Delhi District Court
Rakesh Kumar Jain Prop. Vallabh ... vs Manish Kumar Girdhar Prop. Unnati ... on 4 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-02
SHAHDARA DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
INDEX
S. NO. PARTICULARS/ DESCRIPTION PAGE NOS.
1. MEMO OF PARTIES 2
2. THE PLAINT 3-4
3. SERVICE ON THE DEFENDANT AND 4-5
PROCEEDINGS SO FAR
4. ISSUES FRAMED 5
5. PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE 5-7
6. ISSUE WISE FINDINGS AND 7 - 18
ANALYSIS
7. RELIEF 18
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN
KIRAN BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.10.04
16:28:05
+0530
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 02/2023 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Mr. Manish Kumar Girdhar Page No.1 of 18
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 02/2023
In the matter of
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain
Proprietor of M/s Vallabh Textile
Through its SPA
Sh. Sandeep Jain
Office at: IX/6463, Nehru Gali,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi - 110031
.... Plaintiff
Vs.
Mr. Manish Kumar Girdhar
Proprietor M/s Unnati Creation
Office at : G-12, 1, Upper Bazar Shardha Nand Road,
Ranchi, Jharkhand, Banwari, Complex, Pin - 834001
.... Defendant
Date of Institution :05.01.2023
Date of final arguments :09.09.2025
Date of conclusion :04.10.2025
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN
KIRAN BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.10.04
16:28:12
+0530
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 02/2023 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Mr. Manish Kumar Girdhar Page No.2 of 18
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit filed against the defendant for recovery of Rs.6,87,770/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum from the date of default, till its realisation.
THE PLAINT
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff is the Proprietor of M/s Vallabh Textile and deals in various types of garments. In the year 2018, defendant approached the plaintiff at his office at Gandhi Nagar, Delhi for dealing on credit basis and assured the plaintiff for fair dealing and timely payment. Plaintiff has stated that as per the assurance, he started supplying goods on credit basis from his registered address and raised invoices with respect to the goods supplied to the defendant and thereafter the plaintiff supplied goods to defendant from time to time, according to his demands, and also issued bills. Plaintiff has stated that from 01 April, 2018 to 31 October, 2019 he has supplied to defendant goods worth Rs.14,79,851/- on different dates and in lieu of the invoices, defendant had made a payment of Rs. 7,92,081/-, however, a sum of Rs. 6,87,770/- is still outstanding upon defendant. Thereafter, after receiving the last delivery of goods, defendants suddenly stopped the business with plaintiff, however, plaintiff regularly approached the defendants and his employees to clear the outstanding, but they completely ignored. Finding no other option, a legal notice dated 06.04.2022 was served upon the defendant and he made the payment of Rs. 50,000/- and had excused for the rest outstanding amount and sought more time to make the payment, but, he failed to make the payment. It is stated that the defendant is liable to pay a Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.04 16:28:20 +0530 Civil Suit (Comm) No. 02/2023 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Mr. Manish Kumar Girdhar Page No.3 of 18 cumulative amount of Rs. 6,87,770/- as principal amount alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 24% p.a., till its final realization.
2.1 It is further stated that as per Commercial Courts, 2015, the present matter is of more than Rs.3,00,000/-, therefore, plaintiff filed a Pre-Mediation application in DLSA, Shahdara on 02.05.2022, accordingly, a non-starter dated 28.05.2022 was issued.
2.2 It is stated that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this court as the goods were supplied to the defendant from his registered office at Gandhi Nagar, Delhi which falls within territorial jurisdiction of this court. Further, it is stated that value of the suit for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction is fixed at Rs.6,87,770/- and requisite court fees has been paid and the suit is filed within limitation.
Prayer has been made for decreeing the suit along with pendente-lite and future interest.
