Delhi District Court
Komal Prasad Singhal Prop. Of M/S ... vs Gaurav Gera Prop. Of M/S Gem Polyvinyl ... on 18 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL, DISTRICT JUDGE,
COMMERCIAL COURT-02, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023
INDEX
SI. NOS. HEADINGS PAGE
NOS.
1. Memo of Parties 2-3
2. Plaint 4-6
3. Written Statement 6-7
4. Replication 7
5. Proceedings so far 8
6. Admission and denial 8
7. Framing of Issues 9
8. Plaintiff's Evidence 9 - 10
9. Defendant's Evidence 10
10. Judgments relied upon and discussion 11 - 12
11. Findings and Analysis 12 - 27
12. Relief 27
Digitally signed
KIRAN by KIRAN
BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.18
15:27:28 +0530
CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.1 of 27
In the matter of
MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL
(Prop. of M/s Prakash Chemicals)
Having its office at:
6/58, Gali No.3, Bhishm Marg,
Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-110032.
... PLAINTIFF
Versus
MR. GAURAV GERA
(Prop. of M/s Gem Polyvinyl Industries)
Having its office at:
Plot No.71, Pkt.-C, Sec.-5, DSIIDC,
Bawana, Delhi- 110039.
Also at:
F-70, DSIIDC, Sec.-5,
Bawana Industrial Area, Delhi-110039.
Also at:
I-210,211, Sec.-5,
Bawana Industrial Area, Delhi-110039.
Digitally signed
by KIRAN
KIRAN BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.12.18
15:27:35 +0530
CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.2 of 27
Also at:
Plot No.15, Basement,
Pocket-B, Sec.-5,
Bawana Industrial Area, Delhi-110039.
Also at:
K-243, Sec.-5,
1st Floor, Bawana Industrial Area,
Delhi-110039.
Residence at:
House No.13, Road No.29,
1st Floor, West Punjabi Bagh,
Delhi- 110026.
Also at:
H 1/198, Sec.-11,
Near Ryan International School,
Rohini, Delhi-110085. ... DEFENDANT
Date of Institution 21.03.2023
Date of reserve the judgment 26.11.2025
Date of judgment 18.12.2025
Digitally signed
by KIRAN
KIRAN BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.12.18
15:27:43 +0530
CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.3 of 27
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 86,22,419/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% p.a. against the defendant.
PLAINT
2. It is averred by the plaintiff that the plaintiff is proprietor of M/s Prakash Chemicals which is proprietorship firm duly registered with GST Certificate and having its office at 6/58, Gali NO. 3, Bhishm Marg, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi- 110032. However, it is stated that the earlier address of the plaintiff's firm was 6/61, Gali No. 2, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi- 110032.
3. It is averred that the plaintiff is engaged in wholesale business, retail business and manufacturing of various goods such as Calcium Carbonate, Suspension Grade PVC etc. It is further submitted that defendant approached the plaintiff for the supply of chlorinated paraffin on credit basis.
4. Moreover, it is submitted that it was mutually decided that defendant would be handing over the post-dated cheques equivalent to that of the material supplied. Accordingly, it is stated that business relations started and defendant started purchasing the Chlorinated Paraffin from the plaintiff against the bill raised by the plaintiff in this regard.
5. It is also stated that the defendant used to purchase the goods on the credit basis. The plaintiff used to maintain the current, running and open ledger account of the defendant which is reflective of the purchases made by the Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.18 15:27:51 +0530 CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.4 of 27 defendant, payment made to the plaintiff and the balance payment outstanding from time to time payable by the defendant.
6. It is submitted by the plaintiff that as per ledger maintained by the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 64,82,719/- is shown as outstanding amount payable to the plaintiff. It is stated that the plaintiff had made various calls to the defendant to pay the outstanding amount, however, the defendant did not paid the same. It is stated that plaintiff did not take any action against the defendant due to assurances given by the defendant, however, the defendant failed to clear the outstanding dues.
7. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendant demanding payment of Rs. 80,82,719/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. to the plaintiff. However, the defendant neither replied nor paid any amount to the plaintiff.
8. However, after not sending legal notice, the plaintiff filed an application before Shahdara Distt authority, KKD Court for Pre-institution mediation but there also defendant did not come and a Non Starter report was issued on 24.11.2022.
9. As far as the cause of action is concerned, it is stated that it firstly arose in April 2021 when the defendant stopped payments of plaintiff. It further arose on 14.09.2022 when the plaintiff sent the legal notice to the defendant. Moreover, it is submitted that cause of action further arose on 13.10.2022 and 24.11.2022, when the defendant did not participate in Pre- Institution Mediation. Cause of action is still stated to be continuing as the liability is not discharged.
