Delhi District Court
Charu Singh vs Mstc Limited And Anr on 20 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF Ms. NIRJA BHATIA
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMM-07), DIGITAL
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) 3729/2024
Charu Singh
Proprietor of M/s Realtime Smart Solution
having office at
C-83, Ganesh Nagar, Pandav Nagar Complex,
Delhi-92.
.........Plaintiff
Versus
1. MSTC Limited
(A Government of India Enterprise)
Jeevan Vikar Building, First Floor,
30/31A, Asaf Ali Road (Opp. Hamdard)
New Delhi-02
2. Export Commissionerate
Customs ICD TKD (10408)
ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi-20.
...... Defendant
Date of Institution: 27.09.2024
Arguments concluded on : 16.12.2025
Date of Judgment: 20.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide the claim for recovery of Rs. 5,74,999/- (Rupees Five Lacs Seventy-Four Thousand and Nine Hundred Ninety-Nine only) alongwith interest @ 18%.
2. The suit is presented by Ms. Charu Singh, proprietor of M/s Realtime Smart Solution, having its office at C-83, Ganesh Nagar, Pandav Nagar Complex, Delhi-92 (hereinafter to be referred as plaintiff). MSTC having its office at Jeevan Vikar Building, First Floor, 30/31A, Asaf Ali Road (Opp. Hamdard) New Delhi-02 and Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.01.20 17:40:22 +0530 Charu Singh Vs. MSTC and anr. Page 1 of 20 Export Commissionerate having its office at Customs ICD TKD (10408) ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi-20 have been impleaded as defendant No. 1 and 2 respectively.
3. In the month of November 2023, defendant No. 1 through defendant No. 2 issued an advertisement for e-auction MSTC/NRO/Export Commissionerate, Customs ICDTKD/11/ New Delhi/23-24/31463 dated 07.11.2023. Plaintiff participated in e- auction and was awarded two lots of booking i.e. lot No. 8 and lot No. 12 as was declared successful bidder. Plaintiff deposited the requisite payment of EMD with defendant No. 1 and made the entire payment of Rs. 5,74,999/- as per terms and conditions of e- auction. The above payment included the accounts of CST/TCS.
4. Plaintiff was awarded 21,257 pieces of mobile back cover/flip covers assorted models/designs against lot no. 8 and 24,750 Pieces of printed wallpaper roll against lot no. 12.
5. After the entire payment was made, plaintiff's representative visited the office of defendant for collecting the goods. The defendants apprised the plaintiff that the goods will be delivered very shortly. However, the defendants failed to deliver the goods to plaintiff subsequent to date of auction despite having realized the payments. Plaintiff issued reminders and requests.
6. Finally, on 13.12.2023 plaintiff learnt that the entire/ complete goods were not available with the defendants, which fact was deliberately and intentionally concealed. Defendants have wrongfully gained by causing a wrongful loss to plaintiff an amount of Rs. 5,74,999/- depositing against the e-auction. The plaintiff's requests for refund have failed to succeed. Plaintiff claimed that the delivery was declined due to short supply of goods from the quantity that was auctioned and paid and as defendants have Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.01.20 17:40:28 Charu Singh Vs. MSTC and anr. Page 2 of 20 +0530 retained the amounts, defendants are holding on to the amounts illegally. Plaintiff claimed interest @ 18% against the above. An effort for pre-institution mediation settlement was made under Section 12-A, however, defendant did not participate. Plaintiff thus, filed the suit.
Written statement
7. Defendants filed separate verbose written statements, the substance of which is taken note.
8. Defendant No.1, MSTC Limited, has filed its written statement denying liability and raising preliminary objections. It contends that it acted only as an agent facilitating the e-auction on behalf of Defendant No.2 (Export Commissionerate, Customs ICD Tughlakabad), a disclosed principal. Relying on Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, MSTC asserts that no claim lies against it and seeks deletion from the array of parties under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. It is further pleaded that the suit is not properly valued for court fees.