SERVICE ON THE DEFENDANT AND PROCEEDINGS SO FAR
3. Defendant was duly served with the summons and as per order dated 17.11.2023, since the defendant had not filed WS within prescribed period of 120 days, thus, the right to file written statement was closed. During the course of proceedings, the plaintiff has filed one application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint which was allowed vide order dated 29.11.2024 and the defendant was granted liberty to file Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.04 16:28:27 +0530 Civil Suit (Comm) No. 02/2023 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Mr. Manish Kumar Girdhar Page No.4 of 18 WS only to the extent of amended para in the plaint. However, the WS filed by the defendant was not in terms of order dated 29.11.2024 and it had various infirmities which were recorded in order dated 03.02.2025. However, as the defendant has failed to rectify the deficiencies and the WS filed by defendant was not signed on each and every page and was not accompanied with statement of truth, therefore, the WS of the defendant was taken off the record vide order dated 01.04.2025.
FRAMING OF ISSUES
4. Thereafter, on completion of pleadings of parties, the following issues were settled 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
5. In support of its case, plaintiff has examined Sh.
Sandeep Jain as PW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and has relied upon the following documents:
Invoice no.3254 as Ex.PW1/1; Invoice no.3214 as Ex.PW1/2; Invoice no.3216 as Ex.PW1/3; Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL Date: BANSAL 2025.10.04 16:28:34 +0530
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 02/2023 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Mr. Manish Kumar Girdhar Page No.5 of 18 Invoice no.3949 as Ex.PW1/4;
Invoice no.3990 as Ex.PW1/5(colly-4 pgs.); Invoice no.3991 as Ex.PW1/6(colly-3 pgs.); Invoice no.4012 as Ex.PW1/7(colly-2 pgs.); Invoice no.1601 as Ex.PW1/8(colly-2 pgs.); E-way bill no.701055088693 as Ex.PW1/9; E-way bill no.771054637608 as Ex.PW1/10; E-way bill no.701040917865 as Ex.PW1/11; E-way bill no.711040904899 as Ex.PW1/12; E-way bill no.761054638752 as Ex.PW1/13; E-way bill no.721054774786 as Ex.PW1/14; E-way bill no.761055147202 as Ex.PW1/15; Ledger from the year 2018 to 2022 as Ex.PW1/16; Office copy of legal notice as Ex.PW1/17; Original postal receipt as Ex.PW1/18;
Special power of attorney as Ex.PW1/19(colly); Certificate by way of affidavit under Order XI Rule 6(3) CPC read with Section 65A and 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/20;
Non-Starter Report as Ex.PW1/21;
He was cross examined at length on behalf of defendant.
5.1 A summoned witness Sh. Ashutosh Kumar examined as PW-2 who proved the GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B for the month November, 2018, December, 2018, February, 2019 and July, 2019 of M/s Vallabh Textiles bearing GSTIN No.07ACDPJ3468L1ZC as Ex.PW2/1 (colly) and authorization letter along with certificate u/s 63 of BSA, 2023 in support of the same as Ex.PW2/2(colly).
Digitally signed by KIRANKIRAN BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2025.10.04 16:28:42 +0530 Civil Suit (Comm) No. 02/2023 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Mr. Manish Kumar Girdhar Page No.6 of 18 5.2 Another summoned witness Sh. Prashant, Assistant Manager of Axis Bank examined as PW-3 proved the account statement of the plaintiff Firm bearing account no.918020072897494 in the name of plaintiff Firm M/s Vallabh Textile for the period from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019, 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020, 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021, 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 as Ex.PW3/1(colly) and Certificate u/s 63(4)(c) of BSA, 2023 as well as Authority Letter as Ex.PW3/2(colly).
6. The court has heard ld. counsel for the plaintiff as well as ld. counsel for the defendant and have also gone through the records of the case.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS ISSUE No. (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree? If so, to what amount? OPP.
7. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The present suit is commercial in nature and squarely falls within the purview of Section 2 (1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act as the transaction between the parties was commercial and the amount claimed is more than Rs. 3 Lacs i.e. the specified value fixed for the Commercial Courts and hence, this court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit.
8. Plaintiff has also duly complied with mandatory provision of Pre-Institution Mediation and Conciliation as provided in Section 12 A of Commercial Courts Act, as the non-
Digitally signed by KIRANKIRAN BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2025.10.04 16:28:49 +0530 Civil Suit (Comm) No. 02/2023 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Mr. Manish Kumar Girdhar Page No.7 of 18 starter report dated 28.05.2022 Ex. PW-1/21 which mentions the reason as "Respondent did not provide any consent to participate in the process of Pre-institution Mediation. Despite service of notices through WhatsApp. Hence Non Starter Report issued."