10. As far as the territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it is stated by the plaintiff that the present court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as the plaintiff has its principal office at 6/58, Gali No. 3, Bhisham Marg, KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.12.18 15:28:02 +0530 CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.5 of 27 Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. It is also stated that the defendant also placed orders for purchasing the goods at the above said address and the plaintiff has also supplied the goods from its registered address. It is also stated that the defendant has made the payment at the plaintiff's bank situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court. The present suit is also stated to be filed within period of limitation.
11. Prayer has thus been made to pass a decree for recovery of Rs. 86,22,719/- in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% p.a. till its realization.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
12. The defendant has filed the WS to the plaint stating that the claim of the plaintiff is false, fabricated, misconceived and is mere abuse of process of law. It is admitted that defendant Mr. Gaurav Gera is Proprietor of M/s Gem Polyvinyl Industries having office at Plot No. 71, Pkt- C Sec- 5, DSIIDC, Bawana, Delhi and is engaged in business of manufacturing, trading and supplying of Plastic Masterbatches and Compounds. It has been averred that the there was no dealing between the plaintiff and defendant hence, the defendant has never received the goods from the plaintiff rather brother of defendant Mr. Saurav Gera is also working under the proprietorship concern under the same name i.e. 'M/s Gem Polyvinyl Industries'. Thus, it is stated that the plaintiff has approached the court with mala fide intention and has suppressed material facts.
13. On merits, the defendant has denied the fact of business transaction between the plaintiff and defendant and has stated that defendant has never issued any post dated cheque towards the part payment or otherwise in relation to the alleged transaction. It is further submitted that during 2020- 2021 all the operational and financial affairs of the defendant's business were being KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 15:28:10 +0530 Date: 2025.12.18 CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.6 of 27 unknowingly and exclusively managed by the defendant's brother Mr. Saurav Gera without knowledge of the defendant.
14. It is further submitted that the defendant does not have any privity of contract with the plaintiff nor is the defendant aware about any such transaction and that all the dealings were made by the brother of the defendant of which the defendant is not aware. It is submitted that the defendant has never entered into financial transaction with the plaintiff and moreover, the documents filed by the plaintiff nowhere bear any acknowledgement/ acceptance of the defendant and that the defendant has never placed the order(s) to the plaintiff.
15. Rest of the contents of the plaint have been denied by the defendant and are not repeated here for sake of brevity. Prayer has been made to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with costs.
REPLICATION
16. It has been stated by the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendant have business dealing with each other since 2015 and in this regard, the plaintiff use to maintain a running account and the same is enclosed with the plaint. It has been averred that during the course of the business relations, the defendant has made various part payments in the account of the plaintiff and that various cheques were issued to the plaintiff by the defendant during the course of transactions.
17. The plaintiff has denied that the financial and operational affairs of the firm were being operated by the brother of the defendant and has further denied that the defendant had no privity of contract with the plaintiff and that defendant was not aware about any of the transaction. Rest of the contents of the Written Statement has been denied by the plaintiff and are not repeated here for sake of brevity. Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.18 15:28:18 +0530 CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.7 of 27 PROCEEDINGS SO FAR
18. The plaintiff had filed the present suit on 02.03.2023. The summons of the suit were directed to be issued vide order dated 21.03.2023. However, the summons issued were not effectively served on the defendant, therefore, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order V Rule 20 CPC for substituted service of defendant by publication. The same was allowed vide order dated 13.09.2023. The defendant was served by of publication on 04.10.2023. However, no written statement was filed by the defendant within 30 days of the service and, hence, the right of the defendant to file WS was closed and defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 13.12.2023. Thereafter, the ex-parte evidence was recorded on 03.01.2024 and 08.02.2024. Thereafter, the suit was decreed ex-parte vide judgement dated 22.02.2024
19. Thereafter, an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was filed by the defendant on 07.12.2024 seeking to set aside the ex-parte judgement and decree dated 22.02.2024. The said application was allowed vide order dated 02.04.2025 and the judgement and decree was set aside and suit was fixed for admission/ denial and settlement of issues for 28.05.2025. Thereafter, the defendant has filed the WS alongwith affidavit of admission/ denial of the documents filed by the plaintiff.
ADMISSION/ DENIAL OF THE DOCUMENTS
20. The plaintiff in his affidavit of admission/ denial of the documents filed by the defendant has admitted Copy of GST Certificate of the plaintiff i.e. Ex. D1.
21. On the other hand, the defendant has filed two affidavit of admission and denial of the documents filed by the plaintiff dated 26.04.2025 and 26.07.2025 wherein he is not admitted any of the documents of the plaintiff.
KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.12.18 15:28:28 +0530 CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.8 of 27 FRAMING OF ISSUES:
22. On completion of pleadings of both the parties, following issues were framed:
Whether the present suit has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? OPD Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree? If so, to what amount? OPP Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
23. In support of his case plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and has relied upon the following documents:
Copy of new as well as old GST Certificate are Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B;
Copy of Statement of Account as Ex.PW1/C; Invoices along with E-way Bills are Ex.PW1/D1 to Ex.PW1/D46 (running into 46 pages);
Copy of Bank Statement as Ex.PW1/E;
Copy of 18 Cheques are Ex.PW1/F (OSR);
Copy of Legal Notice along with Postal Receipts are Ex.PW1/G and Ex.PW1/H;
Non Starter Report dated 24.11.2022 as Ex.PW1/I; Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as Ex.PW1/J; Certificate under Section 63 of BSA as Ex.PW1/K; KIRAN by Digitally signed KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.12.18 15:28:37 +0530 CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.9 of 27 23.1 A summoned witness Sh. Akash Yadav, Statistical Assistant, Ward No.63, Vyapar Bhawan, Department of Trade and Tax, Govt. of NCT, Delhi was examined as PW-2 who proved the summoned record i.e. GSTR-2B and GSTR-3B of M/S GEM POLYVINYL INDUSTRIES bearing GSTIN 07ARTPG4901E1ZV for financial year 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 which is Ex.
PW-2/A. The same is also supported by the certificate under Section 63 BSA which is Ex. PW-2/B. 23.2. Another summoned witness Sh. Navendu Kumar Jha, GST Inspector, Ward No.82, Vyapar Bhawan, Department of Trade and Tax, Govt. of NCT, Delhi - 110032 was examined as PW-3 who proved the summoned record i.e. GSTR-1 of M/S PRAKASH CHEMICAL bearing GSTIN 07AADPK4170C1Z5 for the period April, 2020 to August, 2020, the certified copy of the same is Ex.PW3/A. Thereafter PE was closed after recording separate statement of plaintiff in this regard.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
24. The defendant has examined himself as DW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A and has relied upon the following documents:
Document which is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/X1 Internet Generated GST Certificate in the name of Saurav Gera is Mark DW1/1 (colly);
Copy of Criminal complaint filed before EOW Cell along with email dated 07.01.2025 against Saurav Gera is Mark DW1/2 (colly).Digitally signed by KIRAN
KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.18 15:28:47 +0530 CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.10 of 27 Thereafter, DE was closed after recording separate statement of defendant in this regard.
JUDGEMENTS RELIED UPON AND DISCUSSION
25. The ld. counsel for the defendant has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi HC in the case of Mohinder Kumar Gandhi vs Praveen Kumar RFA (Comm) no. 489 of 2025 decided on 07.10.2025 to contend that the plaintiff has failed to establish the delivery of the goods.
25.1. In the said case, the trial court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove the actual delivery of goods to the defendant as no signed delivery challans, transport receipts or acknowledgement slips were produced. It is was also held by the Hon'ble HC that the GST returns and e-way bills were also held inadequate in absence of independent proof of delivery.
25.2. In this case, the Hon'ble HC has rejected the reliance of the plaintiff on another judgement of Hon'ble HC in case of Sanjana Aggarwal vs Namoshivai Apparels Pvt Ltd 2024: DHC: 9987 and held that in that case, the court had led to the conclusion that e-way bills would amount to proof of delivery as there were other supporting documents to prove the delivery of goods. However, in Mohinder Gandhi (Supra) as observed by Hon'ble HC mere e-way bills would not amount to proof of delivery if there are no other supporting documents to prove the delivery of the goods.
25.3. Thus, in light of above, it will have to be seen whether the plaintiff has proved the delivery of the goods in the present case.
The court has heard arguments advanced by ld. counsels for plaintiff and defendant. The court has also perused the written submissions and Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.12.18 15:28:57 +0530 CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.11 of 27 additional submission filed by the ld. counsel for the defendant. The court has thoroughly perused the record of the case.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
26. On the basis of the evidence produced, arguments advanced and the perusal of the record, the issue wise findings are as follows:
ISSUE NO. 1: WHETHER THE PRESENT SUIT HAS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION TO TRY AND DECIDE THE PRESENT SUIT? OPD
27. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. Inadvertently, at the time of framing of the issues two errors have occurred, in as much as, the issue framed should have been whether the present court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? However, instead of word 'court' the word 'suit' was mentioned and instead of framing the issue in negative, the issue was framed whether the present court has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit. As the onus was placed upon the defendant regarding the issue, the issue framed was "whether the present court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit", however, as the error committed at the time of framing of issues was inadvertent and does not impact on the material outcome of the present suit, same are ignored. Also, ld. counsel for defendant has submitted that he does not wish to press this issue. However, since the issue was framed, it would be appropriate to decide this issue.
