Delhi District Court
Apis India Ltd vs Suraj Singh Proprietor Of Nirmala ... on 19 May, 2026
In the Court of Shri Ashutosh Kumar, District Judge (Commercial
Court)-01, Tis Hazari Courts, West District, Delhi
CS (COMM.) No. 777/2025
CNR No.DLWT010092602025
In the matter of :
APIS INDIA LTD
having its Regd Office at 18/32,
EAST PATEL NAGAR,
NEW DELHI- 110008
Through its' legal representative
VIKAS AGGARWAL
... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SURAJ SINGH PROPRIETOR OF
NIRMALA ENTERPRISES
R/O HOUSE NO.: RZF1/14A G/F, KH No-87/6/1
AND 6/2 Gali no.1, Mahavir Enclave,
Palam, Delhi- 110045
.... DEFENDANT
Date of Institution : 10-09-2025
Date of hearing of arguments : 18-05-2025
Date of decision : 19-05-2025
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff -Sh Harish Kumar and Sh Mukund Yadav.
Ld Counsel for Defendant - Sh AK Azad and Sh Shamim Babu
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly the case of the plaintiff is that it is an existing Public CS (COMM.) No.777/2025 APIS INDIA LTD Vs SURAJ SINGH PROP. OF NIRMALA ENTERPRISES Page No.1 of 16 Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and a prominent manufacturer, processor, and seller of FMCG Products for more than 40 years, having its head office in New Delhi, registered office at 18/32, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008. It is further claimed by the plaintiff that their offered products have gained huge demand among clients owing to their quality attributes such as safe consumption, longer shelf life, and purity and further that the plaintiff holds certification for the documented procedures that apply to Food Safety framed by an international body and had also got ORGANIC, TUV, USFDA, KOSHER, EIC, APEDA, and FMCG certifications. It is further claimed that the plaintiff has also won numerous industry and Government of India awards for Honey Exports and also an ISO 22000 certified by Intertek. Further it is claimed by the plaintiff that its authorized legal representative / and Company Secretary Vikas Aggarwal has signed, verified and filed the present suit, who is competent & duly authorized to do the same and also fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case and thus a competent person to file the present suit against the defendant.
2. It is further the case of the plaintiff that it is one of the leaders in the field of organized honey trade in India with a mission to make pure and natural products a part of consumers' everyday life and further it has been forayed into several other products like-Apis CS (COMM.) No.777/2025 APIS INDIA LTD Vs SURAJ SINGH PROP. OF NIRMALA ENTERPRISES Page No.2 of 16 Dates, Apis Jam, Apis Green Tea, Apis Preserves, Apis Macaroni
- New, Apis Soya Chunks - New, Apis Kesar - New, Apis Cornflakes, Apis Choco flakes. It is also claimed by the plaintiff that it has spent huge amount of money on advertisement and promotion of its products, which are available on various reputed online selling platform such as Amazon, Flipkart, D Mart, Blink It, Big Basket, Jio Mart, Grofers etc. and further that plaintiff exports it's goods in more than 30 countries including USA, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Dubai, Iran, Iraq, Saudia Arabia etc.
3. It is further claimed by the plaintiff that the defendant, who is proprietor of Nirmala Enterprises, having its registered office at RZF1/14A G/F, KH No-87/6/1 AND 6/2 Gali no.1, Mahavir Enclave, Palam, Delhi, is one of its customer and plaintiff used to supply goods to him against his confirmed orders from time to time from its Delhi office on credit basis, which used to get settled from time to time. It is claimed by the plaintiff that the orders were first received at its Delhi office and confirmation qua the same was also done there and later directions used to be given by the plaintiff to its other branches for the delivery of the demanded products.
4. Plaintiff has further claimed that on 13.04.2022, 19.04.2022 & 07.05.2022, invoices bearing nos. HR/TI/2223/0045, HR/TI/2223/0078 and HR/TI/2223/0184 for amounts of Rs. 27,635/-, Rs. 21,346/- and Rs. 9,46,560/- were raised by the CS (COMM.) No.777/2025 APIS INDIA LTD Vs SURAJ SINGH PROP. OF NIRMALA ENTERPRISES Page No.3 of 16 plaintiff against the defendant, which were duly acknowledged by the defendant but no payment was received against the said invoices. Plaintiff has further claimed that after adjusting the advance payment of Rs.1,00,000/- dated 11.04.2022, the defendant is liable to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 8,95,541/- along-with interest @ 24% per annum from the due date till its realization.