9. As far as the territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it has been submitted by the counsel for the plaintiff that the present court has territorial jurisdiction to try present suit as plaintiff has registered office address of the plaintiff and goods were supplied from the registered place of the plaintiff as well as invoices were also raised from the registered office of the plaintiff i.e. IX/6463, Nehru Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi- 110031. On the other hand, the defendant has argued that the present court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit as the defendant is based out of Ranchi, Jharkhand and the goods were also sent to the defendant in Ranchi.
10. It is a settled law that as per Section 20 CPC, a suit can be instituted on following places:
a. Where the defendant resides, carries on business or personally works for gain or;
b. Where there are more than one defendant(s) and one of the defendants resides, works for gain or carries on business provided the other defendants has acquiesced in such institution or the leave of the court has been granted; c. Where cause of action arise.
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN
KIRAN BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.10.04
16:28:55
+0530
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 02/2023 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Mr. Manish Kumar Girdhar Page No.8 of 18
11. In the present suit, it is clear that clause (b) of section 20 is not applicable. As per section 20 (a) CPC, even as per memo filed by the address of the defendant is of Ranchi, Jharkhand and thus, the jurisdiction can be of courts situated there. However, it is to be kept in mind that Section 20 CPC provides plaintiff an option to file the suit in any one of the three places. Thus, it would be pertinent to discuss if any cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction of this court.
12. Perusal of the invoices filed by the plaintiff (Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/8) reveals that it provides for the bank account details of plaintiff where the defendant was required to make the payment. As per these invoices, the defendant had to make the payment at bank account of plaintiff bearing account number 918020072897494 maintained at Axis bank, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-51 which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.
13. In the case of TWK Management Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Sherif Cargo and Anr. CS (Comm) decided on 31.01.2023, Hon'ble Delhi HC has in respect of question of territorial jurisdiction on basis of payment agreed to be made has observed as follows:
"15. Next, I shall deal with the issue of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present suit. A reference may be made to the relevant clause in the invoices, which provides that the payments from the Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2025.10.04 16:29:02 +0530 Civil Suit (Comm) No. 02/2023 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Mr. Manish Kumar Girdhar Page No.9 of 18 defendants to the plaintiff were to be made only in New Delhi. The same is set out below:
"Notes: ... 3. Delivery Order will be issued only against payment of above charges in Cash or Bank Demand Draft in Favour of TKW MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. Payable at NEW DELHI only."
16. A perusal of the note above would show that the amounts under the unpaid invoices were payable in New Delhi and therefore, cause of action in the present suit has arisen in New Delhi. In any event, in respect of the 29 invoices, the goods were delivered in Delhi and therefore, it cannot be denied that at least a part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi. In terms of Section 20(c) of the CPC, this court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit"
Thus, on the basis of the invoices the place of payment was agreed to be made at Axis Bank, Krishna Nagar, Delhi which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the present court.
14. The plaintiff has also summoned PW-3 who has bought bank account statement of plaintiff from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2022 which is Ex. PW-3/1. Perusal of the Ex. PW-3/1 reveals that defendant has made part payment in the above- mentioned account. Thus, on the basis of the principle of 'Debtor seeks creditor', the present court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit.Digitally signed by KIRAN
KIRAN BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2025.10.04 16:29:09 +0530 Civil Suit (Comm) No. 02/2023 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Mr. Manish Kumar Girdhar Page No.10 of 18
15. As far as the limitation is concerned, the present suit is filed on 05.01.2023. The first invoice is raised by the plaintiff on 29.11.2018 and the last invoice is raised on 06.07.2019. Moreover, the defendant has been making part payments to the plaintiff on various occasions and the same are also reflected in the ledger (Ex. PW-1/16). The plaintiff has stated that the defendant has made a part payment of Rs.