28. According to the plaintiff, the present court has territorial jurisdiction of the present court as the plaintiff has its registered office at 6/58, Gali No. 3, Bhishm Marg, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi- 110032, within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Moreover, the defendant has also placed the purchased orders at above said office of the plaintiff. Furthermore, it is KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.12.18 15:29:05 +0530 CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.12 of 27 submitted by the plaintiff that defendant has paid all the previous payments at the plaintiff's bank situated within territorial jurisdiction of the present court.
29. The law related to the jurisdiction is governed by Sections 15 to 20 of Code of Civil Procedure. Section 15 - 18 CPC deals with the jurisdiction in cases concerning immovable property. Section 19 CPC deals with suit for compensation for wrong to person and movable property. Section 20 CPC is a residuary clause which provides that the suit can be filed where a) defendant resides or work for gain or carries his business; b) where there are more than one defendants, any of the defendant voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally work for gain provided either leave of court is granted or other defendants have acquiesced in the jurisdiction and lastly c) where the cause of action arises.
30. The Hon'ble SC in the case of Arcadia Shipping Ltd vs Tata Steel Limited and Anr SLP (Civil) No. 8488 of 2024 decided on 16.11.2024 has observed as follows:
"Section 20(c) of the Code accords dominus litis to the plaintiff to institute a suit within local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part arises.10 Every suit is based upon the cause of action, and the situs of the cause of action, even in part, will confer territorial jurisdiction on the court. The expression 'cause of action' can be given either a restrictive or wide meaning. However, it is judicially read to mean - every fact that the plaintiff should prove to support their right to the judgment."
31. In case of M/s Shree Balajee Enterprises And Anr vs M/s Mahashian Di Hatti (MDH) Pvt Ltd CM (M) 926/2025 decided on 10.11.2025, Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.12.18 15:29:13 +0530 CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.13 of 27 the Hon'ble Delhi HC has held that on the basis of the principle of 'Debtor Seeks Creditor', the court was held to have territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble court is as follows:
"7. It is trite that while dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court must read the plaint as a whole, taking into consideration the content and not just form of the pleadings. At the cost of repetition, it needs to be kept in mind that the respondent/plaintiff specifically pleaded that its registered office is in Delhi and the petitioners/defendants made part payment in Kirti Nagar Branch, New Delhi account of respondent/plaintiff with State Bank of India. In similar circumstances, the coordinate benches of this court in the cases of Auto Movers (supra) and R.T. Construction (supra) after detailed discussion held that since on account of part payment in Delhi, cause of action partly arose in Delhi, courts in Delhi do not lack territorial jurisdiction to try the suit."
32. The plaintiff has filed one bank account statement (Ex. PW-1/E) of his firm maintained at Union Bank of India at Vishwas Nagar. The perusal of the bank account statement reveals that the defendant has made part payments to the plaintiff in this bank account which is located within the territorial jurisdiction of the present court. Thus, it can be said that the present court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit on the basis of principle of 'Debtor seeks creditor' as the part payments were made by the defendant to the plaintiff in the bank situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.
Accordingly, issue no. (i) is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Digitally signedKIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.12.18 15:29:22 +0530 CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.14 of 27 ISSUE NO. 2: WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED FOR MONEY DECREE? IF SO, TO WHAT AMOUNT? OPP
33. 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 the Commercial Courts Act as the transaction between the parties was commercial and the amount claimed is more than Rs. 3 Lacs i.e. the specified value fixed for the Commercial Courts and hence, this court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit.
34. Plaintiff has also duly complied with mandatory provision of Pre- Institution Mediation and Conciliation as provided in Section 12 A of Commercial Courts Act, as the non-starter report dated 24.11.2022 Ex. PW-1/I which mentions the reason as "Opposite party did not provide any consent/ mediation fee to participate in the process of Pre- Institution Mediation despite service of the notices via e-mail for 14.11.2022 and 24.11.2022 on the e-mail id [email protected] reported to be served. Notices issued to the opposite parties through speed post remained unserved with the report Insufficient Address for opposite party no. 1 on all the addresses and remained unserved with the report Addressee left without instructions for opposite party no. 2 on the 1st address and reported to be served on the 2nd address of the opposite party
2. Affidavit for online service was provided by the Applicant on 01.11.2022. Hnece, Non-Starter Report issued."
35. As far as the territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the same has already dealt in issue no. 1 and the same is not repeated here for sake of brevity.
