Delhi District Court
Silverline Graphics Pvt vs Aravali Printer And Publishers on 20 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH.RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-08,
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM.) No.14/2025
(Silverline Graphics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Aravali Printers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd.)
CNR No. DLSE01-013610-2024
Silverline Graphics Pvt. Ltd.
A-140, DDA Sheds,
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2,
New Delhi-110 020.
........Plaintiff
Through:-Mr. Rajendra Yadav, advocate
Versus
Aravali Printers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
W-30, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-2, New Delhi-110 020.
......Defendant
Through:- Mr. Shubhankar, advocate
Date of filing of suit : 21.12.2024
Arguments heard on : 23.07.2025 and 26.07.2025
Date of Judgment : 20.08.2025
JUDGMENT:
1.1 Plaintiff filed the present suit against defendant for seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.15,57,712/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Twelve only) along with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum and cost of the suit.
Raj Brief facts of the case:- Kumar Tripathi 2.1 Plaintiff is engaged in the business of offset printing Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi material supply etc. Date: 2025.08.21 10:17:32 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.14/2025
(Silverline Graphics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Aravali Printers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd.) Page No. 1 of 13 2.2 Case of plaintiff is that defendant placed orders for supply of material which was duly supplied by it. Thereafter, plaintiff raised total bill for a sum of Rs.22,22,707/- which was duly acknowledged by defendant. Out of total bill amount of Rs.22,22,707/-, defendant had made part payment of Rs.6,64,995/-, which was duly encashed by plaintiff by cheques/e-payment. Defendant made last payment of Rs.27,500/- on 14.06.2022.
2.3 Plaintiff claims to have maintained a running account in the name of defendant in the regular and ordinary course of business. As per the statement of account/ledger account, a sum of Rs.15,57,712/- is outstanding as on 23.09.2023. 2.4 Plaintiff made regular demands of payment of outstanding dues to defendant by personal visits and telephonic calls, who always avoided and neglected to pay the same on one pretext or another.
2.5 Thereafter, plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 23.09.2023 requesting the defendant to pay the outstanding amount but to no avail.
2.6 Finding no other option, plaintiff filed an application for Pre-Institution Mediation under section 12A of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 before South-East District Legal Services Authority, Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi on 26.04.2024. However, despite issuance of two notices, defendant did not participate in mediation proceedings scheduled for hearing on 24.05.2024 and 03.07.2024. Consequently, the Raj Kumar Tripathi process of mediation was treated as non-starter vide Non-Starter Digitally signed by Report dated 15.07.2024. Thereafter, plaintiff filed the present Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.08.21 10:17:38 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.14/2025 (Silverline Graphics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Aravali Printers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd.) Page No. 2 of 13 suit against defendant for seeking recovery of its dues. Defence of defendants 3.1 In the written statement, defendant stated that the submissions/averments made by the plaintiff in the present suit are false and frivolous. The present suit is devoid of merits and is barred by the law of limitation.
3.2 As per defendant, it made the payment of the valid invoices and there is no outstanding amount to be paid by it to plaintiff.
3.3 It is contended that plaintiff has manipulated the ledger/statement of account to cause wrongful gain to itself and wrongful loss to defendant. There was no assurance given by defendant to make payment of any amount to plaintiff. Defendant claims to have not received any notice from the plaintiff. Denying all the other averments and allegations of the plaint, defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.
Issues 4.1 From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 27.03.2024:-
(i) Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by law of limitation as alleged by defendant in para no.2 of the preliminary objections of the written statement?OPD.
(ii)Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of an amount of Rs.15,57,712/- as prayed for?OPP.
Raj Kumar (iii)Whether plaintiff is entitled for pendente lite Tripathi and future interest, if so, at what rate? OPP.
Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.08.2110:17:44 +0530 (iv) Relief.
CS (COMM.) No.14/2025(Silverline Graphics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Aravali Printers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd.) Page No. 3 of 13 Evidence of parties 5.1 In support of its case, plaintiff examined its AR Mr. Farhat Mansoor as PW1, who filed his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.PW1/1, wherein he has reiterated and reaffirmed the same facts as stated in the plaint.
