Delhi District Court
Pankaj Sachdeva vs Taruna Bansal on 9 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL, DISTRICT JUDGE,
COMMERCIAL COURT-02, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS(COMM) NO. 486/2024
INDEX
SI. NOS. HEADINGS PAGE
NOS.
1. Memo of Parties 2
2. Plaint 3-5
3. Written Statement & 5-7
Replication
4. Admission/Denial and 7-8
Issues framed
5. Plaintiff's Evidence 8-11
6. Defendant's Evidence 11-12
7. Issue-wise findings 12-25
8. Relief 25-26
Digitally signed
by KIRAN
KIRAN BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2026.01.09
15:37:03 +0530
CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal Page No. 1 of 26
MEMO OF PARTIES
In the matter of :
Sh. Pankaj Sachdeva
S/o Sh. Shyam Lal Sachdeva
Proprietor of M/s New Hanu Creation
(Formerly known as M/s Shree Guruji
Garments & M/s Hanu Creation)
R/o. K-70, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-110051
Office at:
IX/6169, Corner Shop,
Jain Mandir Gali, Pratap Gali,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031
Mob. +91-9811252343
.....Plaintiff
VERSUS
Smt. Taruna Bansal
W/o Sh. Deepak Goyal
Proprietor M/s Taruna Textiles
Office at:
Ground Floor, WZ-1819,
Multani Maholla, Rani Bagh,
Saraswati Vihar, North West,
Delhi-110034
Also at:-
756/17, First Floor,
Subham Market, Katra Neel,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006
Also at:-
673, Second Floor,
Gali Ganteshwar Katra Neel,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006
Mob. +91-9971068221
....Defendant
Digitally signed
KIRAN by KIRAN
BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.01.09
15:37:10 +0530
CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal Page No. 2 of 26
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 13.09.2024
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 12.11.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 09.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. At the outset, the present suit was initially filed under Order 37 CPC as summary suit. However, on the statement of the counsel for plaintiff, the present suit was treated as an ordinary commercial suit vide order dated 17.09.2024 and summons for the commercial suit were issued to the defendant vide order dated 22.10.2024.
PLAINT
2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.94,43,911/- along with pendente lite and future interest stating that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of Ladies Readymade Garments under the name and style of "M/s New Hanu Creation" (formerly known as M/s Shree Guruji Garments & M/s Hanu Creation) having registered office as stated in the memo of parties. It is also stated that defendant is running the business of readymade garments and as per order placed by defendant, plaintiff supplied ladies readymade garments to the defendant.
3. It is further submitted that defendant had returned some of the materials supplied by the plaintiff and in respect of the same, debit note was issued and defendant made some part payments to the plaintiff in respect of the goods supplied and the transactions between the plaintiff and defendant are as per the ledger account of defendant being maintained by the plaintiff. The details of the invoices as well as part payment made by defendant and return Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.09 15:37:16 +0530 CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal Page No. 3 of 26 materials along with the consolidated transactions and ledger are at page no.5, 6, 7 and 8 of the plaint and are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
4. It is submitted that plaintiff and defendant agreed that goods once sold will not be accepted back or exchanged and it was also made clear that if the payment is not made within the credit period of 30 days, then defendant shall be liable to pay interest of 24% p.a. to plaintiff. It is further stated that as per ledger, Rs.69,17,559/- is outstanding as principal and Rs.25,26,352/- is interest. Thus, the total amount of Rs.94,43,911/- is outstanding and due towards the defendant.
5. It is stated that plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant on 14.05.2024 and called upon the defendant to clear the above said outstanding amount. Thereafter, plaintiff approached Shahdara District Legal Services Au- thority for pre-institution mediation along with appropriate application and thereafter, a non-starter report dated 23.07.2024 was issued.
6. Cause of action is stated to have arisen when the defendant con- tacted the plaintiff for supply of materials on credit basis and when the defen- dant placed order for the purchase of goods/ladies readymade garments as per demand on credit basis. Further cause of action stated to have arisen when the defendant made part payment to the plaintiff on different occasion. It is further stated to have arisen when legal notice was issued to the defendant dt. 14.05.2024 to clear the outstanding amount. Cause of action further stated to have arisen when Non-starter report was issued.
7. It is stated that the present court has territorial jurisdiction as the goods were supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant from the office of the plaintiff and the defendant has taken delivery of goods. The part payments Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.09 15:37:22 +0530 CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal Page No. 4 of 26 were also received within the jurisdiction of the present Court and therefore, the present Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit. It is also stated that the suit is filed within the period of limitation.
