Delhi District Court
Robotech Pvt Ltd vs Srs International School on 20 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)- 02
SHAHDARA DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 410/2023
INDEX
S. NO. PARTICULARS PG. NO.
1. Memo of Parties 2
2. Plaint 3-5
3. Written Statement 5-7
4. Replication 8-9
5. Admission/ Denial 9 - 10
6. Issues Framed 10
7. Plaintiff's Evidence 10 - 11
8. Defendant's Evidence 11 - 12
9. Issue Wise Findings and Analysis 13 - 25
10. Relief 26
Page 1 of 26
Digitally signed
by KIRAN
KIRAN BANSAL
Date:
BANSAL 2026.03.20
15:34:52
+0530
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/s ROBOTECH PVT LTD
C-483, YOJANA VIHAR,
DELHI-110092
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
MR. NISHANT JAIN S/O LATE
SH. NISHITH KUMAR JAIN
... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
S R S INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL
SECTOR - 88
GREATER FARIDABAD
(HARYANA)
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
... DEFENDANT
Date of Institution : 18.08.2023
Date of Final Arguments : 17.03.2026
Date of Conclusion : 20.03.2026
Page 2 of 26
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN
KIRAN BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2026.03.20
15:34:58
+0530
JUDGEMENT
1. Vide this judgement, this court shall decide the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 3,46,160/-
THE PLAINT
2. It has been submitted that the plaintiff is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act and Mr. Nishant Jain is the director of the company and is fully authorised by Board of directors to file the present suit on behalf of company. Furthermore, it is averred that the plaintiff company is engaged in business of providing the training course to school regarding innovative learning opportunity and to promote a competitive spirit amongst the students.
3. On the other hand, it is stated that defendant is a school and is always in need of training of Robotics Lab for regular classes to the students of schools as per CBSE, ICSE, International Baccalaureate and state boards to stimulate the students, motivate the teachers and enhance the reputation of school.
4. It is submitted that the defendant engaged the plaintiff company for the purpose of having services for its students for which MOU was signed between the plaintiff and defendant. It is further submitted that the plaintiff started to provide its service and also provided successful training to the school as per defendant's requirement.
5. It is submitted that the plaintiff raised the bills for the training charges time to time. It is submitted that bills for total of Rs. 3,64,804/- were raised and a payment of Rs. 18,644/- was made, thus, a payment of Rs. 3,46,160/- is outstanding on the defendant as on 23.05.2022.
Page 3 of 26 Digitally signed by KIRANKIRAN BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2026.03.20 15:35:05 +0530
6. It is averred that plaintiff requested the defendant to make the payment of the above amount through telephonic conversation as well as through mails but defendant neither responded nor made the payment. Hence, a legal notice dated 23.02.2023 was sent to the defendant, however, defendant neither replied nor made the payment.
7. It is submitted that the present dispute falls within definition of commercial dispute u/s 2(c)(x) & (xvi) of the Commercial Courts Act and the present court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit and that the present suit is well within limitation period.
8. As far as cause of action is concerned, it is stated that it lastly arose on 23.05.2022 when an amount of Rs. 3,46,160/- was due to be paid as total balance amount and cause of action is still in existence as the defendant did not make the payment of outstanding amount.
9. It is also submitted that the plaintiff, initiated proceedings u/s 12A of Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement however, the defendant did not provide any consent to participate in the process of pre-institution mediation despite service of notices and in this regard, Non starter report dated 20.07.2023 was issued.
10. As far as the territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it is stated that the MOU/ contract was executed in Delhi and the plaintiff and defendant are carrying their business within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Moreover, it is also submitted that the defendant has also made the payment in the account of plaintiff situated at Yojana Vihar Branch, Delhi. Thus, it is stated that the present court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present case.
11. Prayer has been made to pass a decree of Rs. 3,46,160/- as principal amount in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from 23.05.2022 till its realization and cost of suit.
Page 4 of 26 Digitally signed by KIRANKIRAN BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2026.03.20 15:35:13 +0530 Plaint is supported by affidavit and statement of truth of Nishant Jain.
THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
12. It has been stated by the defendant that plaintiff has misrepresented and contorted the true facts and has approached the court with unclean hands deliberately concealing material facts. It is submitted that the plaintiff has concealed that the plaintiff company approached the defendant school at Faridabad in the year 2016 and the defendant school took the services of the plaintiff to provide curriculum integrated STEM LAB using ROBOTICS platform by NeoRobos. Accordingly, the defendant school and plaintiff entered into a duly signed Memorandum of Understanding @ Rs. 30,000/- per quarter i.e. Rs. 1,20,000/- per year.