9. On merits, MSTC admits conducting the e-auction and issuing the Acceptance Letter and Delivery Order after the plaintiff deposited the full auction amount. However, it maintains that it neither owns nor physically verifies the auctioned goods and has no control over their quantity, quality, or delivery. As per the auction terms, the goods were sold on an "as is where is"
basis, and the quantities mentioned were only indicative. MSTC states that delivery of goods is solely the responsibility of Defendant No. 2 and that its role ended upon issuance of the Delivery Order. It also claims that it received only service Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.01.20 17:40:34 +0530 Charu Singh Vs. MSTC and anr. Page 3 of 20 charges, while the sale proceeds were remitted to Defendant No.2.
10. MSTC denies allegations of illegal withholding of money, cheating, misappropriation, or breach of trust. It admits receipt of the legal notice and states that it had forwarded the grievance to Defendant No.2 for resolution. MSTC concludes that no cause of action exists against it and prays for dismissal of the suit against Defendant No.1 with costs, terming the suit false, frivolous, and vexatious, and seeking special costs under Section 35-A CPC.
Written Statement on Behalf of Defendant No. 211. Defendant No. 2, Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Export), ICD Tughlakabad, has categorically denied all allegations levelled by the plaintiff and asserted that the suit is false, frivolous, and devoid of any cause of action. Defendant No. 2 submits that it performs statutory functions under the Customs Act, 1962, including seizure, confiscation, adjudication, and disposal of goods, and that the auction in question was conducted strictly in accordance with law.
12. The seized goods were inventoried and taken into custody through a Seizure Memo and Panchnama prepared in the presence of Panch witnesses, clearly recording the quantity and description of goods (Annexure D-1). The goods were stored with the statutory custodian, Container Corporation of India Ltd. (CONCOR), in terms of Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962.
13. The goods were valued by a government-appointed Chartered Engineer, and thereafter auctioned through Defendant No. 1 (MSTC Ltd.) on an "As-is-where-is" and "No-complaint"
Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.01.20 17:40:40 +0530 Charu Singh Vs. MSTC and anr. Page 4 of 20 basis. Inspection of the goods was offered to all registered bidders prior to the auction, and in the present case, inspection was conducted on 03.11.2023. The plaintiff participated in the e- auction held on 07.11.2023, emerged as the highest bidder, and voluntarily paid a sum of Rs.5,74,999/-.
14. Upon completion of the auction formalities, a Gate Pass dated 23.11.2023 was issued to the plaintiff for delivery of the auctioned goods from the custodian (Annexure D-2). Defendant No. 2 submits that it had no further role once delivery permission was granted.
15. Reliance is placed on Paragraphs 8.7.1 and 8.10.6 of the Customs Disposal Manual, 2019, which mandate that all auctioned goods are sold strictly on an "As-is-where-is" and "No-complaint" basis, with no guarantee as to quantity or quality, and that no dispute regarding physical condition or shortage shall be entertained post-auction (Annexure D-3).
16. Further, the Auction Catalogue and Specific Terms and Conditions issued by MSTC Ltd. clearly stipulate that:
(i) there is no guarantee or warranty as to quality or quantity;
(ii) goods once sold shall not be taken back; and
(iii) no complaints regarding shortage or condition shall be entertained after auction (Annexure D-4).
17. Defendant No. 2 also relies upon its Reply dated 28.01.2024 to the plaintiff's legal notice, reiterating that the auction was conducted strictly as per the Customs Disposal Manual, 2019 and MSTC terms, and that no refund is permissible (Annexure D-5).
Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.01.20 17:40:46 +0530 Charu Singh Vs. MSTC and anr. Page 5 of 20
18. It is contended that the principle of caveat emptor squarely applies, and that the plaintiff, having failed to inspect the goods prior to bidding, cannot seek refund contrary to the express auction terms. Defendant No. 2 asserts that no illegality, negligence, or deficiency of service can be attributed to it, and that the present suit is not maintainable and deserves dismissal with costs.
Replication To The Written Statement Filed By Defendant No.1.
19. The plaintiff, in replication, has denied all objections raised by Defendant No.1 and contended that Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 are jointly and severally liable, having jointly conducted and managed the e-auction in which the plaintiff emerged as the highest bidder for Lot Nos. 8 and 12 and paid Rs.5,74,999/-. It is alleged that despite receipt of the full auction amount, the defendants failed to deliver the complete quantity of goods as represented, which fact was subsequently admitted during inter-se communications. The plaintiff disputes Defendant No.1's plea of agency under Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act and asserts that Defendant No.1 is a necessary party for effective adjudication. The plaintiff further alleges suppression of material facts, misrepresentation, and fraudulent conduct, and reiterates that the suit is maintainable, properly valued, and liable to be decreed as prayed.