8. Plaintiff thus, has prayed for a decree for an amount of Rs.94,43,911/- along with pendente lite and future interest @24% per annum along with cost of the suit. Plaint is accompanied with the affidavit of AR of plaintiff as well as his statement of truth, certificate u/s 63 of BSA, 2023.
9. Summons of the suit were directed to be issued and defendant ap- peared through counsel and filed WS along with application for condonation of delay, statement of truth, affidavit of admission/denial etc. Thereafter, appli- cation for condonation of delay was allowed and WS along with statement of truth etc. are taken on record. Thereafter, matter was posted for admission/de- nial and settlement of issued.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
10. The defendant in the WS has stated that the present court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit and the same is liable to be dismissed. The defendant has stated that the plaintiff has issued vague in- voices in the name of the defendant from 21.07.2023 onwards without supply- ing the goods through these invoices which range from the invoice dated 21.07.2023 to invoice dated 27.02.2024 and the plaintiff has malafidely placed vague rubber stamp of the defendant upon these invoices. Defendant has fur- ther stated that the plaintiff has even placed vague signature of the defendant on these invoices and this fact is evident from the ledger filed by the plaintiff on record which shows that the prior to the invoice dated 21.07.2023, the plaintiff had lastly supplied the goods to the defendant on 26.02.2020 and the outstanding balance was Rs.16,20,510.77/- as on 15.09.2021. As per the defen-
Digitally signedKIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 15:37:28 Date: 2026.01.09 +0530 CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal Page No. 5 of 26 dant by no stretch of imagination it can be believed that plaintiff would have supplied goods worth more than Rs.65,00,000/- in the year 2023 to 2024 to the defendant from whom he had to allegedly recover Rs.16,20,510.77/-. It is also stated that defendant has never gained input of the invoices from 21.07.2023 to 27.02.2024 from the GST Department. Defendant has further stated that she has lodged a complaint with the GST Department and also filed a complaint with the concerned Police Station and a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.PC. in the Court of Ld. JMFC. It is further submitted that plaintiff has claimed interest at an exorbitant rate of interest @24% per annum in the suit. Defendant has further stated that initially on the invoices which were issued by the plaintiff from his earlier firm M/s Shree Guruji Garments till 05.03.2019, there was no condition of payment of interest but when the plaintiff started is- suing invoice from his new firm namely "M/s Hanu Creation", he inserted term of interest though, the same was never accepted by the defendant. It is further submitted that it was the plaintiff who approached the defendant at her office after knowing her reputation in the trade and offered to start business with her and her husband. It is further submitted that defendant never pur- chased goods on credit basis and paid the invoice amounts to the plaintiff on time. It is further averred that neither there was any contract between the plain- tiff and the defendant with respect to paying of interest at any rate whatsoever nor there occurred any occasion wherein the defendant is liable to pay interest.
10.1 It is further submitted that plaintiff has issued vague invoices w.e.f. 21.07.2023 without supplying any goods to the defendant against the same. It is also stated that the accounts between them were cleared in the month of September, 2021 and nothing remained outstanding against the de- fendant by the plaintiff. It is also stated that certain defective material was also returned by the defendant and plaintiff was to issue credit notes, but never did Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.09 15:37:34 +0530 CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal Page No. 6 of 26 the same. It is further submitted that there is no cause of action for filing the suit and further submitted that defendant was never served with the notice from the DLSA. It is further submitted that the suit is not maintainable and the present suit is filed on the basis of vague bills or completely based on false and concocted facts and the same is liable to be dismissed with cost.
REPLICATION
11. Plaintiff has filed replication, wherein it is stated that the de- fence of the defendant is vague, sham and evasive and is liable to be rejected. It is also stated that defendants have not come with clean hands which cannot be maintained at all in the eye of law. It is further submitted that plaint of the plaintiff is as per the Commercial Courts Act. It is further submitted that plain- tiff has no knowledge that whether any case/complaint case u/s 156(3) Cr.PC has been filed or not as no such notice is received regarding the complaint case from the EO/PS. It is further submitted that the suit was converted into ordi- nary suit vide separate statement made by the plaintiff. It is denied that there was no contract between the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to paying of interest. Prayer has been made that suit be decreed in terms of prayer of the suit.