5. Plaintiff has claimed that upon repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant had informed that he was unable to make payment as he had further supplied the said goods to a third party, namely M/s Axis E-Corp Solution Private Limited, but had not received any payment from them, as a result which his own payment was held up, rendering him incapable of making further payment to the plaintiff. Further, on 28.07.2022, the defendant had sent an email from his official email ID [email protected] to plaintiff's official email ID [email protected] and CC to [email protected], wherein he had shared the purchase order raised by him in favour of aforesaid third party M/s. Axis E- Corp Solutions Private Limited through mail and it was mentioned therein that "AS DISCUSSED WITH YOU, PLEASE FIND THE ATTACHED E-STORE PO COPY & RECEIVING INVOICE COPY NOW PLEASE HELP TO RELEASE OUT PENDING PAYMENT FROM E STORE INDIA , ITS DUE CS (COMM.) No.777/2025 APIS INDIA LTD Vs SURAJ SINGH PROP. OF NIRMALA ENTERPRISES Page No.4 of 16 FROM LAST 3 MONTHS & REVERT ME ASAP", wherein it was indicated that the goods had been resold and payment thereof was still pending. It is claimed by the plaintiff that in the said communication, the defendant had requested him to assist him in securing payment from Axis E-Corp Solutions Private Limited, stating that that he would be in a position to repay the Plaintiff only upon recovery of the said amount. However, despite several telephonic reminders, the defendant failed to make payment of due amount to the plaintiff and kept lingering on the payment on one pretext or other and therefore the plaintiff served a notice dated 15.09.2023 and its reminder dated 05.10.2023 upon the defendant but the defendant did not accede to its requests.
6. It is further claimed that the plaintiff had sent a legal notice dated 08.03.2024 through its counsel, which was duly served upon the defendant on 13.03.2024 and pursuant to receipt thereof the defendant had assured to pay the liability of Rs. 11,10,470/- including principal amount of Rs. 8,95,541 alongwith interest of Rs. 2,14,929/- and therefore the plaintiff did not take any legal action in order to protect its business relation.
7. Summons of the suit issued to the defendant in ordinary course were received back with the report that the same was received by defendant on 29.10.2025 and further the summons were sent to the defendant on the given email ID i.e. [email protected] on 15.10.2025 and it was not CS (COMM.) No.777/2025 APIS INDIA LTD Vs SURAJ SINGH PROP. OF NIRMALA ENTERPRISES Page No.5 of 16 reported that said email had bounced, which were considered deemed service of the defendant. Pursuant thereto, appearance was entered on behalf of the defendant through counsel on 12-11- 2025 and the matter proceeded in the ordinary course. However, despite admission made by his counsel that defendant was served on 30-10-2025, no written statement was filed on two consecutive dates and therefore, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte on 17- 12-2025.
8. Thereafter, the Defendant moved an application under Order IX rule 13 r/w section 151 CPC for setting aside ex-parte order dated 17-12-2025.
9. This Court, while considering the aforesaid application, observed that admittedly even the extended statutory period of 120 days from the date of service of summons was already expired and no written statement nor any application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC seeking extension was filed till then. In view of the settled position of law governing commercial suits, this Court held that it had no power to condone the delay beyond the maximum prescribed period of 120 days from the date of service. Nevertheless, learned counsel for the plaintiff fairly submitted that though no liberty could legally be granted to the defendant to file written statement after expiry of the mandatory statutory period, the plaintiff had no objection if the defendant was permitted to participate in the proceedings to the limited extent of cross- CS (COMM.) No.777/2025 APIS INDIA LTD Vs SURAJ SINGH PROP. OF NIRMALA ENTERPRISES Page No.6 of 16 examining plaintiff's witnesses and addressing final arguments. Considering the said submission, the conduct of the parties and in the interest of justice, the ex-parte order dated 17.12.2025 was set aside only to the limited extent of permitting the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses and address final arguments, while specifically denying any liberty to file written statement. Thereafter, on the request of learned counsel for the defendant and with no objection from the plaintiff, the matter was referred to mediation in view of the possibility of amicable settlement between the parties. However, the mediation proceedings did not culminate into any settlement and the matter was accordingly re-notified for plaintiff's evidence.