Digitally signed by NIRJA Replication To The Written Statement Filed By Defendant No.2. NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.01.20 17:40:52 +0530 Charu Singh Vs. MSTC and anr. Page 6 of 20
20. In replication, the plaintiff has denied all preliminary objections and averments raised by Defendant No.2 and alleged that the written statement contains vague denials amounting to deemed admissions. The plaintiff asserts that Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 are jointly and severally liable, having jointly conducted the e-auction in which the plaintiff emerged as the highest bidder for Lot Nos. 8 and 12 and paid Rs. 5,74,999/-. It is alleged that the quantity of goods delivered was substantially less than what was represented at the time of auction, a fact stated to have been admitted by the defendants during inter-se communications. The plaintiff disputes the authority of the officer who signed the written statement on behalf of Defendant No.2. Plaintiff alleges misrepresentation and fraudulent suppression of material facts, and reiterates that the suit is maintainable, properly valued, and liable to be decreed as prayed.
Note of the Proceedings
21. Suit is received before the Ld. Predecessor on 27.09.2024, who was pleased to issue the process. The defendants were served, who filed their respective written submissions. The matter was listed for admission/ denial of documents for which directions were made to ARs for participation. On 04.07.2025, the AR of defendants participated in admission/ denial of documents, whereafter issues were framed on 04.07.2025. Parties were called to lead their respective evidence. PW-1 Ms. Charu Singh and PW-2 Sh. Ravinder Singh tendered their evidence. While PW-2 Sh.
Ravinder Singh stood the test of cross-examination, PW-1 Ms. Charu Singh, proprietor/ plaintiff, avoided appearances and Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.01.20 17:40:57 +0530 Charu Singh Vs. MSTC and anr. Page 7 of 20 observing that the matter is being delayed, directions for appointment for LC for recording the evidence under Order XV CPC as amended was made. At the stage of appointment of Ld. LC for recording the evidence, plaintiff's counsel made hue and cry and declared that his witness shall not appear before the LC. Observing that plaintiff may determined her appearance for recording of evidence, it was made clear that her failure may lead to the examination-in-chief be not read, the matter was posted for recording of evidence of both parties i.e. remaining evidence of plaintiff and that of the defendants No. 1 and 2. However, on 16.12.2025 non-compliance of order of 07.11.2025 was reported by the Reader. On inquiry from parties, plaintiff's counsel uttered "Maine pehle hi kaha tha, hum nahi jayenge LC k paas evidence karwane", which statement of his was taken note against deliberate and willful disobedience of order and an act of intentional non-
compliance, due to which plaintiff's evidence was closed and as defendant did not lead any evidence, the said stood closed. Brief submissions were made. Counsel for defendants were given an opportunity for filing written submissions prior to judgment. None were received till the time Court started to dictate the judgment, which was dictated partly on 05.01.2026 and was kept for 09.01.2026 for further dictation. However, on the said date, due to demise of a Court staff inside the Court premises, the judgment could not be completed due to non-availability of staff.
22. Arguments opportunity had been accorded.
Reasons & Findings
23. Issues in the case were framed on 04.07.2025 as below:
Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.01.20 17:41:02 +0530 Charu Singh Vs. MSTC and anr. Page 8 of 20 (1) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery of Rs. 5,74,999/-? OPP (2) Whether interest as proposed @ 18% or any any other rate is payable if the issue no. 1 is decided in favour of plaintiff? OPP (3) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of defendant No. 1 who is not a necessary party? OPD (4) Any other relief?
24. I now propose to deal with the issues.
Issue No. 1 to 4
25. Based on the pleadings presented by the parties, issues above were framed where the plaintiff was burdened to prove her entitlement for recovery of Rs. 5,74,999/- alongwith interest @ 18% as claimed. Defendant No. 1 was burdened to prove that the suit was not maintainable for its misjoinder.
