Delhi District Court
Ms. Harmeet Singh Chawla vs M/S. Vpn Infosolution Pvt. Ltd. And Anr on 10 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-05
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM) No.675/2023
(Harmeet Singh Chawla v. M/s VPN Infosolution Pvt. Ltd & Another)
CNR No. DLWT01-007474-2023
Mr. Harmeet Singh Chawla
(Proprietor of M/s CTC Book World)
G-5B, Sant Nagar Extension,
Tilak Nagar, Delhi-110 018.
...Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Iqbal Singh along with
Mr. Gursimar Singh, advocates.
Versus
1. M/s VPN Infosolution Pvt. Ltd
Flat No.227, Nasirpur, Pocket-9,
Dwarka, Phase-I, New Delhi-110045.
Also at:-
265A, Regal Shipra, Suncity,
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad-201 014.
......Defendant no.1
2. Abhishek Anand (Chief Manager),
PNB Zonal Office, Ranjeet Avenue,
Amritsar, Punjab.
......Defendant no.2
......Defendants
Digitally
signed by
Through: Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav
Raj Raj Kumar
Tripathi
Kumar Date:
along with Mr. Rahul Yadav,
Tripathi 2026.03.10
13:04:22
Mr. Kartikey and Ms. Kirtika
+0530
Yadav, advocates
Date of filing of suit : 14.09.2023
Arguments heard on : 29.01.2026 and 10.02.2026
CS (COMM) No.675/2023
(Harmeet Singh Chawla v. M/s VPN Infosolution Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.) Page 1 of 17
Date of Judgment :10.03.2026
JUDGMENT
1.1 Plaintiff has filed the present suit against defendants for seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.45,17,263/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Three only) along with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum and cost of the suit.
Factual matrix of the case:-
2.1 Plaintiff Mr. Harmeet Singh Chawla, proprietor of M/s CTC Book World, is engaged in the business of manufacturing of printed note books and other allied products.
2.2 Defendant no.1 M/s VPN Infosolution Pvt. Ltd. is a private limited company. Mr. Vishal Gaurav and Ms. Arti Anupriyaare, are directors of defendant no.1 company. They were introduced to plaintiff by defendant no.2 Mr. Abhishek Anand, Chief Manager of Punjab National Bank, who was having friendly relations with plaintiff as he was having current account in Punjab National Bank at Delhi. Defendant no.2 is an acquaintance of directors of defendant no.1.
2.3 Plaintiff claims that defendant no.2 took all the guarantee for payment of the goods supplied to defendant no.1 in the course of business. He assured to make payment to plaintiff in case of any default by the defendant no.1.
2.4 As per plaintiff, he was reluctant to supply goods to defendant no.1 company on credit basis as it was not known to him and only after Raj persuasion of defendant no.2, he agreed to supply the goods to defendant Kumar no.1 on credit basis.
Tripathi Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2026.03.10 CS (COMM) No.675/2023 13:04:34 +0530 (Harmeet Singh Chawla v. M/s VPN Infosolution Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.) Page 2 of 17 2.5 Plaintiff claims to have supplied the goods to defendant no.1 through various invoices. He avers that as on date, there remains an outstanding balance of Rs.37,64,386/- payable by defendant no.1. He further states that in the absence of defendant no.1 making payment to plaintiff, defendant no.2 is responsible to make payment of aforesaid balance amount being guarantor to the said transaction. 2.6 Plaintiff tried to contact defendant no.1 through telephonic calls, text messages and whatsapp messages, who assured to make payments but failed to do so.
2.7 The plaintiff, after getting no response from defendant no.1, tried to contact defendant no.2, who despite several requests and demands, failed to persuade defendant no.1 to pay the balance amount. 2.8 Constrained by the acts of defendants, plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 02.12.2022 requesting the defendants to repay the entire outstanding amount i.e. Rs.37,64,386/-including principal and interest thereon along with future interest @ 24% per annum, who despite service of legal notice, failed to comply the same and sent false and frivolous replies dated 15.12.2022 and 10.12.2022 respectively denying their liability towards him. Defendant no.1 in its reply alleged to have given a friendly loan to plaintiff to the tune of Rs.3,60,000/-. On the contrary, plaintiff claims that defendant no.1 had in fact made part payment of Rs.3,60,000/- out of their outstanding liability vide payments dated 30.07.2021, 23.12.2021, 30.03.2022 and 21.06.2022.