ADMISSION/DENIAL
12. The defendant in his affidavit of admission/denial of documents has admitted the following documents of the plaintiff i.e.,
1. Internet Generated details of GST of defendant is Ex.P1;
2. Office copy of sale invoice No. SGJ001117/17-18 is Ex.P2;
3. Office copy of sale invoice No. SGJ00330/18-19 is Ex.P3;
4. Office copy of sale invoice No. SGJ00421/18-19 is Ex.P4;
5. Office copy of sale invoice No. SGJ00422/18-19 is Ex.P5;
6. Office copy of sale invoice No. SGJ00495/18-19 is Ex.P6;
KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.09 15:37:42 +0530 CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal Page No. 7 of 26
7. Office copy of sale invoice No. SGJ00546/18-19 is Ex.P7;
8. Office copy of sale invoice No. SGJ00670/18-19 is Ex.P8;
9. Office copy of sale invoice No. HC00102/19-20 is Ex.P9;
10. Office copy of sale invoice No. HC00105/19-20 is Ex.P10;
11. Office copy of sale invoice No. HC00107/19-20 is Ex.P11;
12. Office copy of sale invoice No. HC00106/19-20 is Ex.P12;
13. Office copy of sale invoice No. HC00117/19-20 is Ex.P13;
14. Office copy of sale invoice No. HC00125/19-20 is Ex.P14;
15. Office copy of sale invoice No. HC00127/19-20 is Ex.P15;
16. Office copy of sale invoice No. HC00316/19-20 is Ex.P16;
17. Office copy of sale invoice No. HC00317/19-20 is Ex.P17;
18. Office copy of sale invoice No. HC00356/19-20 is Ex.P18.
On the other hand, plaintiff in his affidavit of admission/denial of documents has denied all the documents except two documents of defendant i.e.
19. Internet Generated Copy of Annual GST Ledger of the defendant is Ex.D1.
20. Correctness of Internet Generated Copy of GST details of plaintiff is admitted Ex.D2.
ISSUE FRAMED On the basis of pleadings of parties, following issues were framed for consideration:
I. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree? If so, to what amount? OPP.
II. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
III. Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
13. To achieve timely and expedient disposal in the present case, evidence was recorded by way of Ld. Court Commissioner as provided Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.09 CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal 15:37:51 +0530 Page No. 8 of 26 under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC and Order 15A Rule 6(l) CPC. In support of its case, plaintiff has examined Sh. Pankaj Sachdeva, Proprietor of M/s New Hanu Creation (formerly known as M/s Shree Guruji Garments & M/s Hanu Creation) as PW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1 and has relied upon the following documents:
Downloaded copy of the GST Certificate being issued by the Goods & Service Tax Department as Ex.PW1/A (Colly-12 pgs.); Internet generated GST details of the defendant being derived by the plaintiff from the official website of Goods & Serice Tax Department as Ex.PW1/B (Colly-5 pgs.);
Ledger account of the defendant being maintained by the plaintiff along with interest ledger as Ex.PW1/C (Colly-4 pgs.); Office copy of the invoices along with its supported e-way bills as Ex.PW1/D (Colly-74 pgs.);
Downloaded copy of GST Return filed by the plaintiff before the Goods and Service Tax Department for FY 2018-19, 2019-20, 2023-24 along with screenshot showing the sale made to the defendant as Ex.PW1/E (Colly-84 pgs.);
Office copy of the legal demand notice dt. 14.05.2024 issued by the plaintiff through his counsel to the defendant along with its original postal receipts & returned envelope as Ex.PW1/F (Colly-10 pgs.); Whatsapp screenshot as proof of service of legal demand notice as Ex.PW1/G (Colly-2 pgs.);
Certificate under Section 63 of BSA, 2023 in support of electronic documents as Ex.PW1/H;
Certificate under Order XI Rule 6(3) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in support of electronic document as Ex.PW1/I;Digitally signed
KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.09 15:37:57 +0530 CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal Page No. 9 of 26 Non-Starter Report dt. 23.07.2024 issued by the DSLSA, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi to the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/J.
14. Plaintiff further has summoned and examined one witness from GST Department i.e. Smt. Seema Rawat as PW2, GST Inspector, Vyapar Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002, who proved the following docu-
ments:
Authorization letter dt. 05.05.2025 as Ex.PW2/1;
Legal Entity documents of GST No-07AQOPB8728L1ZB (Proprietor Smt. Taruna Bansal, Trade Name M/s Taruna Textiles) as available on GST Portal has been exhibited as PW-2/2 (Total 1.3Pages).
Attested GSTR-3B, GSTR2B & GSTR2A return pertaining to July-2023 of GST No-07AQOPB8728L1ZB (Proprietor Smt. Taruna Bansal, Trade Name M/s Taruna Textiles) has been exhibited as PW-2/3 (Total 15 Pages).
Attested GSTR-3B, GSTR2B & GSTR2A return pertaining to August-2023 of GST No-07AQOPB8728L1ZB (Proprietor Smt. Taruna Bansal, Trade Name M/s Taruna Textiles) has been exhibited as PW-2/4 (Total 11 Pages).