13. It is also submitted that the defendant school has also purchased the training kit worth Rs. 2,79,463/- from the plaintiff company for the purposes of imparting training to the students and accordingly, the plaintiff raised an invoice no. 218 dated 03.03.2016 worth Rs. 2,79,463/-.
14. It is furthermore submitted that the plaintiff company have actively concealed from this Hon'ble court that in the year 2017, the terms of the MOU were changed and it was settled that defendant school will pay Rs. 150/- per student from the year 2017 onwards to the plaintiff for imparting training to the students of the defendant school, which was agreed and settled upon by the plaintiff and the plaintiff company started raising the invoice upon the defendant @ Rs. 150 per student and accordingly defendant school made the payments towards the invoices raised upon the defendant.
15. Moreover, it is submitted that it was mutually decided between the plaintiff and defendant that the settlement arrived at between the parties in 2017 was to be continued for the year 2018 i.e. Rs. 150/- per student for the year Page 5 of 26 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2026.03.20 15:35:28 +0530 2018. It is averred that in 2018, it came to the knowledge of the defendant that plaintiff company was manipulating the bills/ invoices and was over billing the defendant with regard to number of students, as the total number of the students mentioned in the invoices were more than the total no. of students studying in the school. The defendant states that over-charging took place in the following manner:
Month Total no. of students Invoicing by the plaintiff April, 2018 595 Students 645 Students May 2018 595 Students 608 Students July 2018 597 Students 645 Students August 2018 595 Students 645 Students September 2018 598 Students 608 Students October 2018 598 Students 608 Students November 2018 605 Students 608 Students December 2018 603 Students 608 Students
16. It is submitted that when the issue of over-billing of the invoices by the plaintiff company came to the knowledge of the defendant company, the defendant company sent email dated 10.06.2019 to plaintiff company to which the plaintiff replied on 12.06.2019 and agreed to change the invoice amounts. However, it is submitted that the plaintiff company did not provide the invoices for the changed amount and thus, the plaintiff company can not be allowed to reap benefits of its own wrong and has no cause of action against the defendant.
17. It is further submitted that the plaintiff issued a frivolous bill worth Rs. 1,08,180/- for sale of books to the students. However, the defendant wrote an email dated 10.06.2019 to the plaintiff in this regard that as the defendant had never received such books. Moreover, when the plaintiff failed to provide the revised invoices, the defendant company terminated the services of the plaintiff Page 6 of 26 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.03.20 15:35:36 +0530 vide email dated 26.12.2018 and that the aforesaid invoices placed on record by the plaintiff are false, forged and fake as no TDS amount has been booked on any of the invoices as per law.
18. Furthermore, it is submitted that plaintiff has concealed the fact that earlier a civil suit was filed which was transferred to Commercial Court and the same was withdrawn on 26.10.2020 and that the plaintiff has filed previous suit on same cause of action, however, in new suit the plaintiff has added new bills that were not present in the earlier suit.
19. It is further submitted that the present court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the suit as the entire contract took place at Faridabad and the payment for invoices were to be made at Faridabad and the training was provided to the students at Faridabad. Thus, no cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction in this Hon'ble court, therefore, the present court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. Moreover, it is submitted that the present case is hopelessly barred by limitation as last invoice is dated 01.01.2019 and hence, on this ground alone the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
20. It is submitted that the electronic documents appended with the plaint are not liable to be admitted as they are not accompanied with certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 nor with Declaration on oath u/o XI Rule 6(3) CPC r/w Commercial Courts Act in support of electronic record which is a necessary compliance under Commercial Courts Act.
21. On merits, the contents of the WS have been denied and contents of preliminary objections are re-iterated which are not repeated here for sake of brevity. Prayer has been made to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.
Page 7 of 26
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN
KIRAN BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2026.03.20
15:35:44
+0530
REPLICATION
22. It has been stated by the plaintiff that the present claim is not the part of the MOU as mentioned and filed by the defendant as the plaintiff has filed a separate MOU regarding the present claim. Moreover, the amount of Rs. 30,000/- is nowhere mentioned in the MOU filed by the defendant rather it is Rs. 34,000/- and the MOU filed by the defendant has no concern with the present claim.
23. It is submitted that the mails sent by the defendant have been properly replied and the contract was discontinued by the defendant itself because the defendant failed to comply the MOU and failed to make the payment.
24. It is submitted that the present court has jurisdiction to try the present suit as per Section 20 (c) because cause of action partly arose at Delhi as
(i) the office of the plaintiff is at C-483, Yojana Vihar, Delhi; (ii) The payment was to be made at plaintiff's bank account at Delhi; (iii) Plaintiff is carrying on its business at Delhi. It is lastly stated that the defendant agreed to make full payment and as per oral agreement, the defendant made payment of Rs. 25,000/- per month from 22.12.2020 to 24.03.2022 and after March 2022, the defendant did not issued the cheques for further payment. It is stated that the material was also supplied from Delhi office to the defendant.