2.9 Finding no other alternative, plaintiff filed an application before West District Legal Services Authority, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on Raj Kumar 09.06.2023 for Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement in compliance of Tripathi Section 12A of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Notice of application Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2026.03.10 CS (COMM) No.675/2023 13:04:40 +0530 (Harmeet Singh Chawla v. M/s VPN Infosolution Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.) Page 3 of 17 was issued to defendants, who despite service of notices through speed post and e-mail, did not give their consent and willingness to participate in the mediation proceedings scheduled for hearing 18.07.2023 and 04.08.2023. Consequently, the mediation process was treated as a non- starter vide report dated 04.08.2023.
Defence of defendant no.1 3.1 Defendants have contested the suit by way of filing written statement.
3.2 In the written statement, defendant no.1 took preliminary objections that the present suit is without any cause of action; suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. Delhi Public School Junior Trust (DPS Trust) and the suit has been instituted on entirely baseless, false and fabricated allegations and concocted facts. 3.3 On merits, defendant claimed to have no liability for the alleged goods supplied by plaintiff to DPS Trust. The suit of plaintiff is based on invoices which are forged and fabricated documents. The invoice no.116 is dated 12.06.2020, invoice no.1038 is of 20.03.2020 and invoice no.770 is dated 25.02.2020. As per defendant, the same is impossible. The invoices appear to have been generated in one go and the signature appears to be with one pen in all the invoices. The delivery notes annexed with the plaint are all addressed to DPS Junior. The defendant further contends that if the goods were supplied by plaintiff to DPS Junior, it is the DPS Junior, who is liable for payment.
Raj 3.4 Defendant no.1 claims to have been supplying smart class Kumar Tripathi equipments to DPS Trust having its office at M-78, 2 nd Floor, M-Block Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Market, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi. It is submitted that in January, Date: 2026.03.10 13:04:48 +0530 CS (COMM) No.675/2023 (Harmeet Singh Chawla v. M/s VPN Infosolution Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.) Page 4 of 17 2020, DPS Trust expressed its desire for supply of stationary products. Several meetings were held with DPS in respect of stationary products. Plaintiff came to know that there is requirement of stationary products by DPS Trust in respect of which meetings/discussions were going on between defendant no.1 and DPS Trust. Accordingly, he contacted defendant no.1 and expressed his interest in the supply of stationary products to DPS Trust. 3.5 Subsequently, sale order dated 03.02.2020 was given by DPS Trust for supply of books, notebook, scrap books, diary etc. Plaintiff was specifically asked by defendant no.1 not to deliver any stationary to DPS Trust till it gave any order in writing to him. DPS Trust was supposed to make advance payment of Rs.7,31,878/- on 15.02.2020 to defendant no.1 which it failed. As a result of the said failure, no order was placed by defendant no.1 to plaintiff for supply of stationary goods to DPS Trust. 3.6 The defendant contends that despite not placing any order, plaintiff started meeting officials of DPS Trust directly and without any order being given by it (defendant no.1). The plaintiff may have supplied some goods to DPS Trust. As per defendant no.1, as no order was given by it to plaintiff to deliver the goods, it owes no liability towards plaintiff for any alleged goods supplied by him to DPS Trust. However, as per defendant no.1, it is willing to cooperate and assist plaintiff for recovery of alleged amount from DPS Trust towards stationary products allegedly supplied by him.
3.7 Defendant further contends that to help the plaintiff, Mr. Vishal Gaurav, director of defendant no.1 gave friendly loan of Raj Rs.3,60,000/- which he is liable to return to it. Denying other averments Kumar Tripathi and assertions of the plaint, defendant no.1 prayed to dismiss the suit with Digitally signed by Raj Kumar exemplary costs.