5.2 Before coming to the testimony of PW1, the documents relied upon by him are put in a tabulated form as under:-
S.No. Details of Document Exhibit Mark
1. Copy of Article of Memorandum/Association. Ex.PW1/A
2. Computer generated copy of Bills. Ex.PW1/B
(colly)
3. Copy of Ledger of Accounts maintained by Ex.PW1/C plaintiff.
4. Office copy of Legal Notice dated 23.09.2023. Ex.PW1/D
5. Copy of Authorization of AR. Ex.PW1/E
6. Original Non-Starter Report. Ex.PW1/G
7. Affidavit under Order XI Rule 6 CPC. Ex.PW1/H 6.1 On the other hand, Mr. Vijay Goel, one of the Directors of defendant company, examined himself as DW1. He filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A. He proved the Board Resolution in his favour as Ex.DW1/1. Findings and Observations:
7.1 I have heard and considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record. Raj Kumar Issue wise findings are as under:-
Tripathi Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Issue no.(i) Tripathi Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by law of limitation as alleged by Date:
2025.08.21 10:17:51 +0530 defendant in para no.2 of the preliminary objections of the written CS (COMM.) No.14/2025 (Silverline Graphics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Aravali Printers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd.) Page No. 4 of 13 statement?OPD.
8.1 Onus to prove this issue lies on defendant. 8.2 In order to discharge the onus to prove the issue, Mr.Vijay Goel, one of the directors of defendant company has examined himself as DW1.
8.3 For ease of convenience, Rule 3A of Order VIII CPC (as amended upto date by The Commercial Courts Act, 2015) is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
"3A. Denial by the defendant in suits before the Commercial Division of the High Court or the Commercial Court.
(1) Denial shall be in the manner provided in sub- rules (2), (3), (4) and (5) of this Rule. (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. (3) Where the defendant denies an allegation of fact in a plaint, he must state his reasons for doing so and if he intends to put forward a different version of events from that given by the plaintiff, he must state his own version.
(4) If the defendant disputes the jurisdiction of the Court he must state the reasons for doing so, and if he is able, give his own statement as to which Court ought to have jurisdiction.
5) If the defendant disputes the plaintiff's valuation of the suit, he must state his reasons for doing so, and if he is able, give his own statement of the value of the suit."
8.4 In the case in hand, defendant in its written statement has contended that the suit filed by plaintiff is barred by law of limitation. The defendant has not stated its reasons as to how the Raj suit of plaintiff is barred by law of limitation. Thus, a bald plea Kumar Tripathi has been taken by defendant without any specific reasons and Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.08.21 supporting material to contend that the suit of plaintiff is barred 10:17:57 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.14/2025 (Silverline Graphics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Aravali Printers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd.) Page No. 5 of 13 by law of limitation.
8.5 On the other hand, plaintiff has averred that the last payment of Rs.27,500/- was received from defendant on 14.06.2022. Plaintiff filed the present suit on 21.12.2024 i.e. within three years from the date of last payment made by defendant. Thus, the suit of plaintiff is found to be well within limitation.
8.6 In view of above, this Court is of the considered view that defendant has miserably failed to discharge the onus to prove the issue. Accordingly, issue no.(i) is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no.(ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of an amount of Rs.15,57,712/- as prayed for?OPP.
9.1 Onus to prove this issue lies on plaintiff. 9.2 In order to discharge the onus to prove the issue, plaintiff has examined its AR Mr. Farhat Mansoor as PW1. Mr. Mansoor, in his affidavit of evidence, Ex.PW1/1 has supported and corroborated the plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint. 9.3 PW1 has deposed that plaintiff had raised the bills in the name of defendant amounting to Rs.22,22,707/- which was duly acknowledged by defendant and defendant agreed to make payment of said amount. As per PW1, defendant made part payment of Rs.6,64,995/- through cheque/cash/e-payment which was duly encashed by plaintiff. Thus, the balance amount of Rs.15,57,712/- is due and payable by defendant. He proved copy Raj Kumar of bills as Ex.PW1/B (colly.) and the ledger account maintained in Tripathi Digitally signed by Raj Kumar the name of defendant as Ex.PW1/C. As per statement of Tripathi Date: 2025.08.21 10:18:05 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.14/2025 (Silverline Graphics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Aravali Printers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd.) Page No. 6 of 13 account/ledger account, an amount of Rs.15,57,712/- is outstanding against defendant. PW1 has deposed that the ledger account was maintained by plaintiff in the name of defendant in its books of account in the regular and ordinary course of business. The defendant, despite regular demands to make payment of outstanding dues, avoided, neglected and failed to clear the same. Plaintiff issued legal notice dated 23.09.2023 calling upon defendant to make payment of the outstanding amount but to no avail. He proved the legal notice as Ex.PW1/D. 9.4 In his cross-examination, PW1 has reasserted that he was involved in the financial transactions between the parties. He stated that defendant telephonically placed the purchase orders upon the plaintiff. He further deposed that as per ledger account, Ex.PW1/C, the opening balance as on 01.04.2020 is Rs.18,20,409/-. He reaffirmed that in the legal notice, plaintiff demanded an amount of Rs.15,57,712/-.