25. As per the plaintiff the present suit is well within limitation as (i) The plaintiff withdrew the previous case with liberty and permission to file afresh and in this way the continuity of filing suit is in existence and (ii) the defendant lastly made payment of Rs. 25,000/- through cheque on 23.05.2022 and the balance payment of Rs. 3,46,160/- for which this case is filed, was due on 23.05.2022.
26. Rest of the contents of the WS have been denied and are not repeated here for sake of brevity. Prayer has been made to dismiss the written Page 8 of 26 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.03.20 15:35:52 +0530 statement and further to pass a decree in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ADMISSION/ DENIAL
27. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff initially filed the following documents alongwith plaint:
Resolution of board of director MOU for 2018-19 Invoice no. GST/287/2018-19 dt. 01.10.2018, GST/309/2018-19 dt. 01.11.2018, GST/323/2018-19 dt. 01.01.2019 Ledger w.e.f. 01.04.2020 to 23.05.2022 Legal Notice Postal receipt dt. 27.03.2023 Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Non starter Report dt. 20.07.2023
28. The Defendant filed affidavit of admission/ denial dated 24.04.2024 of the above said documents and admitted the existence of MOU for 2018-19 which is Ex. P1 (however denied its correctness).
29. However, during the course of proceedings the plaintiff filed an application under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC r/w section 151 CPC for filing additional documents i.e. Bank Statement. The said application was allowed vide order dated 28.02.2025 and the bank account statement was, accordingly, taken on record.
30. Therefore, the defendant filed the affidavit of admission/ denial of the additional documents dated 03.04.2025 denying the bank account statement.
Page 9 of 26
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN
KIRAN BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2026.03.20
15:36:00
+0530
31. On the other hand, plaintiff in his affidavit of admission/denial of documents of the defendant dated 29.05.2024 and dated 24.04.2025 has admitted the following two documents:
Board Resolution dated 24.04.2024 which is exhibited as Ex. D1; Entire plaint along with all documents of previous suit which is exhibited as Ex. D2.
ISSUES FRAMED
32. Vide order dated 02.05.2025, following issues were framed for consideration:
Issue No.: 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree? If so, to what amount? OPP.
Issue No. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
Issue no. 3: Relief PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
33. The plaintiff in support of his case has examined, Ms. Meetali Chandak, Finance Manager of the plaintiff Company as PW-1, who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as PW1/A and has relied upon the following documents:
Board Resolution as Ex.PW1/1;
Authority letter of deponent as Ex.PW1/2; MoU already exhibited as Ex. P1;
Invoice No. GST/287/2018-19 dt. 01.10.2018 as Ex.PW1/3; Invoice No. GST/309/2018-19 dt. 01.11.2018 as Ex.PW1/4; Invoice No. GST/323/2018-19 dt. 01.12.2018 as Ex.PW1/5; Invoice No. GST/399/2018-19 dt. 01.01.2019 as Ex.PW1/6;Page 10 of 26 Digitally signed by KIRAN
KIRAN BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2026.03.20 15:36:09 +0530 Ledger w.e.f. 01.04.2020 to 23.05.2022 as Ex.PW1/7; Bank statement for the period from 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2022 as Ex.PW1/8;
Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/9; Non-starter report dt. 20.07.2023 as Ex.PW1/10; Legal notice along with postal receipt as Ex.PW1/11; Affidavit under Order XI Rule 6(3) CPC as Ex.PW1/12.