Tripathi Date: 2026.03.10 13:04:53 +0530 CS (COMM) No.675/2023 (Harmeet Singh Chawla v. M/s VPN Infosolution Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.) Page 5 of 17Defence of defendant no.2 4.1 Defendant no.2, in the written statement, denied to have introduced defendant no.1 or taken guarantee for any payments of goods supplied by plaintiff to DPS Trust. He submits that he is not responsible to make payment on behalf of any person to plaintiff. He further denied being the guarantor of defendant no.1.
4.2 As per defendant no.2, he is not aware about details of any goods supplied by plaintiff. Denying the other allegations and averments of the plaint in entirety, defendant no.2 prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary cost.
Replication 5.1 Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of defendants, wherein, he denied the averments and assertions of written statement. He reasserted his stand as taken in the plaint. 5.2 He submitted that the goods were supplied to DPS Trust, at the instance and instructions of defendant no.1 and the bills were raised to defendant no.1 as it had been dealing with DPS Trust. As per plaintiff, he was not in direct contact with DPS Trust and he had no direct dealings or transaction with DPS Trust. Defendant no.1 acknowledged the invoices/bills and told to deliver the goods to DPS. Plaintiff contends that defendants are trying to avoid their liability towards him. Defendant no.1 has deliberately suppressed his relationship with DPS Trust and has not placed any document regarding bills raised by it against supply to DPS Trust. Defendant no.1 is claimed to have given a confirmation to the e-way Raj Kumar bills raised by plaintiff, who then only generated the same. Tripathi Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2026.03.10 13:04:59 +0530 CS (COMM) No.675/2023 (Harmeet Singh Chawla v. M/s VPN Infosolution Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.) Page 6 of 17 5.3 Plaintiff claims to have no privity of contract with DPS Trust. He submits that the payment of Rs.3,60,000/- was made by defendant no.1 towards part payment of their liability.
5.4 He contends that he was specifically asked to deliver goods to DPS School on specific instructions of defendant no.1 through text messages or telephonically. He denied to have unilaterally supplied goods to DPS School.
Issues 6.1 From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 03.06.2024:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of principal amount of Rs.45,17,263/-? OPP.
(ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest on the recovery sought, if so, at what rate and for what period?OPP.
(iii)Relief.
Evidence of the plaintiff 7.1 In support of his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW1. He filed his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.PW1/A, wherein he has reiterated and reaffirmed the same facts as stated in the plaint. He has relied upon the following documents:-
S.No Details of Document Exhibit No.
1. Eight original invoices Ex.PW1/1 (colly.)
2. Ten e-Way Bills Ex.PW1/2 (colly.)
Raj 3. Statement of Account of defendant no.1 as Ex.PW1/3
Kumar maintained by the plaintiff
Tripathi 4. Legal Notice dated 02.12.2022 Ex.PW1/4
Digitally signed by
Raj Kumar 5. Reply to legal notice by defendant no.2 dated Ex.PW1/5
Tripathi
Date: 2026.03.10
13:05:07 +0530 CS (COMM) No.675/2023
(Harmeet Singh Chawla v. M/s VPN Infosolution Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.) Page 7 of 17
10.12.2022
6. Reply to legal notice by defendant no.1 dated Ex.PW1/6
15.12.2022
7. Printouts/photocopies of screenshot of Ex.PW1/7 (colly.)
whatsapp chats between plaintiff and
defendants
8. Non-Starter Report Ex.PW1/8
9. Carbon copies of the delivery challans Ex.PW1/9 (colly.)
7.2 To prove his case, plaintiff also examined his son Mr.
Mandeep Singh as PW2.
8.1 On the other hand, defendant no.1 examined its Authorized
Representative/Director, Mr. Vishal Gaurav as DW1, who in his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.DW1/A has deposed on the lines of defence taken in the written statement. He has relied upon Board Resolution as Ex.DW1/1.