10. In support of his case, plaintiff examined its legal representative and Company Secretary Vikas Aggarwal as PW-1, who tendered his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW-1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
i) Copy of the board resolution, company incorporation certificate and GST registration certificate are Ex. PW1/1 (Colly);
ii) Copy of the acknowledged invoice dated 13.04.2022 and having invoice no. HR/TI/2223/0045 is Ex. PW-1/2 (Colly);
iii) Copy of the acknowledged invoice dated 19.04.2022 and having invoice No. HR/TI/2223/0078 is Ex. PW-1/3 (Colly);
iv) Copy of the acknowledged invoice dated 07.05.2022 and having invoice No. HR/TI/2223/0184 is Ex. PW-1/4 (Colly);
v) The certified copy of ledger account of Nirmala Enterprises is Ex. PW-1/5;
CS (COMM.) No.777/2025 APIS INDIA LTD Vs SURAJ SINGH PROP. OF NIRMALA ENTERPRISES Page No.7 of 16
vi) Copy of the e-mails sent by the defendant to the plaintiff containing certified purchase orders and certified bill of Axis E-Corp Solutions Private Limited are exhibited as Document-6 (Colly);
vii) Copy of the Notice dated 15.09.2023 and its tracking report and reminder dated 05.10.2023 is Ex. PW-1/7 (Colly);
viii) Copy of the reminder notice dated 08.03.2024 and its tracking report is Ex. PW-1/8 (Colly).
ix) Certificate under Section 63 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which is not mentioned in my affidavit of evidence Ex. PW-1/A is Ex. PW-1/9.
11.PW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant and P.E. was closed on 30-04-2026.
12. I have heard the final arguments addressed by ld. Counsels for both the parties, perused their respective written submissions filed on record and have also perused the judicial file.
13. Perusal of record reveals that the pre-litigation mediation held in the matter, was a non-starter before DLSA, West District and finally the non-starter report dated 28-05-2025 was issued. However, plaintiff has not formally proved the same in his evidence but judicial note of the same is taken.
14. As regard the territorial jurisdiction, Ld Counsel for the plaintiff has drawn my attention to paragraphs no. 21 of the plaint, which is reproduced as below:-
"21. That the Plaintiff is working for gains and carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, and part cause of action arises as the CS (COMM.) No.777/2025 APIS INDIA LTD Vs SURAJ SINGH PROP. OF NIRMALA ENTERPRISES Page No.8 of 16 plaintiff received orders/calls at his Delhi office at 18/32, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi- 110008 and same was confirmed from the Delhi office and then finally plaintiff give direction to his different -different branch office for the delivery of the order. It is further submitted that the contract between the plaintiff and defendant is completed when the defendant pays the amount in the plaintiff's Bank account Kotak Mahindra Bank, Account No. 01752970000063 that is situated at Plot No. 1/11, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008. It is further submitted that the plaintiff sends the product to the defendant on a credit basis and as per the principal rule laid down in English Law and applied by Indian courts in various judgment, "debtor shall seek out the creditor", the debtor has to pay the due of the creditor at his residence or where the creditor resides so as per the creditor and debtor rules plaintiff is having registered office at 18/32, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi- 110008 and in the last the part cause of action is raised at Delhi itself when defendant pay some amount in the plaintiff's bank account Kotak Mahindra Bank, Account no-01752970000063 that is situated at Plot No. 1/11, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008. It is further submitted that on the plaintiff's invoice it is clearly mentioned that All Disputes are subject to Delhi Jurisdiction, Therefore, this Hon'ble Court has got the jurisdiction to try, entertain, and adjudicate the present suit."
