Digitally signed by VINIK JAIN VINIK JAIN Date: 2025.11.10 15:37:54 +0530 CS No. 6403/16 Page 5 of 7 defendant firm. Javed (alleged proprietor of the defendant firm) has disputed his relation with the defendant firm. In this respect, the plaintiff has examined PW-3 who has brought on record the DVAT details of the defendant firm. Ex PW-3/D (colly) clearly reflects that the DVAT returns of the year 2010-2011 have been filed by Javed on behalf of the defendant firm. Thus, the defence raised by Javed that he has no connection whatsoever with the defendant firm is absolutely negated. Also, the plaintiff has established the connection of Javed with the defendant firm who is filing DVAT return on behalf of the defendant firm. The burden of proof in terms of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was upon Javed to show that the DVAT return were not filed in the capacity of the proprietor which remains undischarged.
14. Further, as per settled proposition of law it stands established on record that whatever the plaintiff deposed in the evidence which is by way of affidavit Ex PW-1/A have to be taken admitted deposition as it has completely gone unrebutted. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/s Eco Lab Inc vs Eco Labs Ltd 2011 (185) DLT 664 has observed that where the AR of the plaintiff's evidence has gone unrebutted as the defendants have failed to cross-examine the AR of the plaintiff then in such situation the evidence filed by AR of the plaintiff is taken to be correct. There is no other version available to the court with respect to the facts and circumstances which have been averred in the plaint and proved by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the version given by the plaintiff on oath is accepted as correct and true. I find no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the plaintiff, his witnesses and the documents produced by them.
15. The suit is also well within the period of limitation. In view VINIK Digitally signed by VINIK JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.11.10 15:38:01 +0530 CS No. 6403/16 Page 6 of 7 of the unrebutted and unchallenged testimony of the plaintiff the present suit is decreed with costs. Plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs. ₹1,91,050/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety-One Thousand Fifty only) in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant along with the costs of the suit.
16. The plaintiff has also prayed for interest @ 18% p.a from the date of filing of suit till its realization. However, in the opinion of this Court, the said rate of interest is excessive. Accordingly, pendente lite and future interest is also awarded to the plaintiff @ 6% per annum till the realization of the decreetal amount.
17. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
18. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
VINIK Digitally signed by
VINIK JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.11.10
Announced in the open Court (Vinik Jain)
15:38:08 +0530
on this 10th of November, 2025 ACJ/ARC/CCJ (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CS No. 6403/16 Page 7 of 7