9.1 I have heard and considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record Issue wise findings are as under:-
Issue no.(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of principal amount of Rs.45,17,263/-? OPP
10.1 Onus to prove this issue lies on the plaintiff. 10.2 In order to discharge the onus to prove the issue, plaintiff examined himself as PW1. The plaintiff, in his affidavit of evidence, Raj Kumar Ex.PW1/A, has deposed and corroborated about the facts as mentioned in Tripathi the plaint.
Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2026.03.10 13:05:14 +0530 CS (COMM) No.675/2023 (Harmeet Singh Chawla v. M/s VPN Infosolution Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.) Page 8 of 1710.3 He has proved the invoices for supply of goods as Ex.PW1/1 (colly.). He also proved the e-way bills as Ex.PW1/2 (colly.). The delivery notes duly acknowledged by DPS Junior have been proved as Ex.1/9 (colly.).
10.4 PW1 was cross-examined by counsel for defendants at length but he failed to elicit any positive response in defendants' favour. In his cross-examination, PW1 has throughout maintained that the goods were supplied to DPS Trust on the instructions of defendant no.1. He has denied that the invoice numbers 769, 1038 and 116 are forged and fabricated. He further denied the suggestion that there is no liability of the defendants in respect of the goods supplied to DPS Junior Trust. The witness remained consistent and firm throughout his deposition.
10.5 In support of his case, plaintiff also examined his son Mr. Mandeep Singh as PW2. PW2 filed his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.PW2/A, wherein, he has supported the plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint. PW2 in his cross-examination admitted that there was no written agreement relating to supply of goods and rates on which goods were to be supplied. He stated that all the specifications for supply of goods to defendant were mentioned in the order book after the order for supply of goods was given by defendant. He further deposed that DW1 had provided phone number of a person as well as the place where goods were to be delivered, and accordingly, plaintiff delivered the goods to the person concerned. As per PW2, in 2022, some of the goods were also delivered at the residence of DW1. He stated that the goods were supplied to the authorized representative of defendants as per instructions of defendant Raj Kumar no.1. He further stated that defendant no.1 introduced him (PW2) to Mr. Tripathi Digitally signed Prem Prakash Vidhyarthi as the Production Manager of plaintiff's firm. He by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2026.03.10 13:05:20 +0530 CS (COMM) No.675/2023 (Harmeet Singh Chawla v. M/s VPN Infosolution Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.) Page 9 of 17 was also told by defendant no.1 that Mr. Vidhyarthi is the Chairman of DPS Junior School. He further stated that it was mentioned that the said stationary (notebooks and books) was marked to M/s VPN Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. and manufactured by M/s CTC Book World. Thus, the testimony of PW2 could not be assailed and impeached by defendants despite his lengthy cross-examination.
10.6 From the testimony of PWs, it stands proved on record that plaintiff supplied the goods to DPS Junior Trust on the instructions of defendant no.1. Plaintiff has discharged the onus of proving commercial transaction by leading cogent documentary as well as oral evidence. 10.7 The invoices, Ex.PW1/1 (colly.) bear the name and GST number of defendant no.1, description and quantity of goods supplied, applicable GST, credit terms and agreed rate of interest on delayed payments. The genuineness and execution of these invoices have not been refuted by defendants by any substantive and reliable evidence. The delivery and receipt of goods is conclusively proved by the e-way bills, Ex.PW1/2 (colly.). The e-way bills are statutory documents mandatorily generated under the GST regime evidencing physical movement of goods. DW1, during his cross-examination, has admitted that the GST number and firm name mentioned on the e-way bills belong to defendant no.1. The said admission conclusively establishes that the goods mentioned under the invoices were delivered as per the instructions of defendant no.1 and duly Raj received by DPS Trust.