36. As far as the limitation is concerned, the last sale is of 07.04.2021 and defendant has lastly made a part payment of Rs. 2,25,000/- in the bank account of the plaintiff on 07.04.2021. The period of limitation for filing the Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.12.18 15:29:34 +0530 CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.15 of 27 present suit is 3 years. The plaintiff has also complied with mandatory requirement of Pre- Institution Mediation provided under Section 12A of The Commercial Courts Act. Therefore, the period from 13.10.2022 to 24.11.2022 is liable to be excluded in view of proviso to section 12(3) of The Commercial Courts Act for the time consumed in Pre- Institution Mediation. Thus, the present suit being filed on 02.03.2023 is filed within the prescribed period of three years.
37. The main defence of the defendant is that defendant never had any business relations with the plaintiff and that he has never received any goods from the plaintiff. Moreover, the defendant has stated that operational and financial affairs of the defendant's business were being unknowingly and exclusively managed by the defendant's brother Mr. Saurav Gera without knowledge of the defendant.
38. In this regard, reference can be made to Mark DW1/1 i.e. GST registration of Mr. Saurav Gera. Perusal of the same reveals that the name of the firm of Mr. Saurav Gera is GEM POLYMERS which is a proprietorship firm having GSTIN/ UIN 07AWFPG5250R2Z3. The firm of Mr. Saurav Gera has its principal place of business at Floor Ground, Plot No. 211, Pkt I Sec 5 DSIDC Bawana DSIDC Sec 5 DSIDC, New Delhi, North West Delhi, Delhi 110039.
39. On the other hand, the invoices (Ex PW-1/ D1 to Ex. PW-1/ D46) raised by the plaintiff to the defendant bears the name of the defendant firm as 'Gem Polyvinyl Industries' having office at C-71, Sec- 5, Bawana Industrial Area having GSTIN/ UIN 07ARTPG4901E1ZV. Therefore, it can be seen that both the firms are different and have different registration details and are not same entity.
Digitally signedKIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.12.18 15:29:43 +0530 CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.16 of 27
40. Moreover, the defendant in his cross examination has deposed that he was having business dealings with the plaintiff prior to 2020. The relevant part of the cross is as follows:
"It is correct to state that before 2020, I and plaintiff were engaged in business and regularly goods were purchased from the plaintiff and payments were made to the plaintiff."
40.1. Thus, the stand of the defendant in his WS that he never had any business dealings with the plaintiff is liable to be rejected being contradicted from his own testimony.
41. Moreover, another contention of the defendant is that his brother, Mr. Saurav Gera had dealt with the plaintiff and the defendant has no concern with the said transaction. It is stated by the defendant that he was suffering from illness during the period of covid 19 pandemic and that he did not went to his factory during that time. The relevant cross of the DW-1 is as follows:
"I was suffering from illness during the period of covid- 19 pandemic. During the aforesaid period, I did not went to my factory. My factory was operational, but, the plant was not working and there was no outward as well as inward supply."
42. However, this testimony of the DW-1 is not supported by any documentary evidence produced by the defendant. Another defence taken by the defendant is that all the operational and financial affairs of the defendant's business were being knowingly or unknowingly dealt by the brother of the defendant Mr. Saurav Gera and that defendant has no knowledge and privity of contract.
Digitally signed by KIRANKIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.18 15:29:54 +0530 CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.17 of 27
43. As discussed above, the firm M/s Gem Polyvinyl Industries having GSTIN 07ARTPG4901E1ZV is registered under the name of the defendant. Even if, for the sake of the arguments it is considered that defendant's brother was handling all the affairs of the defendant's firm, then also it cannot be taken as a shield to evade his legal liability. Moreover, the plaintiff in his cross examination has deposed that brother of the defendant used to come and represent on behalf of the defendant's firm to take follow up regarding the delivery of goods. The relevant part of the cross examination is as follows:
"I know Sh. Saurav Gera as he used to come and represent on behalf of defendant's firm to take follow up regarding he delivery of goods supplied by us. I do not have separate business transaction with Sh. Saurav Gera."
44. At the most, even if the plea of the defendant is taken to be true, the role of the defendant's brother is only that of an agent of the defendant as he was dealing on behalf of defendant. Even then the defendant will be liable for the acts as in cases of proprietorship firm, the sole legal liability will be of proprietor of the firm and not of anyone else.
45. It is also pertinent to mention here that if this was the case, the defendant should have summoned Mr. Saurav Gera as his witness. Moreover, the defendant in his list of witnesses has provided name of Mr. Saurav Gera as his witness but has not examined him as witness. Moreover, the plaintiff in his cross examination has stated that the defendant used to call through his mobile no. 9899399475. Perusal of the Bank account statement filed by the plaintiff i.e. Ex. PW-1/E reveals that two times on 17.09.2020, the defendant has made the payment from same mobile no. Therefore, if the defendant has made payment from same mobile number, thus, it cannot be said that defendant was not having Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.12.18 15:30:06 +0530 CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.18 of 27 business relation or he was not aware of any transactions. Therefore, this plea of the defendant is not proved as no evidence in this regard was led.