Perusal of the file reveals that though the bank account statement was exhibited as Ex.PW1/8, but, at the time of marking of the document, inadvertently, Ex.PW1/8 was mentioned on the ledger account itself which is stated to be from 01.04.2020 till 18.05.2023. Also, at the time of exhibit of document, it was stated that the ledger from 01.04.2020 to 23.05.2022 is Ex.PW1/7, but, Ex.PW1/7 reveals that ledger was filed from 01.04.2018 and the last entry is of 01.01.2019. Thereafter, the next page of the ledger is starting from 01.04.2020 and the last entry is 23.05.2022. Only two pages of the ledger has been filed by the plaintiff.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
34. The defendant in support of his case has examined Sh. Tej Prakash Pandey, Manager at M/s SRS International School as DW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as DW1/A and has relied upon the following documents:
Board Resolution dated 24.04.2024 as Ex. D1; Copy of MoU is exhibited as Ex.DW1/2; Copy of invoice no.23 dated 21.05.2016 is exhibited as Ex.DW1/3; Copy of invoice no.58 dated 22.08.2016 is exhibited as Ex.DW1/4; Copy of invoice no.59 dated 21.05.2016 is exhibited as Ex.DW1/5; Copy of invoice no.93 dated 04.10.2016 is exhibited as Ex.DW1/6;Page 11 of 26
Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.03.20 15:36:17 +0530 Copy of invoice no.134 dated 23.01.2017 is exhibited as Ex.DW1/7; Copy of invoice no.218 dated 03.03.2016 is exhibited as Ex.DW1/8; Copy of invoice no.23/TC/2017-18 dated 01.06.2017 as Ex.DW1/9; Copy of invoice no. GST/08/2017-18 dated 01.08.2017 as Ex.DW1/10; Copy of invoice no. GST/71/2017-18 dated 01.09.2017 as Ex.DW1/11; Copy of invoice no. GST/156/2017-18 dated 01.10.2017 as Ex.DW1/12; Copy of invoice no. GST/205/2017-18 dated 01.11.2017 as Ex.DW1/13; Copy of invoice no. GST/238/2017-18 dated 01.12.2017 as Ex.DW1/14; Copy of invoice no. GST/300/2017-18 dated 01.01.2018 as Ex.DW1/15; Copy of invoice no. GST/403/2017-18 dated 01.02.2018 as Ex.DW1/16; Copy of invoice no. GST/528/2017-18 dated 01.03.2018 as Ex.DW1/17; Copy of invoice no. GST/08/2018-19 dated 01.04.2018 as Ex.DW1/18; Copy of invoice no. GST/02/2018-19 dated 05.04.2018 as Ex.DW1/19; Copy of invoice no. GST/13/2018-19 dated 01.06.2018 as Ex.DW1/20; Copy of invoice no. GST/151/2018-19 dated 01.08.2018 as Ex.DW1/21; Copy of invoice no. GST/258/2018-19 dated 01.09.2018 as Ex.DW1/22; Copy of invoice no. GST/287/2018-19 dated 01.10.2018 as Ex.DW1/23; Copy of invoice no. GST/309/2018-19 dated 01.11.2018 as Ex.DW1/24; Copy of invoice no. GST/323/2018-19 dated 01.12.2018 as Ex.DW1/25; Copy of emails dated 10.06.2019 and 12.06.2019 as Ex.DW1/26; Copy of invoice no. GST/142/2018-19 dated 05.05.2018 as Ex.DW1/27; Copy of email dated 26.12.2018 and email dated 10.06.2019 as Ex.DW1/28;
Entire plaint along with all documents of the previous suit as Ex. D2; Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as Ex.DW1/29; Declaration on oath under Order XI Rule 6(3) of Commercial Courts Act as Ex.DW1/30 Page 12 of 26 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.03.20 15:36:24 +0530 ISSUE WISE FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
35. The court has heard ld. counsel for the plaintiff as well as counsel for defendant and have also gone through the record of the case. The court has also gone through the written submissions filed by the plaintiff and defendant.
Issue no. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree? If so, to what amount? OPP
36. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The present suit is commercial in nature and squarely falls within the purview of Section 2 (1) (C) of Commercial Courts Act. Moreover, the plaintiff has also complied with Pre- Institution Mediation and Settlement as Non-Starter Report dated 20.07.2023 i.e. Ex. PW-1/10 has been issued.
37. As far as the limitation is concerned, the perusal of the record reveals that the last invoice is dated 01.01.2019 (Ex. PW1/6). The period for filing the suit for recovery is three years. However, it is pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble SC in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation SMW (C) no. 3 of 2020 has held that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall be excluded from computing the period of limitation. Thus, the period from 01.01.2019 till 15.03.2020 will be computed in limitation i.e. 1 year 2 months and 15 days and the remaining period of 1 year 9 months and 15 days will be available from 01.03.2022. The present suit is filed on 18.08.2023. After computing the period of 1 year 9 months and 15 days from 01.03.2022, the period is extended upto 15.01.2024. The period consumed during the Pre Institution Mediation is also liable to be excluded for calculating the limitation. Thus, the present suit filed on 18.08.2023 is filed within the period of limitation.
38. As far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned, ld. counsel for the defendant has argued that the MOU Ex.DW1/2 was executed at Faridabad and that the invoices Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/6 provides that cheques and demand draft Page 13 of 26 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.03.20 15:36:32 +0530 are payable at Faridabad Only. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the defendant can not solely rely upon the single term i.e. Payable at Faridabad only when the same documents i.e. the invoices Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/6 also contain the phrase 'Subject to Delhi Jurisdiction only' as well as details of the bank account of the plaintiff located at Vivek Vihar i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. It is a settled law that the document has to be read in its entirety and it can not be read in piecemeal.
39. Moreover, perusal of the bank account of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/8 reveals that the cheques issued by the defendant were cleared in the bank account of plaintiff situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Furthermore, the invoices were raised at the office of the plaintiff which is located within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.