Kumar Tripathi 10.8 For ease of convenience, the relevant provisions contained u/s Digitally signed by Raj Kumar 138 of The Central Goods Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 are Tripathi Date: 2026.03.10 13:05:26 +0530 reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
"138. Information to be furnished prior to commencement of movement of goods and generation of e-way bill.CS (COMM) No.675/2023 (Harmeet Singh Chawla v. M/s VPN Infosolution Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.) Page 10 of 17
11) The details of the e-way bill generated under this rule shall be made available to the-
(a) supplier, if registered, where the information in Part A of FORM GST EWB-01 has been furnished by the recipient or the transporter; or
(b) recipient, if registered, where the information in Part A of FORM GST EWB-01 has been furnished by the supplier or the transporter, on the common portal, and the supplier or the recipient, as the case may be, shall communicate his acceptance or rejection of the consignment covered by the e-way bill (12) Where the person to whom the information specified in sub-rule (11) has been made available does not communicate his acceptance or rejection within seventy two hours of the details being made available to him on the common portal, it shall be deemed that he has accepted the said details."
(emphasis added) 10.9 A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions shows that Rule 138 (12) of CGST Rules, 2017 creates a statutory presumption that if the buyer does not reject the e-way bill within 72 hours on the GST portal, acceptance of goods is deemed.
10.10 In Sanjana Aggarwal v. Namashivai Apparel Pvt. Ltd. 2024:DHC:9987, it was held as under:-
"38. Rule 138 of CGST Rules provide for the rules for generation of "e-way bills". Sub-Rule (11) and (12) of Rule 138 of the CGST Rules provide that the details of "e-way bills" generated under Rule 138 of the CGST Rules shall be available on the common portal and the supplier or the recipient, as the case may be, shall communicate his acceptance or rejection of the assessment of the goods covered in the "e-way bills".
Sub-Rule (12) of Rule 138 of the CGST Rules provides Raj that if a rejection is not made available within 72 hours Kumar on the common portal or at the time of delivery, it shall Tripathi be deemed that the recipient has accepted the goods."
Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2026.03.10 13:05:32 +0530 CS (COMM) No.675/2023 (Harmeet Singh Chawla v. M/s VPN Infosolution Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.) Page 11 of 1710.11 Further, in the case of Sun Flag Iron & Steel Co. v. State of U.P. & Others MANU/UP/3652/2023, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held as under:-
"12. The purpose of e-way bill is that the department should know the movement of goods. Once the e-way bill has been generated and same has not been canceled by the petitioner within the time prescribed under the Act, the movement of goods as well as genuineness of transaction in question cannot be disputed. The goods in question could not reach to its destination due to the breakdown of vehicle as stated above and after repair, the vehicle was ready for its onward journey but the same was intercepted in the intervening night of 2/3.6.2023. Since the authorities below have not recorded a finding that there was any intention of the petitioner to evade the payment of tax, the penalty is not justified".
10.12 In the case in hand, admittedly, defendant no.1 has never rejected or objected to the e-way bills. Plaintiff has filed e-way bills along with plaint and has proved the same as Ex.PW1/2 (colly.). Thus, proof of delivery qua the goods supplied on the instructions of defendant no.1 to DPS Trust through e-way bills stands proved on record. 10.13 Chapter-V of The Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (CGSA) deals with input tax credit. For ease of reference, the provisions contained in section 16 of CGSA, 2017 are extracted herein below:-
"16. Eligibility and conditions for taking input tax credit. (1) Every registered person shall, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed and in the manner specified in section 49, be entitled to take credit of input tax charged on any Raj Kumar supply of goods or services or both to him which are used or Tripathi intended to be used in the course or furtherance of his business and the said amount shall be credited to the electronic credit Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi ledger of such person.Date: 2026.03.10
13:05:40 +0530 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no registered person shall be entitled to the credit of any input tax CS (COMM) No.675/2023 (Harmeet Singh Chawla v. M/s VPN Infosolution Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.) Page 12 of 17 in respect of any supply of goods or services or both to him unless-
(a) he is in possession of a tax invoice or debit note issued by a supplier registered under this Act or such other tax paying documents as may be prescribed;
(aa) the details of the invoice or debit note referred to in clause
(a) has been furnished by the supplier in the statement of outward supplies and such details have been communicated to the recipient of such invoice or debit note in the manner specified under section 37;]
(b) he has received the goods or services or both."