26. It is taken note that upon being extended an opportunity for leading evidence, Sh. Ravinder Singh, PW-2 tendered his examination-in-chief alongwith Ms. Charu Singh PW-1 on 17.09.2025. Sh. Ravinder Singh was examined and cross-examined by both the defendants on 09.10.2025.
27. PW-1 despite being given opportunity did not stand the test of cross-examination. Due to her repeated requests, this Court directed her appearance before the Ld. LC for recording of evidence. Defendants were also directed to appear for getting their evidence recorded vide same order. However, as plaintiff despite being told to appear before the LC caused no appearance as the counsel declared plaintiff's intention to not participate in getting the evidence recorded, this Court was constrained to declare that her examination-in-chief cannot be read, as she has failed to present Digitally herself for cross-examination. PE stood closed thereafter. As signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.01.20 17:41:07 +0530 Charu Singh Vs. MSTC and anr. Page 9 of 20 plaintiff did not did not conclude her evidence, the defendants led none.
28. The only witness examined in the entire proceedings is PW- 2 Sh. Ravinder Singh. Interestingly, he has no independent status as he deposed in capacity plaintiff's husband. He tendered the examination-in-chief in above capacity as is shown below:
"I am the Husband of plaintiff. I tender my evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW-2/A and bears my signature at point A on each page and at points A and B on the last page."
29. Counsel for defendants then specifically asked about his locus. He disclosed that he is a manager while affirming that he has no appointment letter in his favour nor is he drawing any salary. He affirmed that his wife Ms. Charu Singh is proprietor who has not given him any written authorization for participation in proprietorship firm. He claimed that he is authorized only for signing the cheques. He admitted that there is no other authorization in his favour for participation in management of daily affairs of the company. He admitted that he did not bring any authorization issued by plaintiff in his favour even for signing the cheques. During cross-examination, he affirmed that he did not ask palintiff before bidding which statement he improved and stated that he had asked. He claimed that the transaction was their first participation and that while the auction was "as is where is" basis, he had made the inspection during which the goods were shown. He was cross-examined by counsel for defendant No. 1 on 09.10.2025, wherein he admitted that he Digitally signed by came to know about both the defendants being separate legal NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.01.20 17:41:12 +0530 Charu Singh Vs. MSTC and anr. Page 10 of 20 entities only after filing the suit. He affirmed that he and not his wife was communicating with defendants through email, though the access was with him as well as plaintiff.
30. The reflections of the statements above reveal that none of the depositions above made by PW-1 and PW-2 could neither be read nor relied in support of issues.
The question that now emerges is whether for failure of PW-1 Ms. Charu Singh, who did not stand the test of cross- examination and PW-2 Sh. Ravinder Singh who claimed his only authority for deposition is that being husband of plaintiff is sufficient to disentitle plaintiff from the claim of recovery.
31. This suit is filed under the Commercial Courts Act, the applicability of provisions of Commercial Courts Act is not raised in dispute by either side to litigation. The provisions of CPC have undergone massive amendments upon the enactment of Commercial Courts Act and are made keeping in view the faster resolution of matters relating to commercial disputes, to create a progressive and positive image amongst the foreign investors about independent and responsive Indian Judicial System. Taking note of above object, the procedure is revamped and certain insertions are incorporated in the statute. Before adverting to discuss the substance of the merits behind the claim and denial, it is requisite, at this stage, to take note of the relevant provisions, which have been incorporated in terms of the expectations of the object.
32. The Legislature has changed the colour of Order VIII wherein the following insertions are made, wherein Order VIII Digitally Rule 3 (2) is amended as below:
signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.01.20 Charu Singh Vs. MSTC and anr. Page 11 of 20 17:41:18 +0530 "(2) The defendant in his written statement shall state which of the allegations in the particulars of plaint he denies, which allegations he is unable to admit or deny, but which he requires the plaintiff to prove, and which allegations he admits."