46. The suit of the plaintiff cannot be decreed merely because of the fact that defence of the defendant is not proved. The suit of the plaintiff has to stand on its own leg and has to be proved by the evidences led by him. It is stated by the plaintiff that the defendant used to place purchase order through his mobile number and no purchase order was ever placed in writing to him. The relevant cross examination of the plaintiff is as follows:
"I have first met Gaurav Gera in my office at Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara in the year 2015-2016. Sh. Gaurav Gera used to place purchase orders through telephonic calls only. He used to call through his mobile number 9899399475. (Vol. He also used to call from different numbers). No purchase order was ever placed in writing to me."
47. The plaintiff in his cross examination has also stated that the goods supplied by him was taken by the transporters arranged by the defendant and they used to take receiving of the goods from the defendants firm. The relevant part of the cross examination of PW-1 is as follows:
"I used to send the original Invoice alongwith the Transporter who used to take the receiving from the defendant's firm at the location of defendant's factory. It is wrong to suggest that the transporter was arranged by the plaintiff's firm only. There is no provision of Builty/ GR Receipts in our trade as the Transporter is always arranged by the defendant. The information regarding the Transporter was received by me over the call only and no Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.18 15:30:15 +0530 CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.19 of 27 communication was done through whatsapp or email. The calls were made by Sh. Gaurav Gera."
48. The testimony of the PW-1 stands corroborated by the invoices filed by the plaintiff (Ex. PW1/D1 to Ex. PW1/D46) as it also mentions under the column 'Terms of Delivery' as 'Transporter arranged and paid by the buyer '. So far as the fact of receiving on the signature is concerned, the PW-1 in his cross has stated that the invoices might be signed by the staff of the defendant. The relevant part of the cross examination of PW-1 is as follows:
"At this stage, witness is shown Ex. PW1/D1 to Ex. PW1/D46, witness states that he cannot tell if any of the invoices have receiving of Sh. Gaurav Gera. Invoice no. PC/20-21/307, at page no. 34 bears the signature of Yogesh who may be the staff of the defendant, however, I do not know at which place Yogesh has the signed the same. I do not identified the signatures on the rest of Invoices, However, they might belong to the staff of the defendant."
49. Even the defendant in his cross examination has admitted that in his personal absence the acknowledgement was given by any person in his factory for every inward supply. The relevant cross of DW-1 is as follows:
"There used to instances, where goods were supplied, as well as received in my personal absence. It is correct to state that on each and every occasion of inward supply acknowledgement of the receipt was given. It is correct to state that in my absence acknowledgement was given by any person in my factory."
50. Thus, the testimony of the PW-1 stands corroborated by the defendant as the goods have been received by the staff of the defendant.
KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 15:30:23 Date: 2025.12.18 +0530 CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.20 of 27 Moreover, it is also not a requirement that the acknowledgment of the receiving of goods should be given by the buyer himself and not his staff.
51. Moreover, the invoices are duly supported by the e-way bills generated and it mentions place of dispatch as Vishwas Nagar and place of delivery as 'Near Vardhman Mall Plot no. 70 Pocket F Sector 05 Bawana Delhi- 110039'. However, the defendant has argued that the e- way bills are not proof of delivery and it is a mere document regarding Tax calculation. In this regard, he has also placed reliance on judgement of Hon'ble Delhi HC in Mohinder Kumar Gandhi vs Praveen Kumar (supra) wherein it was observed that the mere filing of Tax Invoices does not prove the delivery of the goods as statutory presumption under Rule 138 (12) of CGST Rules is solely for the purpose of tax administration and compliance. The Hon'ble HC has also distinguished the case of Sanjana Agarwal vs Namashivai Apparel Pvt Ltd 2024:DHC:9987 as in Sanjana Aggarwal, other corroborating evidences were produced by the plaintiff to prove the delivery. On the other hand, in Mohinder Kumar Gandhi (Supra), the plaintiff was not able to prove the factum of delivery of goods at first place rather there were various contradictions in the testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses. Therefore, the Hon'ble HC has held that solely on the basis of the e- way bills, the delivery of goods can not be proved.