50,000/- on 19.04.2022 i.e. after receiving the legal notice (Ex. PW-1/17) sent on 06.04.2022. The said payment is duly reflected in the ledger account. However, the PW-3 has produced bank account statement of the plaintiff from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2022, thus, this part payment can not be verified. Moreover, the ledger produced by the plaintiff can not be taken to be conclusive proof of the said payment as per Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act (section 28 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) as has been held by the Hon'ble SC in case of CBI vs V C Shukla AIR 1998 SC 1406, Ishwar Dass Jain (Dead) Thr. Lrs vs Sohan Lal (Dead) by LRs AIR 2000 SC 426 . The plaintiff has not filed any bank account statement pertaining to this period.
16. However, the payment of Rs. 50,000/- dated 29.12.2021 is duly corroborated by the bank account statement (Ex. PW-3/1). The account between the plaintiff and defendant is a non mutual, running and current account and the period of limitation would be calculated from the date of last payment made by the defendant to the plaintiff. Thus, the present suit filed on 05.01.2023 is filed within the period of three years from the date of payment i.e. 29.12.2021. Moreover, in view of Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2025.10.04 16:29:16 +0530 Civil Suit (Comm) No. 02/2023 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Mr. Manish Kumar Girdhar Page No.11 of 18 judgement of Hon'ble SC in case of In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is also liable to be excluded in computing the period of limitation. Therefore, the present suit is filed within limitation.
17. On merits, the defendant has argued that the suit is not maintainable as PW-1 i.e. Sh. Sandeep Soni, in his cross examination has deposed that defendant never approached rather his brother in law came to his office. The relevant part of the cross of PW-1 is as follows:
"I Know the defendant through his brother in law namely Himanshu. Defendant approached me for the business dealings....
Defendant approached me after visiting at my office with his friend namely Tapan Giridhar. I donot remember the exact time, day and date when defendant visited at my office. Again said, defendant has never came at my office which is in Delhi for purpose of any dealing. Again said Himanshu who is brother in law of the defendant has came to my office.....
Defendant has never approached me either telephonically or physically."
18. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is accepted that the plaintiff had dealt with some person other than defendant but the fact remains that the defendant has been making payment to Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.04 16:29:25 +0530 Civil Suit (Comm) No. 02/2023 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Mr. Manish Kumar Girdhar Page No.12 of 18 the plaintiff through its account to the plaintiff. If the defendant was not having any business relation with the plaintiff, then the onus was upon the defendant to prove as to why the defendant has made payments to the plaintiff. Thus, even if it is accepted that plaintiff had dealt with brother in law of the defendant and the payments were made from the bank account of the firm of the defendant and the goods were also delivered to the firm of the defendant, then it can at best be inferred that brother in law was acting in capacity of the agent of the defendant and not in his independent/ individual capacity.
19. Therefore, the mere plea that brother in law of the defendant has approached the plaintiff is not sufficient to discharge the defendant of his legal liabilities.
20. The plaintiff has produced invoices alongwith E- way bills which shows that the goods were supplied from Gandhi Nagar from the registered address of the plaintiff and the sent to defendant at Ranchi. Moreover, as per the invoices under the details of the receiver, the name of the defendant's firm is written.
21. The invoices filed by the plaintiff (Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/8) duly corresponds to the ledger (Ex. PW-1/16) of the defendant maintained by the plaintiff. Moreover, the plaintiff has also summoned a witness from GST department i.e. Ex. PW-2 who has produced the GSTR-1 and GSTR 3B of the plaintiff's firm i.e. M/s Vallabh Textiles for the month of November 2018, Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.04 16:29:32 +0530 Civil Suit (Comm) No. 02/2023 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Mr. Manish Kumar Girdhar Page No.13 of 18 December 2018, February 2019 and July 2019. Perusal of the same reveals that all the invoices raised by the plaintiff are duly reflected in the GSTR1 (Ex. PW-2/1).
22. Thus, the plaintiff has duly proved the invoices (Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/8) as the same are duly reflected in the ledger account maintained by the plaintiff. Furthermore, they are supported by the e-way bills (Ex. PW-1/9 to Ex. PW-1/15) and are also supported by the relevant GST record (Ex. PW-2/1).