40. The defendant has also relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi HC in the case of M/s Mountain Mist Agro India (Pvt) Ltd and Anr vs Mr S. Subramanyam CS (OS) 1643 of 2005. In the said case, the issue was whether the presentation of cheque ipso fact confers jurisdiction on the courts at the place where such presentment for collection is done? However, it is pertinent to mention here that the said case was filed solely on the basis of the dishonour of cheque issued at Ootacamund and dishonoured at Delhi. In the present case, admittedly, there was no issuance of the cheques and the payments were made in the bank account of the plaintiff located within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Moreover, the Hon'ble Delhi HC in M/s Auto Movers Vs Luminous Power Technologies Pvt Ltd CM(M) 604/2020 dated 16.09.2021 has observed that "The decision in Mountain Mist Agro India was in relation to the N.I. Act and is not relevant for the determination of territorial jurisdiction in civil matters". Thus, the said case is not applicable in the facts of the present case and the reliance of the defendant on the said case is misplaced.
Page 14 of 26
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN
KIRAN BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2026.03.20
15:36:41
+0530
41. Therefore, on the basis of the fact that the invoices were raised from the office of the plaintiff and the fact that the payments have been credited in the bank of the plaintiff situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the present court, thus, a cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Therefore, this court has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit.
42. Now coming to the merits of the case. It is pertinent to mention here that the defendant has not denied the business relations between the plaintiff and defendant. However, the main defence of the defendant can be categorised as two fold i.e. firstly, the plaintiff has charged over billing i.e. the plaintiff has charged for excess number of students than the number of students in the school; and secondly, that the defendant terminated the services of the plaintiff in 2018 and thereafter, there was no business relations between the parties and that a mutual settlement was arrived at between the parties, in pursuance to which 17 cheques each for an amount of Rs.25,000/- each was issued and complete payment was already made by the defendant to the plaintiff.
43. The perusal of the MOU (Ex. P1) reveals that the charges for class nursery to 9th were Rs. 1,950/- per student per academic year (Rs. 178/- per month for 11 months) for academic year 2017-18 and that the contract period is provided as 3 years with price revision decided on mutual basis. Minimum revision of 10% from academic year 2019-20 and any chance in tax structure. On the other hand, it is submitted by the defendant that the defendant school was to pay Rs. 150/- per student from year 2017. This submission of the defendant is duly corroborated by the invoices of the plaintiff itself Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/6 as the training charges are calculated @ Rs. 150/- per student per month and not at rate which was mentioned in MOU (Ex.P1).
44. Moreover, perusal of the MOU (Ex.P1) filed by the plaintiff reveals that it is not the original MOU executed between the parties, rather it is Page 15 of 26 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.03.20 15:36:48 +0530 either a print out or at best a photocopy of the MOU alleged by executed between the parties, which is signed only by the Director of the plaintiff company. Furthermore, the MOU Ex.P1 does not bear the signature of the defendant nor contains any date. The relevant cross of the PW-1 is as follows:
"There are no signature of the defendant in the MoU i.e. already Ex.P1.
.....
It is correct to say that there is no receiving stamp or sign on the invoices by the defendant."
45. The defendant has denied the correctness of MOU Ex.P1. Ex.P1 only bears the stamp of the plaintiff and signatures of the Director of plaintiff. It does not bear the signature of any authorized person of the defendant. On the otherhand, the defendant has also filed an MOU which is Ex.DW1/2. The original Ex.DW1/2 is also placed on record by the defendant and the same bears the signatures of authorized persons of the defendant as well as Nishant Jain, Director of the plaintiff. Ex.DW1/2 mentions the charges of Rs.30,000/- per quarter as per Option I and Rs.4,000/- per student for 15 classes as per Option II. Ex.DW1/3 is the Invoice for the month of April, May, June, 2016 and the charges amount is Rs.30,000/- which reveals that the amount fixed between the parties is Rs.30,000/- per quarter as per Ex.DW1/3. Similarly, Ex.DW1/4 is the training charges for the month of July, August, September, 2016. Ex.DW1/6 is the training charges for the month of October, November, December, 2016 and the amount is again Rs.30,000/- per quarter. Similarly, Ex.DW1/7 is the training charges for the month of January, February, March, 2017 and thus, as per Ex.DW1/2, the amount fixed is Rs.30,000/- per quarter between the parties which was the option I. Some products were also sold by the plaintiff