52. However, in the present case, the invoices bears the signatures of persons who had received the goods on behalf of defendant. Also, the plaintiff has not only produced the e-way bills but have also filed bank account statement (Ex. PW-1/ E). The perusal of the bank account statement reveals that the plaintiff has received several payments from the account of M/s Gem Polyvinyl Industries on various occasions and the same are also duly reflected with the ledger account maintained by the plaintiff. Perusal of the same reveals that the payments pertains to the period 2020- 2021 during which the goods KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.12.18 15:30:31 +0530 CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.21 of 27 were being sold to the defendant as revealed from the invoices (Ex. PW-1/D1 to Ex. PW-1/D46). Moreover, the payments are being received from the account of the defendant's firm and not from the firm of defendant's brother (M/s Gem Polymers). Furthermore, the defendant has not filed any bank account statement to show that he has not made any payment to the plaintiff during the above said period. Therefore, the plea of the defendant that he was not aware about any of the transaction can not be said to accepted.
53. Moreover, on the basis of the above discussion the reliance of the defendant upon the judgement of Mohinder Kumar Gandhi vs Praveen Kumar (Supra) is not correct as being distinguishable on the facts in as much as in Mohinder Gandhi's case, the plaintiff has not produced any other document in support of the delivery of the goods and there were various contradictions in the testimony of the plaintiff witnesses. However, in the present case, the plaintiff has duly proved the delivery of the goods by producing the invoices bearing the signature of person who had received the goods on behalf of defendant and e- way bills which are corroborated by the bank account statement. Moreover, the testimony of the plaintiff is corroborated by the defendant himself qua the acknowledgement of the goods received by his staff. Therefore, the plaintiff has also duly proved the delivery of the goods. If the defence of the defendant was that he was not having transaction with the plaintiff then he should have called someone from his office to prove his case that no one from their office had received any goods from the plaintiff, but the defendant has failed to produce any evidence to prove that the goods were not received by him. Mere verbal assertions that he was not going to the factory and ever transaction was conducted by his brother without any documentary evidence would not absolve him from the liability.
Digitally signedKIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.12.18 15:30:39 +0530 CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.22 of 27
54. The defendant has also relied upon the complaint (Mark DW 1/2) dated 02.01.2025 against his brother Saurav Gera. The complaint filed by the defendant can not be considered while dealing with his defence as it does not bear any proof of sending it to any authority as neither any postal receipts has been filed nor any receiving is present on the complaint. Moreover, the complaint is dated 02.01.2025 i.e. it is filed after much delay and no reason for the same has been explained by the defendant. Even perusal of the para 3 of the said complaint reveals that till 2021 the defendant admittedly was dealing with all the parties and handling all the operational and financial affairs. However, after that the brother of the defendant joined the same business. If this is also considered as truth, then also the transactions of the plaintiff and defendant is of 2020 and 2021 and last sale is of 07.04.2021. Thus, even by this complaint it is clear that defendant was dealing with the plaintiff on his own. Therefore, now defendant can not evade his liability by contending that his brother was involved and that he had no transaction with the plaintiff.
55. The ld. counsel for the defendant has also argued that the ledger filed by the plaintiff is incomplete as it starts with an opening balance of Rs. 66,92,664.38/- which exceeds the principal sum claimed i.e. Rs. 64,82,719/-. Thus, the said ledger account can not be taken into consideration. However, this contention of the defendant is liable to be rejected as the Defendant himself has admitted during his cross examination that he and plaintiff were having business relations prior to 2020. The ledger (Ex. PW-1/C) filed by the plaintiff starts from 01.04.2020. So, if the defendant questions the reliability of the ledger on the basis of the opening balance, then the defendant ought to have filed his own ledger account to show that nothing outstanding was payable to the plaintiff. Moreover, the defendant has not raised this plea even in his WS and is raised for the first time in the written arguments filed by the defendant. Therefore, this Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.12.18 15:30:51 +0530 CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.23 of 27 plea of the defendant can not be considered as defendant himself has failed to file ledger maintained by him.
56. As far as the payment received is concerned, the plaintiff in his cross examination has deposed that the payment used to be received by way of bank transfer as well as through cheque, which were bounced. The relevant part of the cross examination of PW-1 is as follows:
"I never used to received any post dated cheques from the defendant. (Vol. Sometimes the payment has been received by way of online transfer (RTGS) and sometimes by way of cheque). Again said, the payment which were received by way pf cheques were post dated cheques. I do not remember the number, but, few cheques given by the defendant were bounced. The cheques used to deliver by Sh. Gaurav Gera sometimes in his factory and sometimes he used to call at Metro station. I have never personally received any cheque as my staff used to deal with him to collect the cheques. My staff member, namely, Subodh and other employees, I do not remember the exact name who collected the cheques from Gaurav Gera. Subodh is still working in my factory."