Attested GSTR-3B, GSTR2B & GSTR2A return pertaining to January-2024 of GST No-07AQOPB8728L1ZB (Proprietor Smt. Taruna Bansal, Trade Name M/s Taruna Textiles) has been exhibited as PW-2/5 (Total 17 Pages).
Attested GSTR-3B, GSTR2B & GSTR2A return pertaining to Feb-2024 of GST No-07AQOPB8728L1ZB (Proprietor Smt. Taruna Bansal, Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.09 15:38:02 +0530 CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal Page No. 10 of 26 Trade Name M/s Taruna Textiles) has been exhibited as PW-2/6 (Total 17 Pages).
Certificate U/s 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2024 in support of electronic documents has been exhibited as EX-PW-2/7.
PW1 and PW2 were duly cross examined on behalf of defendant and thereafter, PE was closed on the statement of the proprietor of the plaintiff.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
15. On the other hand, the defendant has examined summoned wit- ness as DW1 namely Smt. Saroj Kumari, AVATO/GSTO, Ward-65, Vyapar Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110006, who proved the following docu- ments:
Copy of ID Card has been exhibited as DW-1/1(OSR).
Attested GSTR-1 for FY-2023-2024 of GST No-07AQOPB8728L1ZB (Proprietor Smt. Taruna Bansal, Trade Name M/s Taruna Textiles) have been exhibited as DW-1/2 (Total 46 Pages).
Attested GSTR-2A for FY-2023-2024 of GST No-07AQOPB8728L1ZB (Proprietor Smt. Taruna Bansal, Trade Name M/s Taruna Textiles) have been exhibited as DW-1/3 (Total 21 Pages).
Attested GSTR-3B for FY-2023-2024 of GST No-07AQOPB8728L1ZB (Proprietor Smt. Taruna Bansal, Trade Name M/s Taruna Textiles) have been exhibited as DW-1/4 (Total 36 Pages).
Attested Credit Note details for FY-2023-2024 of GST No-07AQOP- B8728L1ZB (Proprietor Smt. Taruna Bansal, Trade Name M/s Taruna Textiles) have been exhibited as DW-1/5 (Total 4 Pages).Digitally signed by KIRAN
KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.01.09 15:38:07 +0530 CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal Page No. 11 of 26 Attested GSTR-9 for FY-2023-2024 of GST No-07AQOPB8728L1ZB (Proprietor Smt. Taruna Bansal, Trade Name M/s Taruna Textiles) have been exhibited as DW-1/6 (Total 5 Pages).
Attested Electronic Credit Ledger & Balance & liability for FY-2023- 2024 of GST No-07AQOPB8728L1ZB (Proprietor Smt. Taruna Bansal, Trade Name M/s Taruna Textiles) have been exhibited as DW-1/7 (To- tal 3 Pages).
Certificate U/s 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2024 in support of electronic documents has been exhibited as EX-DW-1/8.
DW-1 was duly cross examined on behalf of defendant and there- after, DE was closed on the statement of the counsel for the defendant.
16. The court has gone through the testimony of PW1, PW2 and DW1 and gone through the documents proved on record. The court has also perused the record and considered the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for both the parties.
ISSUEWISE FINDINGS ISSUE No.I : Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree? If so, to what amount. OPP.
17. The onus of proving this issue was upon the plaintiff. The suit is commercial in nature and squarely falls within the purview of Section 2(1)(C) of Commercial Courts Act and plaintiff has also duly complied with mandatory provision of Pre-Institution Mediation and Conciliation as provided in Section 12 A of Commercial Courts Act. The suit was earlier filed as an ordinary suit but, later on it was treated as commercial suit vide order date 17.09.2024 on the statement of counsel for plaintiff.
KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.09 15:38:12 +0530 CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal Page No. 12 of 26
18. The plaintiff has also filed an application for pre-mediation litigation and the defendant did not participate in pre-institution mediation and thereafter, a non-starter report dated 23.07.2024 was issued with the reasons mentions as "Notices issued to the opposite party via online mode for 10.07.2024 and 23.07.2024 via whatsapp on the whatsapp number 8882324125, 9971068221 reported to be served. Notices via speed post for 05.06.2024 reported to be unserved with the report addressee left without instructions on the address 1, addressee moved on the 2 nd and 3rd address. Applicant filed affidavit for online service of notices on 07.06.2024. Hence, Non Starter Report Issued".