to the defendant as per Ex.DW1/8 which was separately billed. The training charges for May, 2017; July, 2017; August, Page 16 of 26 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.03.20 15:36:56 +0530 2017; September, 2017; October, 2017; November, 2017; December, 2017, January, 2018, February, 2018 and March, 2018 were Rs.77,250/- per month as per Ex.DW1/9 to Ex.DW1/18 (from May, 2017 to March, 2018). Moreover, as per Ex. DW-1/19 to Ex. DW-1/22, the training charges from April 2018 to August 2018 (except June 2018), were Rs. 96,751/- @ Rs. 104.55 for 645 students. As per Ex. DW-1/23 to Ex. DW-1/25, the training charges were Rs. 91,201/- for the month of September 2018 to November 2018 @ Rs. 150/- for 608 students. Ex.DW1/23 to Ex.DW1/25 is the same as Ex. PW1/3 to Ex. PW1/5. Ex. PW-1/26 is a exchange of mail between the plaintiff and defendant wherein the defendant had sent a mail dated 10.06.2019 regarding the incorrect number of students mentioned on the invoice and the reply dated 12.06.2019 was sent by the plaintiff by way of which the plaintiff has agreed to changing of the invoices as per exact number of students. Ex. DW-1/27 is the invoice raised by the plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 1,08,180/- for the sale of books of students @ Rs. 180/-. Ex. DW-1/28 is the email dated 26.12.2018 sent by the defendant to the plaintiff terminating the services of plaintiff from January 2019 onwards. In none of the Invoice placed on record either by the plaintiff or the defendant the charges were @ Rs.178/- per month as per MOU Ex.P1. Ex.P1 thus, is not a reliable document, in as much as, it is not supported by any of the Invoice, nor the same is signed on behalf of any of the defendant.
46. Furthermore, it is also pertinent to mention here that the defendant has written email dated 10.06.2019 (Ex. DW-1/26) addressing the plaintiff about the overbilling qua the number of students. The plaintiff has replied to the said email on 12.06.2019 (Ex. DW-1/26) stating to provide the revised invoice. However, the plaintiff has not supplied any such invoice. Contents of the Email dated 10.06.2019 Ex.DW1/26 is as follows:
"Dear Sir/ Mam, Page 17 of 26 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.03.20 15:37:06 +0530 This is reference to your bills sent for the payment for the period Apr- 18 to Aug- 18 against the training provided to the students in our school. We found the bills were charges for 645 students and we would like to inform you that the students during that period less that as claimed in the bills. And removed the bill no. GST/142/2018-19 which is raised against trading of sale of books. Please raised the bills to the concerned person to whom books were received and sold.
As as per telephonic conversation I ask for MOU which is still not received."
Reply dated 12.06.2019 is as follows:
"Dear Sir/ Madam, Please find attached the break up of the ledger. Not all the invoices are for 645 students. We have been sending the ledger and reminder for so long, also the invoices have been received and now the point is being raised, Anywhich ways we will change the invoice amounts, please let us know the exact number of students We were never told to raise the books bills to any other vendor, The books invoice was sent to Mr. Vinay on 13th July."
47. In this regard, the relevant cross of the PW-1 is as follows:
"Q. Is it true that the defendant sent the plaintiff a mail dated 10.06.2019 confronting the plaintiff regarding over billing and violation of the terms of agreement between the parties?
A. I have received the aforesaid email and replied vide email dated 12.06.2019 which is Annexure D26 page 54 of the WS and Page 18 of 26 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.03.20 15:37:14 +0530 the same is correct. No further mails were sent by the defendant thereafter denying the context.
Q. Is it true that in this mail dated 12.06.2019 sent by you, you have written that "anyways we will change the invoice amounts, please let us know the exact number of students. We were never told to book bills to any other vendors, the books invoices by sent to Mr. Vinay on 13th July"?
A. Yes.
Q. Hence, is it correct to say that the invoices sent previously were not correct?
A. It is wrong. (Vol. Invoices were bound to change because no. of students changed as the information of no. of students were late so we need to change the invoices accordingly).
Q. Did you ever resend invoices in terms of your email dated 12.06.2019?
A. I do not remember.
The business between the parties has been conducted in 2018-
19. Q. Did the defendant ever raise concern regarding over billing of invoices at the plaintiff's end in any mode?
A. Not in the during of the transaction. I do not remember if after the transactions the defendant raise any such concern."
48. Thus, on the basis of the above, it can be said that the plaintiff has issued incorrect invoices which mentions the incorrect number of students. Had it not been so, the plaintiff would not have agreed to change the invoice as no Page 19 of 26 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2026.03.20 15:37:22 +0530 prudent person who has issued invoices correctly would have admitted the fact of correcting the invoices.