15.The plaintiff has specifically pleaded in paragraph no. 21 of the plaint that the orders were received and confirmed at the plaintiff's Delhi office situated at East Patel Nagar, meaning CS (COMM.) No.777/2025 APIS INDIA LTD Vs SURAJ SINGH PROP. OF NIRMALA ENTERPRISES Page No.9 of 16 thereby that the contract was entered into in the office of the plaintiff, which is situated within territorial jurisdiction of this court. The defendant failed to file written statement within the statutory and consequently forfeited his right to file the same. Thus, the aforesaid pleadings of the plaintiff remained unrebutted and uncontroverted. In terms of Order VIII Rule 5 CPC, every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, shall be taken to be admitted. Once the defendant failed to specifically traverse the averments relating to territorial jurisdiction, the same are deemed to have been admitted. Accordingly, I hold that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present suit in view landmark order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Excel International & Ors., CS (OS) No. 410/1999, date of decision:-10.07.2012
16.As regards limitation, the invoices in question are dated 13.04.2022, 19.04.2022 and 07.05.2022 respectively Further, the email dated 28.07.2022 forming part of Ex.PW-1/6 (Colly.) at page 47 , clearly reflects acknowledgment on the part of the defendant regarding the underlying commercial transaction and pendency of payment. The said communication specifically records that payment from the third party was pending and request was made to assist in release of payment. Thus, the said acknowledgment also extended the period of limitation under CS (COMM.) No.777/2025 APIS INDIA LTD Vs SURAJ SINGH PROP. OF NIRMALA ENTERPRISES Page No.10 of 16 Section 18 of the Limitation Act for further three years. . Further, the record reveals that the plaintiff had initiated pre-institution mediation proceedings under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act on 12-03-2025 and the same culminated in a non- starter report dated 28-05-2025.Also, In terms of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act the period spent in bona fide prosecution of pre-litigation mediation proceedings is liable to be excluded for the purposes of limitation. Consequently, the present suit is well within limitation.
17.The principal defence sought to be raised by the defendant during cross-examination and final arguments is that no goods were ever supplied to him and that the plaintiff had directly supplied the goods to a third party namely M/s Axis E-Corp Solutions Private Limited. The said contention does not inspire confidence and deserves outright rejection. Firstly, the defendant admittedly failed to file written statement within the mandatory statutory period prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act and therefore lost the right to formally contest the pleadings including qua supply of goods vide the said three invoices. Secondly, the said three invoices Ex. PW-1/2 to Ex. PW-1/4 stand placed on record and have been duly proved by PW-1. The defendant has not produced any cogent documentary evidence to establish that the transactions were fabricated or that the invoices were forged or manipulated.
CS (COMM.) No.777/2025 APIS INDIA LTD Vs SURAJ SINGH PROP. OF NIRMALA ENTERPRISES Page No.11 of 16
18.Most importantly, the email communication dated 28.07.2022 Ex. PW-1/6 (Colly.) relied upon by the plaintiff materially demolishes the stand now sought to be taken by the defendant. In the said communication, the defendant himself forwarded the purchase order and invoice relating to M/s Axis E-Corp Solutions Private Limited and requested the plaintiff to assist in release of his pending payment from the said entity. The contents of the email unmistakably show that the defendant had acknowledged the business transaction and had merely expressed inability to clear the plaintiff's dues till realization of payment from the third party. Had there been no supply of goods to the defendant, there was no occasion for the defendant to request the plaintiff for assistance in securing release of his own pending payment from the third party purchaser. The said conduct clearly amounts to an acknowledgment of liability and existence of underlying delivery of goods to the defendant.
19.The contention of the defendant that the plaintiff's employee had misused the defendant's name is wholly bald, unsupported and devoid of any evidentiary foundation. No complaint, notice, legal proceedings or contemporaneous protest has been shown to have been initiated by the defendant at any point of time alleging misuse of his name or fabrication of invoices. Even after receipt of notice legal notice dated 08.03.2024, Ex PW-1/8 (Colly.) the defendant never disputed the transactions nor alleged fraud or CS (COMM.) No.777/2025 APIS INDIA LTD Vs SURAJ SINGH PROP. OF NIRMALA ENTERPRISES Page No.12 of 16 misuse. Such silence on the part of the defendant assumes significance and materially weakens the defence now attempted to be projected. Adverse inference qua goods supplied vide three invoices and qua the outstanding amount is drawn against the defendant.