19. This court also has the pecuniary jurisdiction over the matter since the suit amount claimed by the plaintiff is more than the specified value of Rs.3 lacs of the Commercial Courts. The first invoice is dated 10.09.2017 and last invoice is dated 27.02.2024. The last payment as per ledger Ex.PW1/C is also on 15.09.2021. The plaintiff has also complied with Pre-institution Mediation Settlement and therefore time from 22.05.2024 to 23.07.2024 is also liable to be excluded from period of limitation. The period of limitation for recovery of money is three years, as prescribed by The Limitation Act, 1963. The present suit being instituted on 13.09.2024 is filed within period of limitation.
20. As far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the plaintiff has stated that the goods were supplied from his office and the payments have also been received within the territorial jurisdiction of the present Court and therefore, the present Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit. Counsel for defendant has argued that the place of business of the KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.09 15:38:18 +0530 CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal Page No. 13 of 26 defendant is not falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the present Court and therefore, the present Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit.
21. Regarding territorial jurisdiction, the relevant cross of PW-1 is reproduced herein below:
".....Question: - Whether you visited the office/shop of defendant or her husband before started business dealing with them? Answer: - I visited Goel Agency Business of husband of the defendant i.e. Sh. Deepak Goyal being run by him at Katra- Neel Chandni Chowk.
At the time of my first visit at the business place of Sh. Deepak Goyal, defendant was not present there.
Q. In para 5 of your affidavit you have stated that you had supplied readymade garments to the defendant. Can you tell the mode of supply of material to the defendant? Ans. Defendant used to visit my shop and after selecting the materials, defendant and her staff used to take away the materials. I do not remember the name of the staff of the defendant (Vol. Husband of the defendant also used to accompany her on some occasions). The defendant used to visit my shop i.e. IX/6169, Corner Shop, Pratap Gali, Jain Mandir Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031. This was a rented shop which I vacated in 2024. .....
Q. Have you ever received the purchase order from the defendant?
Ans. No. (Vol. Defendant used to visit my shop and she used to select the materials by her own).Digitally signed by KIRAN
KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.01.09 15:38:23 +0530 CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal Page No. 14 of 26 The materials I sold to the defendant was stored at my above- mentioned shop. The shop bearing no. IX/6169, Corner Shop, Pratap Gali, Jain Mandir Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031 was under my occupation since 2016.
.....
During July-August 2023 onwards, Defendant used to visit my shop and she used to select the materials by her own and used to take away the materials by her own......"
22. From the above cross, it is clear that the orders for purchase were placed at the shop of plaintiff and the goods were dispatched from the said shop, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the present Court. The e- way bills Ex.PW1/D also substantiate this fact that the goods were dispatched from Gandhi Nagar to the place of the defendant and therefore, the present Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit. Perusal of the invoices reveals that the bank account details of the plaintiff are also available on the invoice in which the defendant was to make the payment in respect of the goods received and therefore, the present Court also has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit on the basis of principle of "Debtor Seeks Creditor".
23. At the time of recording of evidence, the counsel for defendant had objected to the exhibiting of certain documents and the Ld. Court Commissioner had recorded that the objections are to be decided by the Court and therefore, the Court is first of all dealing with those objections.
24. Counsel for the defendant had objected to the exhibiting of the GST certificate Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B stating that the same are internet KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.09 15:38:29 +0530 CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal Page No. 15 of 26 generated copy and not originals. However, the internet generated details of the GST of the defendant have been admitted by the defendant in the affidavit of admission/denial. The Court fails to understand as to why counsel for defendant had objected to the said document Ex.PW1/B, at the time of exhibition during the chief examination of PW-1, when the same was an admitted document (Ex.P1).
24.1 As far as Ex.PW1/A is concerned, though the same is an internet generated copy, the plaintiff however, has filed a certificate under Order XI Rule 6(3) of CPC and the certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 in support of the electronic documents and the said certificates are Ex.PW1/I and Ex.PW1/H respectively. Counsel for defendant had also objected to the exhibiting of the office copy of the invoices along with the e-way bills Ex.PW1/D on the ground that the same are not original invoices. The original invoices would have been with the defendant as the same were supplied to the defendant as per the plaintiff. 24.2 Moreover, 17 invoices out of these invoices were admitted documents and were exhibited as Ex.P2 to Ex.P18 at the time of admission/denial and despite the fact that 17 invoices have been admitted by the defendant in her affidavit of admission/denial, still the counsel for defendant had objected to the exhibiting of all the invoices and the e-way bills on the ground that the same are not the original invoices. All the invoices bear the original stamp of the defendant's firm along with the signature of the recipient (most of the time of the defendant and sometime of some other person on behalf of defendant) acknowledging the receiving of the goods by the defendant. The said stamp is in original and the signature of the defendant or her husband or her employee are also in original on the said invoices. When the original stamp of the defendant along with the signature of the concerned person who has received the goods is available on the invoices, the Court fails Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.09 15:38:36 +0530 CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal Page No. 16 of 26 to understand as to how the objections could have raised by counsel for defendant stating that the same is not original. The said tax invoices clearly mentions that the same is a duplicate/triplicate copy for supplier, which was meant for supplier and bears the stamp of the defendant's firm along with the signature of the concerned person who has received the goods in original. This objections of the counsel for defendant is thus, devoid of any merit.