49. Moreover, it is also pertinent to mention here that the claim of the plaintiff is only restricted to the 4 invoices (Ex. PW1/3, Ex. PW1/4, Ex. PW1/5 and Ex. PW1/6) and it is stated that prior to it all the outstanding was cleared. The said Invoices are for the month of September to December, 2018. From the email Ex.DW1/26, proved on record by the defendant it is clear that the plaintiff has agreed to issue corrected invoices. Whether the Invoice amount was corrected by the plaintiff or not, has not been stated by the plaintiff, in the plaint, or in the replication. Also, according to the plaintiff previous outstanding was clear and only the amount of 4 (four) Invoices remained to be paid, however, in the ledger opening balance have been shown on 01.04.2018 as well as 01.04.2020. The relevant cross of the PW-1 in this regard is as follows:
"I have affixed ledger pertaining to 01.04.2018 to 18.05.2023. Even prior to this, there were business dealings between the parties. I have not affixed ledger prior to this period as there is no outstanding amount for the period prior to 2018 at the time of filing of the suit. It is wrong to suggest that the defendant has cleared the entire outstanding due.
Q. Why does your ledger show debit balance on 01.04.2018, if nothing is outstanding for the period prior to 2018 ?
A. 2017-18 ki jo bhi outstanding thi vo 2018-19 me clear ho gayi thi, isliye opening balance show kar raha hai 2018-19 ke ledger me.
It is wrong to suggest that the invoices are false and fabricated in the suit and no due is outstanding from the defendant."Page 20 of 26
Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.03.20 15:37:30 +0530
50. However, the perusal of the record reveals that the plaintiff has filed ledger account (Ex. PW1/7) for the period 01.04.2018 to 04.02.2018 and 01.04.2020 to 18.05.2023. However, the perusal of the ledger for period 01.04.2018 to 04.02.2018 reveals that it also contains entries beyond 04.02.2018.
Moreover, the ledger for intervening period FY 2019-2020 is not filed and the ledger for 01.04.2020 to 18.05.2023 begins with opening balance of Rs. 7,65,606/-. Thus, it is pertinent to mention here that the closing balance on 01.01.2019 was Rs. 6,93,139.00 and the opening balance of ledger from 01.04.2020 to 18.05.2023 is Rs. 7,65,606/- and difference is of Rs. 72,467/-. This difference of amount is not explained by the plaintiff in the plaint nor any document is filed in its support. It is also settled law that for ledger to be reliable, the entries in the ledger must be true and maintained properly, however, in the present case, the ledger has several infirmities and, thus, the ledger can not be taken into consideration for deciding this issue. Moreover, the ledger in itself is not a conclusive proof of the entries recorded therein and the same needs to be corroborated by other documents. The plaintiff has failed to corroborate the same, thus, the ledger Ex. PW1/7 is not reliable.
51. It is also pertinent to mention here that the defendant has argued that the matter between the parties was settled for a sum and the defendant has issued 17 cheques of Rs. 25,000/-. The relevant cross examination of DW-1 is as follows:
"Exactly, I do not know that if there is an agreement/settlement for charging of Rs.150/- per student from the year 2017 onwards, I have not filed such documents on record. The plaintiff and defendant are in the business in the year 2017. It is correct that the invoice from Ex.DW1/3 to DW1/25 and DW1/27 have been received by the defendant and were sent by plaintiff.
Page 21 of 26
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN
KIRAN BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2026.03.20
15:37:40
+0530
It is correct that the plaintiff has filed a recovery suit for Rs.6,93,139/- in the year 2019. It is correct that we had issued cheques of Rs.25,000/- each as per settlement but I do not remember whether the number of cheques were 17.
Q. Whether have you filed the statement of account from December, 2020 to 25.04.2022 ?
A. No. Q. Can you file the same ?
A. I will produce the same after asking the school administration.
I cannot tell whether invoice Ex.PW1/3, PW1/4, PW1/5 and PW1/6 have been paid or not. (Vol. Our account is settled and entire payment is already made). Objection regarding invoices were raised vide email dated 10.06.2019 i.e. Ex.DW1/26. It is also correct that the reply of the said objection was also sent on 12.06.2019 which is also Ex.DW1/26.
.....
The 17 cheques for Rs.25,000/- each were given in lieu of full and final settlement against Rs. 6,93,139/-. There was no written full and final settlement between the parties against the outstanding amount of Rs. 6,93,139/-, it was orally and mutually.
It is correct that if the amount of Rs. 4,25,000/- has been paid against the outstanding that has been shown in income tax return. I do not remember whether full and final settlement was shown as settled in income tax return or not."Page 22 of 26
Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.03.20 15:37:47 +0530 Thus, the total amount comes to be Rs. 4,25,000/- (Rs. 25,000X17). The closing balance for the ledger (01.04.2018 to 04.02.2018) is Rs. 2,68,139/- (Rs. 6,93,139
- Rs. 4,25,000) and the opening balance for the ledger is Rs. 2,67,001 which is nearly same as above said difference. The ledger has been filed from 01.04.20218 to 04.02.2018 and thereafter, it starts from 01.04.2020. The plaintiff has not filed the complete ledger for the reasons best known to the plaintiff. As the plaintiff has filed incomplete ledger account an adverse inference is liable to drawn against the plaintiff. Even, as per Ex.PW1/7 there is an opening balance of Rs.2,67,000/- on 01.04.2018 which has remained unexplained. Simlarly, as observed above, the ledger from 01.04.2020, contains an opening balance of Rs.7,65,606/-. How this amount of Rs.7,65,606/- was arrived at has not been explained by the plaintiff, as the ledger for the intervening period has not been filed.