33. Consequent to above insertions in the rule, each defendant is burdened to subscribe its denials made in written statement only in the manner provided in sub-rule 2, 3, 4 and 5. Rule 2 expects that a defendant in the written statement shall state which of the allegations made particularly in the plaint he denies, which allegations he is unable to admit or deny, but which he requires the plaintiff to prove and which allegations he admits. Further wherein, the allegation made in the plaint is denied, the defendant is burdened and obligated to state his reasons for doing so and if he intends to put forward a different version of events from that given by plaintiff, he must state his own version. The above are material amendments and their implications cannot be brushed lightly. Defendants in the present case have filed their separate written statements.
34. Defendant No. 2 has not shown any adherence to the expectations made in the Rule 3-A of Order VIII as amended. Defendants after having made narration of objections on merit and by way of preliminary objections has made no effort to deny anything specifically against the allegations made in the plaint. The statement of defendant No. 2 is excerpted below:
"That the content of paras of the suit are wrong and denied except what is matter of record. Preliminary objections hereinabove may be read as reply to these paras also and contents of the same Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA are not repeated herein for sake of brevity."
BHATIA Date:
2026.01.20 17:41:24 +0530 Charu Singh Vs. MSTC and anr. Page 12 of 20
35. The question now emerges is whether for want of compliance to provision of sub-rule 3-A of Order VIII, could written statement filed by defendants be observed competent to raise defence. The defendant has shown no intent through the written statement to dispel the statements of plaintiff on merit. The only attempt made by defendant No.2 through written statement is to put forth its own objections and inform of existence of its manual. The affidavit of admission/ denial filed as part of written statement/ pleadings shows no compliance to the expectations of procedure inserted in CPC post-amendment. The defendant has simply denied some of the documents claiming them to have been issued by defendant No. 1. However, defendant has admitted the copy of acceptance letter/ sale letter at pages 30-31, copy of letter issued to terminal manager dated 13.12.2023 as well as copy of email exchanges with plaintiff. Defendant admitted the demand notice alongwith postal receipts and tracking report. In which background, the oral statement of plaintiff can be excused specifically in view of provision of Sections 94 and 95 BSA (erstwhile Sections 91 and 92 Indian Evidence Act).
36. Coming to discussions, the statements made in the affidavit of admission/ denial. Defendants admitted the copy of e- auction MSTC/NRO/Export Commissionerate, Customs executed between defendant No. 1 and plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 admitted the copy of acceptance of letter/ sale order details executed by defendant No. 1, the copy of payment acknowledgment and copy of delivery order dated 14.11.2023 are admitted by defendant No. 1 Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA Date:
BHATIA 2026.01.20 17:41:29 +0530 Charu Singh Vs. MSTC and anr. Page 13 of 20 whereas rest of the documents are already admitted by defendant No. 2. The bare perusal of affidavits shows that the transactions between the parties materilized by way of execution of documents and was devoid of any oral transaction. Thus, keeping in view the intention of provision of Section 91 and 92 of erstwhile Indian Evidence Act, the failure of plaintiff to lead oral evidence is of not much consequence and cannot be read to their detriment.
37. The question now emerges is whether both defendants by admission of documents through separate affidavits have brought on record material to substantiate disentitlement of plaintiff's claim and/ or whether defendant's documents, against which plaintiff has filed affidavit of admission/ denial are sufficient to dislodge the plaintiff.