25. Exhibiting of the GST returns has also been objected by the counsel for defendant on the ground that the same are internet generated copies. As already observed, the plaintiff has filed relevant certificate under Section 63 of BSA, 2023 in support of the internet generated copies as well as the affidavit under Order XI Rule 6 CPC. The GST returns has also been proved by DW-1, who is summoned witness of the defendant. The objections raised by the counsel for defendant during exhibiting of the documents seems to have been raised only for the sake of it.
26. The PW-2, who is a summoned witness from GST department has brought GST registration of the defendant, GSTR- 3B, GSTR-2B and GSTR-2A for July 2023, August 2023, January 2024 and February 2024 of the defendant. On the other hand, the DW-1, who is also a summoned witness from GST Department has brought GSTR-1, GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B for the period 2023- 2024, attested Credit Note for 2023-2024 ad GSTR-9 for FY 2023-24. Perusal of the record reveals that the PW-2 has brought the abovesaid record only for the July-August 2023 and January-February 2024 and DW-1 has brought the said record from April 2023 till March 2024. Thus, GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B of the defendant for the month of July-August 2023 and January- February 2024 is common to both the witness. On the other hand, the GSTR-2B as brought by the PW-2 is for July and August 2023 and January and February 2024. The record bought by DW-1 i.e. GSTR-1, Attested credit Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.09 15:38:41 +0530 CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal Page No. 17 of 26 note for FY 2023-24 and GSTR-9 for FY 2023-24 is for the FY 2023-24 i.e. from April 2023 to March 2024.
27 The main defence of the defendant is that the invoices raised in the year 2023 are fake and no goods against the said invoice were delivered by the plaintiff and defendant has not taken any credit input regarding the same. However, this plea of the defendant is falsified by their own witness i.e. DW-1, the GST Inspector who has proved the record of the GSTR-2A, 3B, etc. pertaining to the defendant for the F.Y. 2023-2024 on-wards and has clearly stated that the defendant had taken complete credit input of the amount of GST available.
28. The chief examination of DW-1 and the relevant cross examination of DW-1 are reproduced herein below:
"Statement of DW-1 GST Officer namely Smt. Saroj Kumari, Emp. No. 218477 Office At Vyapar Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi-110002, Resident of N-85, Sec 12, Teacher Colony, Partap Vihar, Ghaziabad-201009 aged about 57 years, Mobile No. 9873100463.
On SA I have brought the summoned record which are exhibited as under: -
A. Copy of ID Card has been exhibited as DW-1/1(OSR).
B. Attested GSTR-1 for FY-2023-2024 of GST No-07AQOPB8728L1ZB (Proprietor Smt. Taruna Bansal, Trade Name M/s Taruna Textiles) have been exhibited as DW-1/2 (Total 46 Pages).
C. Attested GSTR-2A for FY-2023-2024 of GST No-07AQOPB8728L1ZB (Proprietor Smt. Taruna Bansal, Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.09 15:38:46 +0530 CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal Page No. 18 of 26 Trade Name M/s Taruna Textiles) have been exhibited as DW-1/3 (Total 21 Pages).
D. Attested GSTR-3B for FY-2023-2024 of GST No-07AQOPB8728L1ZB (Proprietor Smt. Taruna Bansal, Trade Name M/s Taruna Textiles) have been exhibited as DW-1/4 (Total 36 Pages).
E. Attested Credit Note details for FY-2023-2024 of GST No-07AQOPB8728L1ZB (Proprietor Smt. Taruna Bansal, Trade Name M/s Taruna Textiles) have been exhibited as DW-1/5 (Total 4 Pages).
F. Attested GSTR-9 for FY-2023-2024 of GST No-07AQOPB8728L1ZB (Proprietor Smt. Taruna Bansal, Trade Name M/s Taruna Textiles) have been exhibited as DW-1/6 (Total 5 Pages).
G. Attested Electronic Credit Ledger & Balance & liability for FY-2023-2024 of GST No-07AQOPB8728L1ZB (Proprietor Smt. Taruna Bansal, Trade Name M/s Taruna Textiles) have been exhibited as DW-1/7 (Total 3 Pages). H. Certificate U/s 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2024 in support of electronic documents has been exhibited as EX-DW-1/8.