57. Perusal of the cheques (Ex. PW-1/F) reveals that the cheques were issued from the account of M/s Gem Polyvinyl Industries which is the firm of the defendant and are duly signed by the defendant. Thus, the plea of the defendant that the no payment was made by the defendant to the plaintiff could not be said to be valid since the cheques were issued by M/s Gem Polyvinyl Industries, the liability will be of proprietor of the firm.
Digitally signed by KIRANKIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.18 15:30:59 +0530 CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.24 of 27
58. It is also important to refer that the plaintiff has duly proved the cheques (Ex. PW-1/F) issued by the defendant for discharge of his liability. There are total of 18 cheques which are filed by the plaintiff. However, there are two cheques which are dated 07.05.2020 and 17.05.2020. The cheques pertain to the period of which the defendant has claimed that he was not having any business relations with the plaintiff. The defendant has also submitted that the cheques were given by his brother and not by him. However, this plea of the defendant seems to be an afterthought and merely to evade his legal liability as there are total of 18 cheques issued by the defendant and it can not be comprehended that as many as 18 signed cheques of various dates were in possession of the brother of the defendant. Moreover, the defendant has not examined his brother as a witness to prove this contention, though, his name was cited as a witness in the list of witnesses initially. Therefore, even this plea is not proved by the defendant.
59. The contention of the defendant that he has not received the goods from the plaintiff is also liable to be rejected as the signatures of the defendant similar to the signatures on the cheques, WS, Affidavits etc. can also be found on invoice dated 22.07.2020. Therefore, the goods against invoice dated 22.07.2020 have been acknowledged to have been received by the defendant himself. Therefore, the plea that he has not received the goods is liable to be rejected.
60. The plaintiff has also summoned PW-2 who has proved the GSTR-2B and GSTR-3B of M/s Gem Polyvinyl Industries for the financial year 2020 - 2021 and 2021-2022 and PW-3 who has proved the GSTR-1 of M/s Prakash Chemical for the period April 2020 to August 2020. Perusal of the same reveals that all the invoices filed by the plaintiff are duly reflected in the GST records. Thus, the defendant cannot contend that he has not received the goods Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.18 15:31:10 +0530 CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.25 of 27 as the same are duly reflected on his GST portal. Moreover, the defendant has not produced any document to rebut these documents.
61. As far as the payment is concerned, the plaintiff has filed the bank account statement (Ex. PW-1/E) which reflects the payments made by the defendant and the same are also corroborated by the ledger. On the other hand, the defendant has not filed any proof that he has discharged his outstanding liability. Therefore, on the basis of the invoices and e-way bills (Ex. PW-1/D1 to Ex. PW-1/D46), Bank account statement (Ex. PW-1/E) and GST documents (Ex. PW-2/A and Ex. PW-2/B), the plaintiff has duly proved the delivery of the goods, receiving of the goods and non payment of the goods received. Thus, the plaintiff has duly discharged his burden of proof on basis of pre-ponderance of probabilities. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to principal amount of Rs. 64,82,719/-.
Issue no. (ii) is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 3: WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO ANY INTEREST? IF SO, AT WHAT RATE AND FOR WHICH PERIOD? OPP
62. The plaintiff has claimed pre-suit interest @ 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 64, 82, 719/-. Moreover, the plaintiff is also claiming pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum. However, on the invoices there is stipulation of interest to be charged at 24% per annum. It is a settled law that such unilaterally appended terms of a invoice are not legally binding and the interest can not be charged at such an exorbitant rate.
63. Moreover, the plaintiff in his cross examination has admitted that he had no agreement with the defendant's firm regarding interest to be charged. The relevant part of the cross of PW-1 is as follows: Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.18 15:31:17 +0530 CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.26 of 27 "I do not have any agreement with defendant's firm regarding the interest charged @ 18% by me in the present suit."
64. Since there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant for the interest to be charged at 18% p.a., the plaintiff could not have charged interest at such an exorbitant rate. However, it is equally important to note that since the plaintiff has proved that he is entitled to the principal amount, he would be entitled to interest at reasonable rate. Thus, in the interest of justice the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 10% pa. from 07.04.2021 till its realization.
Issue no. (iii) is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 4: RELIEF
65. In view of foregoing reasons, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a principal amount of Rs. 64,82,719/- along with interest @ 10% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.64,82,719/- from 07.04.2021, till its realization and cost to the extent of court fees and Rs.2,00,000/- as litigation expenses.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Digitally signed by File be consigned to record room. KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.18 15:31:25 +0530 Announced in the open court (Kiran Bansal) on 18.12.2025 District Judge, Commercial Court-02 Shahdara, Karkardooma Delhi/18.12.2025 CS(COMM) NO. 106/2023 MR. KOMAL PRASAD SINGHAL Versus MR. GAURAV GERA Page No.27 of 27