38. The plaintiff has filed copy of e-auction slip which stands admitted and shows that the plaintiff participated in e-auction against three lots i.e. lot No. 3, 8 and 12. Against this process of e- auction, lots No. 8 and 12 were sold to plaintiff, she being the highest bidder. Plaintiff then paid an amount of Rs. 4,31,752/- in addition to already deposited EMD of Rs. 90,000/- and Rs. 53,000/-, which transactions are admitted by defendant No. 1. Plaintiff's reliance on goods and service tax receipt is admitted. The aforementioned clearly shows that parties against intention of sale and purchase exchanged offer/ counter-offer and an agreement is arrived upon exchange of consideration of sale by receipt of amount of Rs. 5,74,999/- by the defendants. Upon the above facts being established, the plaintiff was under burden to prove the gist of allegations wherein it is alleged that defendants failed to deliver the articles against purchase of lots No. 8 and 12 which were for mobile Digitally signed by back covers, quantity 21,257 pieces and printed wallpapers of NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.01.20 17:41:34 +0530 Charu Singh Vs. MSTC and anr. Page 14 of 20 quantity 24,750 pieces. The delivery order is admitted by MSTC (defendant No. 1) through the process of admission/ denial. While the delivery order is admitted, the defendants have failed to prove the actual delivery of articles to plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged the goods were never delivered and, in turn, she was compelled to accept much less quantity against the payment. The objections of plaintiff against the short delivery is then noted as part of letter of defendant No. 2 titled "Goods i.e. Printed wallpaper and Mobile Back cover/ Flip Covers (Assorted Models / Designs) short in quantity in respect of M/s Tanishka Enterprses and M/s Shri Laxmi Narain Enterprises, respectively- regarding" , which letter is admitted by defendant No. 1 having been issued to defendant No. 2 wherein defendant No. 1 wrote "It is informed that goods i.e. printed wallpapers and mobile back covers/ flip covers in respect of M/s Tanshika Enterprises and M/s Shree Laxmi Narayan Enterprises respectively were e-auctioned vide MSTC e-auction dated 07.11.2023. However when successful bidder i.e. M/s Realtime Smart Solution came for delivery of goods, it was observed that available quantity of goods present was drastically less than actual quantity i.e. only 70 boxes of printed wallpapers were available against original 24,750 pieces and only 2000 pieces of mobile back covers were available against original 21,257 pieces. Hence, quantity for which auction was conducted could not be delivered to the successful bidder as on date ."
39. The contents of the letter are self-explanatory in showing failure of defendants to deliver the goods despite having realized full payment against e-auction. Defendant No. 1 noted further the demand for refund of the amount, however, instead of genuinely resolving the demand, defendant No. 1 passed on the responsibility Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.01.20 17:41:39 +0530 Charu Singh Vs. MSTC and anr. Page 15 of 20 of resolution to defendant No. 2 by stating defendant No. 2 to either manage or deliver full quantity of goods or refund the amount on this account to the successful bidder i.e. plaintiff. Defendants have admitted the acceptance letter/ sale order dated 14.11.2023 in plaintiff's favour wherein the details of sale in plaintiff's favour including that towards price and quantity are recorded. The grievance of plaintiff by email written to defendant No. 2 dated 05.01.2024 is admitted as noted above in the admission/ denial affidavit by defendant No. 2. Email exchanges clearly show an acceptance of the facts stated by the plaintiff regarding defendants' failure to deliver the goods as per the terms of the e-auction. The above circumstances are then assessed in the light of the provision of law relating to sales of goods are taken note:
"4. Sale and agreement to sell.-- (3) Where under a contract of sale the property in the goods is transferred from the seller to the buyer, the contract is called a sale, but where the transfer of the property in the goods is to take place at a future time or subject to some condition thereafter to be fulfilled, the contract is called an agreement to sell.
33. Delivery.-- Delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorised to hold them on his behalf.
42. Acceptance.-- The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them, or when the goods have been delivered to him and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller, or when, after the lapse of a reasonable time, he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them."
Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.01.20 17:41:44 +0530 Charu Singh Vs. MSTC and anr. Page 16 of 20
40. The law is clear that where the delivery is not effected, sale is not complete as is held in Harish Mansukhani Vs. Ashok Jain, 2008/DHC/3064 (DB) DOD 19.11.2008 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Sanjana Agarwal Vs. Namoshivai Apparels Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9272.
41. For want of above, it is apparent that the defendants failed to complete the transaction of sale by failing to deliver the goods despite receipt of payments. The plaintiff's allegation that defendants failed to restore either custody of goods against which the sale consideration is effected or refund the amount, hence is established through the documents above.