XXXXXXXX by Sh. Sidhant Dhingra, Advocate for plaintiff.
I have no personal knowledge for the documents being brought Vol. I had brought the record as per the directions of Hon'ble Court.
Q. Can you please tell as to what was the ITC available & How much amount was claimed by the defendant i.e. M/s Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.01.09 15:38:51 +0530 CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal Page No. 19 of 26 Taruna Textile in July, 2023, August, 2023, January, 2024 & Feb, 20247 ?
Ans. In July, 2023, an amount of Rs. 42,885.74/- was available as ITC (CGST-21,442.87 & SGST 21,442.87) and the same was completely taken by her in July GSTR3B return.
In August, 2023, an amount of Rs. 6,815.16/- was available as ITC (CGST-3407.58 & SGST 3407.58) and the same was completely taken by her in July GSTR3B return. In January, 2024, an amount of Rs. 2,77,539.80/- was available as ITC (CGST-1,38,769.90 & SGST 1,38,769.90) and the same was completely taken by her in July GSTR3B return.
In February, 2024, an amount of Rs. 2,26,057.40/- was available as ITC (CGST-1,13,028.70 & SGST 1,13,028.70) and the same was completely taken by her in July GSTR3B return.
Q. Is it correct that there is purchase by defendant from plaintiff in July, 2023, August, 2023, January, 2024 & February, 2024 and ITC was available for the said purchase made by defendant from plaintiff?
Ans. Yes, It is correct."
29. The defendant herself has not stepped into the witness box and has not withstood the test of cross examination. In the case of Vidhydhar vs Manikrao AIR 1999 SC 1441, the Hon'ble SC has held that when a party to the suit does not state his case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.09 15:38:56 +0530 CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal Page No. 20 of 26 examined by other side, an adverse inference can be raised against that party. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble SC is as follows:
"Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy Council beginning from the decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh vs. Gurdial Singh and another, AIR 1927 Privy Council 230. This was followed by the Lahore High Court in Kirpa Singh vs. Ajaipal Singh and others, AIR 1930 Lahore 1 and the Bombay High Court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari vs. Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh, AIR 1931 Bombay 97. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter vs. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat, AIR 1970 Madhya Pradesh 225 also followed the Privy Council decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh's case (supra). The Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh vs. Virender Nath and another, AIR 1971 Allahabad 29 held that if a party abstains from entering the witness box, it would give rise to an inference adverse against him. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bhagwan Dass vs. Bhishan Chand and others, AIR 1974 Punjab & Haryana 7, drew a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box. Defendant No.1 himself was not a party to the transaction of sale between defendant No.2 and the plaintiff. He himself had no personal knowledge of the terms settled between defendant No.2 and the plaintiff. The transaction was not settled in his presence nor was KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.09 15:39:01 +0530 CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal Page No. 21 of 26 any payment made in his presence. Nor, for that matter, was he a scribe or marginal witness of that sale deed. Could, in this situation, defendant No.1 have raised a plea as to the validity of the sale deed on the ground of inadequacy of consideration or part-payment thereof. Defendant No.2 alone, who was the executant of the sale deed, could have raised an objection as to the validity. of the sale deed on the ground that it was without consideration or that the consideration paid to him was highly inadequate. But he, as pointed out earlier, admitted the claim of the plaintiff whose claim in the suit was based on the sale deed, executed by defendant No.2 in his favour. The property having been transferred to him, the plaintiff became entitled to all the reliefs which could have been claimed by defendant No.2 against defendant No.1 including redemption of the mortgaged property."
The Hon'ble SC in the case of Ishwar Bhai C. Patel & Bachu Bhai Patel vs Harihar Behera & Anr AIR 1999 SC 1341 (also referred to in Iqbal Baith and Ors vs N. Subbalakshmi and Ors Civil Appeal no. 1725 of 2010 decided by three judges bench of Hon'ble SC on 14.12.2020) has observed as follows:
"Having not entered into the witness box and having not presented himself for cross-examination, an adverse presumption has to be drawn against him on the basis of principles contained in illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Applying the principles stated above to the instant case, it would be found that in the instant case also the appellant had abstained from the witness box and had not made any statement on oath in support of his pleading set out in the written statement. An KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2026.01.09 15:39:07 +0530 CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal Page No. 22 of 26 adverse inference has, therefore, to be drawn against him. Since it was specifically stated by respondent No.2 in his statement on oath that it was at the instance of the appellant that he had issued the cheque on the account of respondent No.1 in the Central Bank of India Ltd., Sambalpur Branch, and the appellant, admittedly, had encashed that cheque, an inference has to be drawn against the appellant that what he stated in the written statement was not correct. In these circumstances, the High Court was fully justified in decreeing the suit of respondent No.1 in its entirety and passing a decree against the appellant also."