20.The defendant has also attempted to rely upon an alleged conversation between PW-1 and one Babloo, purportedly contained in a pen drive, e-mail alongwith supporting certificate under section 63 of the Bhartiya Saksha Adhiniyam. However, the said material was never proved in accordance with law. Further, this court vide order dated 30-04-2026 dismissed the application of the defendant to take on record the aforesaid documents. Hence, Mere filing of an unproved transcript or pen drive cannot be read in evidence. Furthermore, the alleged conversation, even otherwise, does not conclusively establish absence of liability of the defendant towards the plaintiff. The same therefore cannot come to the aid of the defendant.
21.Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the defendant had supplied the goods onward to M/s Axis E-Corp Solutions Private Limited, the same would not absolve the defendant from his independent contractual liability towards the plaintiff. The transactions between the defendant and the third party were entirely separate and internal arrangements for the defendant's own commercial benefit. The plaintiff never undertook CS (COMM.) No.777/2025 APIS INDIA LTD Vs SURAJ SINGH PROP. OF NIRMALA ENTERPRISES Page No.13 of 16 responsibility for payment on behalf of the third party nor acted as guarantor for the said entity. A purchaser cannot escape liability towards the supplier merely because he himself failed to recover payment from his own customer.
22.It is also pertinent to note that nothing substantial could be extracted during the cross-examination of PW-1 so as to discredit his testimony or impeach the authenticity of the documents proved on record. The witness remained consistent on material particulars regarding supply of goods, raising of invoices, maintenance of ledger account and outstanding liability of the defendant. No material contradiction, omission or inconsistency affecting the core case of the plaintiff has emerged during his cross-examination.
23.In the absence of any written statement, the material averments made in the plaint were never specifically denied. Order VIII Rule 5 CPC clearly provides that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, shall be taken to be admitted. The plaintiff thereafter led cogent oral and documentary evidence in support of its case by proving the invoices, ledger account, legal notices and email communications. The defendant, despite being granted limited opportunity to cross- examine the witness, could not elicit anything material so as to discredit the plaintiff's case. Consequently, the testimony of PW-1 and the documents proved on record have remained substantially CS (COMM.) No.777/2025 APIS INDIA LTD Vs SURAJ SINGH PROP. OF NIRMALA ENTERPRISES Page No.14 of 16 unrebutted and inspire confidence.
24.The ledger account Ex. PW-1/5 duly reflects the outstanding amount payable by the defendant after adjustment of advance payment of Rs.1,00,000/-. The said ledger account has remained unrebutted and there is no material on record to doubt its correctness. The plaintiff has therefore successfully proved that an amount of Rs.8,95,541/- remained due and payable by the defendant.
25.Insofar as the claim of interest is concerned, the plaintiff has sought interest @ 24% per annum. However, the claimed rate appears excessive.
26.In Cimmco Limited v. Pramod Krishna Agrawal, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7289, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as follows;
"3..........Hon'ble Supreme Court has now mandated that lower rates of interest be granted and therefore the pre-suit and also the pendente lite and future interest is liable to be reduced by this Court. Reliance is placed upon the judgments in the cases of Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & CS (COMM.) No. 797/2024 M/s. Aqualite Industries Pvt Ltd Vs Deepak Kumar (Prop. of Deepak Footwear) Page No. 14 of 20 Area Development Authority,(2005) 6 SCC 678,McDermott International Inc.v Burn Standard Co. 181,Rajasthan Ltd.,(2006) State Road 11 CS (COMM.) No.777/2025 APIS INDIA LTD Vs SURAJ SINGH PROP. OF NIRMALA ENTERPRISES Page No.15 of 16 SCC Transport Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd.,(2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd v. G. Harischandra, (2007) 2 SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan v. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC)."
27.In the given facts and circumstances and also in view of the aforesaid judgments, the plaintiff is entitled to simple interest @ 9% per annum on the outstanding amount of Rs. Rs.8,95,541/- from 08-05-2022 till actual realization
28.Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff stands decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.8,95,541/- along with pendentelite and future interest @ 9% per annum from 08-05-2022 till actual realization. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs of the suit.
29.Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Digitally
signed by
ASHUTOSH
30.File be consigned to Record Room ASHUTOSH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.05.19
16:00:40
+0530
(Announced in the open (Ashutosh Kumar)
Court) District Judge (Commercial Court)-1
West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi / 19-05-2026
CS (COMM.) No.777/2025 APIS INDIA LTD Vs SURAJ SINGH PROP. OF NIRMALA ENTERPRISES Page No.16 of 16