23. The plaintiff has also proved the delivery of the goods by way of producing the e-way bills supporting the invoices. In this regard, reference can be made to Sanjana Agarwal vs Namoshivai Apparels Private Limited RFA (Comm) 212 of 2023 wherein it was observed as follows:
"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 that if a rejection is not made available within 72 hours on the common portal or at the time of delivery, it shall be deemed that Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.04 16:29:41 +0530 Civil Suit (Comm) No. 02/2023 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Mr. Manish Kumar Girdhar Page No.14 of 18 the recipient has accepted the goods. Sub-Rule (11) and (12) of Rule 138 of the CGST Rules are reproduced below:
"138. Information to be furnished prior to commencement of movement of goods and generation of e-way bill.
...
(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 subrule (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, or the time of delivery of goods whichever is earlier, it shall be deemed that he has accepted the said details.""Digitally signed by KIRAN
KIRAN BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2025.10.04 16:29:49 +0530 Civil Suit (Comm) No. 02/2023 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Mr. Manish Kumar Girdhar Page No.15 of 18
24. The defendant has not filed any proof in this regard which would rebut the fact that defendant has not received the delivery of the goods. Thus, the delivery of the goods is also proved accordingly.
25. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff has also summoned witness from a bank (Ex. PW-3) who has produced the bank account statement of the plaintiff's firm Ex.
PW-1/3 which shows the part payments being made by the defendant in its account. Thus, the onus was upon the defendant to prove that he has made complete payment to the plaintiff and nothing is outstanding upon him. However, the defendant has not produced any document to show that he has paid the outstanding amount to the plaintiff.
26. Moreover, the defendant has also not rebutted the ledger filed by the plaintiff which shows that a principal sum of Rs. 6,87,770/- is outstanding upon the defendant.
27. It is also pertinent to mention here that the defendant has not led any evidence to rebut the evidence/ testimony of the plaintiff. Thus, in view of the unrebutted testimony of the plaintiff and the invoices, e-way bills, ledger and GST record as produced by the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to the money decree to the extent of Rs. 6,87,770/-.
Issue no. (i) is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Digitally signed by KIRANKIRAN BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2025.10.04 16:29:58 +0530 Civil Suit (Comm) No. 02/2023 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Mr. Manish Kumar Girdhar Page No.16 of 18 ISSUE No. (ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest?
If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
28. The plaintiff has claimed pendente lite and future interest @ 24% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs. 6,87,770/- from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
29. The plaintiff has not calculated the pre-suit interest as per Order VII Rule 2A CPC and has neither paid any court fees on it. Thus, it seems that the plaintiff has forgone its claim with respect to the pre-suit interest. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to the pre-suit interest.
30. As far as the pendente-lite and future interest in concerned, the plaintiff has claimed it at 24% p.a. The perusal of the invoices filed by the plaintiff reveals that it contains a stipulation that interest @ 24% p.a. will be charged if the payment is not made within stipulated time. However, it is a settled law that such unilaterally appended terms to the invoice are not legally enforceable. Thus, plaintiff cannot be entitled to the interest @ 24% p.a.
31. Moreover, the plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove that there was a mutually agreed rate of interest between the parties. Since the plaintiff has proved that he is entitled to principal amount, he is entitled to interest at reasonable rate.
Digitally signed by KIRANKIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.04 16:30:06 +0530 Civil Suit (Comm) No. 02/2023 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Mr. Manish Kumar Girdhar Page No.17 of 18
32. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future interest @ 9 % p.a. w.e.f. 05.01.2023 (date of filing of the suit) till its realization.
Issue no. (ii) is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No. (iii) Relief:
33. In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant and it is directed that plaintiff is entitled to an amount of Rs. 6,87,770/- from the defendant as principal amount along with interest @ 9% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 6,87,770/- from 05.01.2023 (date of filing of the suit), till its actual realization and cost to the extent of court fees and litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/-.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by KIRANKIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.04 16:30:14 +0530 Pronounced in open court on (Kiran Bansal) 4 day of October, 2025 District Judge, Commercial Court-02 th Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts Delhi/04.10.2025.
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 02/2023 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Mr. Manish Kumar Girdhar Page No.18 of 18