52. At this stage, it is equally important to note that the defendant had mailed to the plaintiff on 26.12.2018 (Ex. DW-1/28) thereby terminating the services of the plaintiff from Jan-19 onwards. The email dated 26.12.2018 is as follows:
"Dear Sir, This is to inform you that due to unavoidable reason we want to terminate the services from jan-19 onward.
Kindly do the needful at the earliest & oblige."
53. The defendant, in its WS, has submitted that it was done by the defendant as the plaintiff had manipulated the invoices and has overcharged the plaintiff. However, PW-1 in her cross examination has stated that it was because of unavoidable reason. The relevant cross of the PW-1 is as follows:
"Q. Is it true that the defendant through an email dated 26.12.2018 terminated the services of plaintiff company due to the over billing and fraudulent practices?Page 23 of 26 Digitally signed by KIRAN
KIRAN BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2026.03.20 15:37:54 +0530 A. It is wrong. The services were terminated due to unavoidable which is mentioned in the said mail."
54. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff acknowledges the same and was aware of such a mail. Despite it, the plaintiff company did not send any reply to the said mail, or if they had replied they had not filed the same. Also, as the service of the plaintiff was terminated by the defendant vide email Ex.DW1/28, dated 26.12.2018, no dealing could have taken place between the parties from the month of January, 2019. Now, if the balance as on 01.01.2019 is Rs.6,93,139/-, then how the opening balance as on 01.04.2020 could be Rs.7,65,606/- as no further dealings took place between the parties after December, 2018.
55. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff in para 8 of the plaint has averred that a payment of Rs. 18,644/- has been received against bill no. GST/287/2018-19 dt. 01.10.2018. However, perusal of the ledger Ex.PW1/7 reveals that there is no such entry on 01.10.2018 of Rs. 18,644/- regarding the receiving of the payment by the plaintiff. This only leads to two situations i.e. either the averments in the plaint are incorrect or the ledger filed by the plaintiff is incorrect, which in any case reflects that the plaintiff has not been able to sufficiently discharge the burden of proof.
56. It is a settled law that the burden of proving the case is on the plaintiff and it is only when the plaintiff discharges it burden, the onus shifts upon the defendant. In the present case, the two main documents on which the entire case rests are invoices Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/6 and ledger Ex.PW1/7. As far as Invoices are concerned, plaintiff had agreed as per email that he will revise the same, but, the revised Invoices have not been placed on record by the plaintiff. The ledger Ex.PW1/7 as discussed above is not reliable. On the other hand the documents filed by the defendant are reliable and corroborate the defence of the Page 24 of 26 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2026.03.20 15:38:01 +0530 defendant. The plaintiff has not been able to prove its case and thus, the plaintiff has not been able to discharge the burden of proof due to following reasons:
(i) The MOU Ex.P1 is not signed on behalf of defendant;
(ii) No Invoice as per the MOU Ex.P1 wherein the plaintiff has raised the Invoice @ Rs.178 per month per student, is filed or proved on record.
(iii) Complete ledger is not filed in as much as only two pages are filed. The first page is from 01.04.2018 till 01.01.2019 and the next page from 01.04.2020 till 23.05.2022 and the ledger for the period from 02.01.2019 till 31.03.2020 is not filed;
(iv) The ledger Ex.PW1/7 is not reliable; (v) The opening balance in the ledger Ex.PW1/7 is Rs.2,67,001/- on
01.04.2018 and Rs.7,65,606/- as opening balance 01.04.2020 remains unexplained.
Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to money decree, as prayed for. Issue no. (i) is accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
Issue no. (ii): Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
57. Since the plaintiff is not entitled to any money decree as issue no.
(i) is answered against the plaintiff, thus, the plaintiff is also not entitled to any interest. Therefore, issue no. (ii) is decided against the plaintiff.
Page 25 of 26 Digitally signed by KIRANKIRAN BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2026.03.20 15:38:10 +0530 Issue no. (iii): Relief.
58. In view of above discussed findings, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to costs. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.03.20 15:38:23 +0530 Announced in Open Court Kiran Bansal on 20.03.2026 District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts Delhi/ 20.03.2026 Page 26 of 26