10.14 In Haryana Medical Hall & Others v. Roshan Lal Aggarwal & Sons Pvt. Ltd. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8105, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under:-
"The respondent had also produced GSTR returns, which were referred to by the learned Commercial Court. The contention that the said returns had no evidentiary value is erroneous. The said returns clearly indicated that the respondent had paid Central tax as well as State/UT tax and the benefit of such input tax credit of the said amount would be available to the appellants."
10.15 Pursuant to directions of the Court, defendant no.1 produced GST documents which were marked as DX (Colly.) including Form-2A. DW1, during his cross-examination, has admitted that the invoices raised by plaintiff are duly reflected in defendant no.1's GSTR Form-2A. The reflection of invoices in Form-2A constitutes acknowledgement of inward supply to defendant no.1. Admittedly, defendant no.1 has never raised any objection on the GST Portal nor disputed the plaintiff's invoices from the year 2019 till date. The defendant no.1 company has further never raised Raj Kumar any protest or made complaint or rectification request to plaintiff for Tripathi Digitally signed by allegedly uploading of the invoices on GST Portal.
Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2026.03.10 13:05:47 +0530 CS (COMM) No.675/2023 (Harmeet Singh Chawla v. M/s VPN Infosolution Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.) Page 13 of 1710.16 A notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC dated 24.09.2025 was issued to defendant no.1 through its directors calling upon them to produce their original books of accounts including purchase registers, stock registers and audited GST returns for the period 2019-2024. Service of the said notice was effected upon defendant no.1, who filed reply to the same but the requisite documents were not produced.
10.17 The defendant no.1 was in exclusive possession of the best evidence to prove its defence. However, the same was withheld by it. Accordingly, in terms of section 119 (g) of The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, an adverse inference is drawn against defendant no.1. The non-production of books of accounts, GST records etc. by defendant, despite the same being in its power, possession, control and custody renders the defence wholly unreliable.
10.18 The director of defendant no.1 Mr. Vishal Gaurav claims to have paid an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- to plaintiff as friendly loan. He has failed to prove the said friendly loan by leading any cogent evidence. The defendant has neither filed any ledger account showing the statement of account nor any acknowledgment receipt. There is no written loan agreement, no promissory note, no repayment schedule on record in respect of the friendly loan given to plaintiff. Defendant did not issue any legal notice or demand to plaintiff for seeking recovery of the said loan. No counter claim was filed by defendant no.1 against plaintiff for seeking recovery of said loan amount. Thus, the plea of defendant that a friendly loan of Rs.3,60,000/- was given to plaintiff appears to be afterthought and Raj taken as a false plea just to deny its liability towards plaintiff. Kumar 10.19 PW1 has proved the statement of account of defendant no.1 as Tripathi Digitally signed Ex.PW1/3. As per statement of account, plaintiff has supplied the goods by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2026.03.10 13:05:54 +0530 CS (COMM) No.675/2023 (Harmeet Singh Chawla v. M/s VPN Infosolution Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.) Page 14 of 17 worth Rs.25,52,018/-. The challan number, date and description of item, quantity and price of each item are given in the ledger account, Ex.PW1/3. The entries of ledger account are supported by invoices, Ex.PW1/1 (colly.). Defendants have failed to point out any discrepancy in the ledger account maintained by plaintiff. Thus, there is no reason to doubt the same. 10.20 PW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that defendant no.2 did not give any written guarantee in respect of alleged goods supplied. He has also admitted that none of the invoices bear the acknowledgment on behalf of defendants or agents or their authorized representative. The delivery challans have also not been signed by defendant no.2 nor the goods have been supplied on his instructions. No undertaking was ever given by defendant no.2 in writing to make payment of supplied goods to DPS Trust. The case of plaintiff is that the goods were supplied to DPS Trust on the instructions of defendant no.1. The only averment in the plaint against defendant no.2 is that he had introduced plaintiff to defendant no.1 as he was acquaintance of director of defendant no.1. Thus, only on the basis of the aforesaid averments, the liability of defendant no.2 cannot be fastened in the absence of any undertaking given by him to repay the dues of plaintiff.