42. In circumstances as above, the remaining issues which arise for discussion are pertaining to plaintiff's competence for seeking the claim, which question gains pertinence in view of admission of PW-2 Sh. Ravinder Singh that he, and not plaintiff Ms. Charu Singh, participated in e-auction process which e-
auction process he was not authorized for. However, it is necessary to take note that the above plea is not raised by the defendants at any stage. Defendants did not question that the exchange of emails is through the authorized email ID of plaintiff. PW-2 clarified that the email ID belongs to plaintiff of which he too has access. In terms of the above statement, it is necessary to note that the effect of provision of Sections 196 to 200 of Indian Contracts Act and specially the effect of provision of Section 196 providing rectification of acts of an agent. It is observed that the act of participation in bidding by Sh. Ravinder Singh, husband of plaintiff, is rectified by the cogent and vocal Digitally acts of plaintiff herself, the acceptance of which is made by the signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.01.20 17:41:50 Charu Singh Vs. MSTC and anr. Page 17 of 20 +0530 defendants as the payments are taken note having been made by Charu Verma/ Singh. The payment of GST also shows the deposit having been deducted from the account maintained against the name of Charu Verma/ Singh, plaintiff. Both the aforementioned acts reduces the intensity of the assertion that the transactions or participation of plaintiff in e-auction process was unauthorized.
43. In view of the discussions above, the statement of defendant No.1 denying liability of the claim and asserting it having been made unnecessary party are now probed. Before adverting to discuss the scope of the averrments, at this stage, it is requisite to take note of the provision of Order I Rule 10 CPC:
"ORDER I Parties to Suits
10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff.-- (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just."
44. Moreover, the suit cannot be dismissed even if a party is wrongly arrayed at a final stage as is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regency Convention Centra & Hotels and ors., AIR 2010 SC 3109.
45. The scope of law is now discussed in terms of the facts. It is noted that the entire process of bidding commenced from the domain of defendant No. 1. The e-auction was initiated by Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA Date:
BHATIA BHATIA 2026.01.20 17:41:56 +0530 Charu Singh Vs. MSTC and anr. Page 18 of 20 defendant No. 1 as agent of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 admitted the document i.e. copy of e-auction MSTC/NRO/ Export Commissionerate, Customs ICDTKD/11/New Delhi/23- 24/31463 dated 07.11.2023, wherein the allotment was carried out against lots No. 8 and 12 in plaintiff's favour. The document No. 2, receipt of the payments, were realized by defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 issued the delivery order, which all documents show that defendant No. 1 is an equally necessary party for determination of issues raised for establishing plaintiff's entitlement. It is apparent that the issues framed in the suit could not have been brought to the logical, just and final conclusion without participation of defendant No. 1. In view of which averrment that defendant No. 1 is not necessary party and/ or is not responsible for the claim is a weak argument.
Joint and severe liability of defendant No. 1 and 2:
46. In order to assess the element of sevearibility of liability, as is argued by defendant No. 1, it is necessary to take note that written statement filed by defendant No. 1 clearly details that defendant No. 1 is a beneficiary of process. In para 3 of written statement, defendant No. 1 profited albeit of commission as per mutual agreement between defendant No. 1 and 2. It is undisputed that against the sharing of profit, defendant No. 1 gained an equal status as that of defendant No. 2 against the terms of the contract agreed by defendant No. 1 in plaintiff's favour. Plaintiff cannot be burdened to seek its claim from defendant No. 2 alone as any agreement of profit sharing is a bilateral contract between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2, Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.01.20 17:42:01 +0530 Charu Singh Vs. MSTC and anr. Page 19 of 20 the consequences of which shall not extend to plaintiff's entitlement to relief.
47. In view thereof, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for the an amount of Rs. 5,74,999/-.
Interest
48. Plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18%, however, having regard to the law laid in Praveen Oberoi Vs. Raj Kumari, 2014 (2) ADR 193 and taking recourse to Section 34 CPC, plaintiff is allowed rate of interest @ 10% from the date of payment till realization.
Relief
49. In circumstances as above, plaintiff is held entitled for recovery of Rs. 5,74,999/- (Rupees Five Lacs Seventy-Four Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Nine only) alongwith interest @ 10% from the date of payment till realization. Plaintiff is also held entitled to recover the costs on account of Court fee @ Rs. 8,210/-, and lawyer's fee @ Rs. 10,000/-, in terms of Section 35 CPC. The amount of lawyer's fee is restricted to above amount for want of certificate of fee having been filed.
50. Decree sheet be drawn and file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.01.20 17:42:06 +0530 Announced in open Court (Nirja Bhatia) today on 20th January, 2026 District Judge (Comm. Court) (Digital-07) South-East, Saket Court, New Delhi Charu Singh Vs. MSTC and anr. Page 20 of 20