30. Though, as per the defendant, the stamp of the invoices showing receiving of the goods does not belongs to the defendant's firm, but the defendant herself has not proved this fact by entering into the witness box and thus, adverse inference has to be drawn against her. Mere bald plea in this regard in the WS is not sufficient to discredit the case of the plaintiff. On the hand hand, the plaintiff has clearly stated that the goods were taken by the defendant from his shop/place of business and receiving was also given by the defendant or her husband or her employees on the invoices. Though, the defendant has filed some documents along with WS, but she has not proved these documents in evidence. On the other hand, the plaintiff has proved his case with cogent evidence and has entered in the witness box for the cross examination.
30.1 During the cross examination of the plaintiff, defendant has given certain suggestions for the plaintiff regarding his connivance with Ravi Aggarwal of Calcutta Sarees and Sh. Amit Gupta of Jari Saree Centre and cheating the defendant. However, the cross examination of the plaintiff by the Digitally signed KIRAN BANSAL by KIRAN BANSAL Date: 2026.01.09 15:39:13 +0530 CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal Page No. 23 of 26 defendant in this regard is beyond pleadings inasmuch as, no such defence was pleaded by the defendant in her WS. In the case of SRINIVAS RAGHAVENDRARAO DESAI (DEAD) BY LRS. vs V. KUMAR VAMANRAO @ ALOK AND ORS. CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 7293-7294 OF 2010 decided by Hon'ble SC on 04.03.2024, the Hon'ble SC has held as follows:
"15. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that no evidence could be led beyond pleadings....."
Thus, on the basis of the above proposition of law, the cross- examination of PW-1 by the defendant beyond pleadings can not be considered.
31. Thus, on the basis of the evidence led on record, the plaintiff has proved his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence, whereas the defendant has not been able to prove her defence even to the extent of preponderance of probabilities. Thus, on the basis of the invoices, e-way bills and ledger, the plaintiff has proved that a sum of Rs.69,17,558.85/- is outstanding on the defendant and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.69,17,558.85/- as principal from the defendant. Issue no. (i) is decided accordingly.
ISSUE No.II : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate and for which period. OPP.
32. The plaintiff has claimed pre-suit interest @ 24% per annum to the amount of Rs.25,26,352/-. The plaintiff has also claimed pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum on the principal amount.
Digitally signed by KIRANKIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.01.09 15:39:18 +0530 CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal Page No. 24 of 26
33. As far as the pre-suit interest is concerned, the plaintiff has bifurcated the interest amount as per Order VII Rule 2A CPC.
34. The plaintiff is claiming interest @ 24% per annum. Perusal of the invoices Ex.PW1/D(colly) reveals that some of the invoices, the rate of interest was mentioned as 24% per annum and on the other invoices, there is no stipulation of the rate of interest. Interest at such an exorbitant rate cannot be granted unilaterally as per terms and conditions on the invoices. The plaintiff has not been able to lead any other evidence regarding the rate of interest agreed upon between the parties for the delayed payment. Thus, interest can not be granted at such exorbitant rate @ 24% per annum on the principal amount as claimed by the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff has proved that he is entitled to principal amount of Rs.69,17,559/-. Plaintiff is thus, entitled to an interest at a reasonable rate as the defendant has deprived him of the amount due. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it is directed that the plaintiff shall be entitled to interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of Rs.16,20,510.77/- from 15.09.2021 till its realization and 10% p.a. on the remaining amount i.e. Rs.52,97,048.23 from 27.02.2024 till realization.
Issue no. II is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.III/RELIEF:
35. In view of the findings on the issue no.I and II and the documents proved on record, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs.69,17,559/- as principal along with interest @10% per annum on the amount of Rs.16,20,510.77/- from 15.09.2021 and interest @10% p.a. on the remaining amount i.e. Rs.69,17,559 - Rs.16,20,510.77 = Rs.52,97,048.23/- from 27.02.2024, till its realization. Litigation cost of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 15:39:25 Date: 2026.01.09 +0530 CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal Page No. 25 of 26 Two Lakhs Only) (including the remuneration paid to court commissioner) along with amount of court fees is also awarded to the plaintiff.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
KIRAN Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL 15:39:31 +0530 Date: 2026.01.09 Announced in the open court on 09th day of January, 2026 (Kiran Bansal) District Judge Commercial Court-02, Shahdara,Karkardooma, Delhi/09.01.2026.
CS(COMM) 486-2024 Pankaj Sachdeva Vs. Taruna Bansal Page No. 26 of 26