10.21 In view of foregoing reasons and discussions, on the strength of documents duly proved on record by plaintiff, he has succeeded to prove his entitlement for seeking recovery of Rs.25,52,018/- against defendant no.1 towards the goods supplied to DPS Trust on its instructions. Accordingly, plaintiff is held entitled to recover an amount of Raj Rs.25,52,018/- from defendant no.1. Issue no.(i) is decided accordingly in Kumar favour of plaintiff.
Tripathi Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2026.03.10 13:05:59 +0530 CS (COMM) No.675/2023 (Harmeet Singh Chawla v. M/s VPN Infosolution Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.) Page 15 of 17 Issue no.(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest on the recovery sought, if so, at what rate and for what period?OPP.
11.1 Onus to prove this issue lies on plaintiff.
11.2 Plaintiff has claimed pre-suit, pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum on the outstanding amount.
11.3 Defendant no.1, withheld the legitimate dues of plaintiff, without any just and reasonable cause and did not make payment even despite service of legal notice, Ex.PW1/4. Therefore, it is liable to pay interest on the due amount to plaintiff. Plaintiff can be awarded pre-suit interest in terms of section 3 of The Interest Act, 1978. The rate of interest as claimed by plaintiff is clearly mentioned on each invoice and forms part of concluded commercial contract between the parties. PW1 in his cross- examination has admitted that none of the invoices placed on record bear the signatures of any of the defendants. The rate of interest i.e. 24% per annum claimed by plaintiff appears to be on higher side. No prevailing commercial practice and custom for charging interest at such a higher rate has been proved on record by plaintiff. Hence, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that interest of justice shall be subserved, if plaintiff is granted pre- suit interest @ 12% per annum.
11.4 It is well settled that in terms of section 4 of The Interest Act, 1978 and section 34 of CPC, grant of pendente lite and future interest is the discretion of the Court.
Raj 11.5 In the case of Central Bank of India v. Ravindra & Others AIR Kumar Tripathi 2001 SC 3095, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that award of Digitally signed by Raj Kumar interest u/s 34 CPC is discretionary. The discretion to award interest Tripathi Date: 2026.03.10 13:06:06 +0530 CS (COMM) No.675/2023 (Harmeet Singh Chawla v. M/s VPN Infosolution Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.) Page 16 of 17 should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The purpose of interest is to compensate the plaintiff for the delay in receiving payment and not to penalize the defendants. Hon'ble Apex Court also emphasised that the rate of interest should be reasonable reflecting the prevailing commercial rates and market condition.
11.6 In view of above and as the transactions between the parties is commercial in nature, this Court is of the considered view that interest of justice shall be subserved, if plaintiff is granted interest @ 8% per annum. Thus, plaintiff is held entitled for grant of interest @ 8% per annum on the principal outstanding amount withheld by defendant no.1. 11.7 The issue no.(ii) is decided accordingly in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no.1.
Relief 12.1 In view of findings returned on issue no.(i) and (ii), suit of plaintiff is decreed with cost.
12.2 Defendant no.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,52,018/- to plaintiff along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 01.07.2020 till the date of filing of the suit i.e. 14.09.2023 and @ 8% per annum w.e.f. 15.09.2023 till actual payment of the amount.
13.1 Decree sheet be prepared.
14.1 File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally
signed by
Raj Raj Kumar
Tripathi
Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2026.03.10
Announced in the Open 13:06:13
+0530
Court on 10.03.2026
(Raj Kumar Tripathi)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-05
West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS (COMM) No.675/2023
(Harmeet Singh Chawla v. M/s VPN Infosolution Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.) Page 17 of 17