9.5 PW1 in his cross-examination stated that in the ledger from 2020-23, the payment was not made by defendant on invoice to invoice basis. As per the witness, it was made on the basis of running account shown in the ledger. He denied the suggestion that defendant had made all the payments on time, though, in piecemeal. He stated that as the payments were made short to invoice, it gradually added in the outstanding amount. 9.6 PW1 remained firm and consistent throughout his deposition. His testimony could not be assailed despite lengthy cross-examination conducted by counsel for defendant. Raj Kumar Defendant has miserably failed to elicit any positive response in Tripathi Digitally signed by Raj Kumar its favour during cross-examination of PW1. The case of plaintiff Tripathi Date: 2025.08.21 10:18:12 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.14/2025 (Silverline Graphics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Aravali Printers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd.) Page No. 7 of 13 is based on documentary evidence. The documents relied upon by plaintiff remained unimpeached and unchallenged. Thus, there is no reason to doubt the plaintiff's case and the documents relied upon by PW1.
9.7 Section 28 of The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 relates to entries in books of account. It provides that the entries in the books of account, including those maintained in an electronic form, regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to enquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. 9.8 In the case of Dharam Chand Joshi v. Satya Narayan Bazaz AIR 1993 Gau 35, it was held that books of account being only corroborative evidence must be supported by some evidence. 9.9 Further, in the case of Jay Ambe Industries, proprietor Shri Dineshkumar Bajranglal Somani v. Garnet Speciality Paper Ltd. AIR 2022 Guj 90, it was held that without corroboration, entries in the ledger cannot be brought within the purview of section 34 of The Evidence Act.
9.10 In the case in hand, the ledger account, Ex.PW1/C is supported with the invoices, Ex.PW1/B (colly.) raised by plaintiff upon defendant against supply of material. Defendant has miserably failed to point out any discrepancy in the maintenance of ledger account, Ex.PW1/C. All the payments made by defendant are duly reflected in the ledger account, Ex.PW1/C. Raj Thus, there is no reason to doubt the same. As per ledger Kumar Tripathi account, Ex.PW1/C, an amount of Rs.15,57,712/- is due and Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi payable by defendant as on 14.06.2022. Defendant has failed to Date: 2025.08.21 10:18:18 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.14/2025 (Silverline Graphics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Aravali Printers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd.) Page No. 8 of 13 prove on record that payment against all the invoices and the outstanding dues of plaintiff has been made. 9.11 On the other hand, DW1 during his cross- examination produced the ledger maintained by defendant for the financial year 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 and proved the same as Ex.DW1/L. DW1 further produced balance sheets for the financial year 2021-22 and 2022-23 and the same have been marked as Mark-R and Mark-Q respectively. 9.12 DW1 did not produce either original or the certified copy of the balance sheets. The defendant also did not examine the CA or the concerned person, who prepared the balance sheets to prove the same. Thus, the balance sheets Mark-R and Mark-Q could not be proved on record in accordance with law. 9.13 DW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that there is only one entry in his ledger account for the financial year 2020-21. He has admitted that the cheque no.899377 dated 18.02.2021 for Rs.4,00,000/- issued by defendant to plaintiff had bounced. He admitted that the said payment of Rs.4,00,000/- is not shown in the ledger (Ex.DW1/L) maintained by defendant of the financial year 2020-21 (01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021). 9.14 DW1 has further admitted that he had tendered a cheque bearing no.541732 of Rs.50,000/- to plaintiff on 12.05.2022 which was returned on 13.05.2022. As per DW1, issuance/dishonour of said cheque is not in the ledger of defendant. He admitted that the said payment of Rs.50,000/- was Raj Kumar not made to the plaintiff company against the said cheque till Tripathi Digitally signed by Raj Kumar date.
Tripathi Date: 2025.08.2110:18:25 +0530 9.15 The ledger statement, Ex.DW1/L relied upon by CS (COMM.) No.14/2025 (Silverline Graphics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Aravali Printers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd.) Page No. 9 of 13 DW1 is not supported by any corroborative evidence. Many discrepancies were pointed out in the ledger account of defendant which could not be properly explained by DW1. Thus, in the absence of any corroboration, the ledger, Ex.DW1/L relied upon by defendant cannot be believed.
9.16 In view of foregoing reasons and discussions, this Court is of the considered view that plaintiff has succeeded to discharge the onus to prove the issue. Accordingly, issue no.(ii) is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue no.(iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for pendente lite and future interest, if so, at what rate?OPP.
10.1 Onus to prove this issue lies on plaintiff. 10.2 PW1 Mr. Farhat Mansoor, in his affidavit of evidence, Ex.PW1/1 has deposed that defendant is liable to pay interest on the outstanding amount @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit/claim till realization. 10.3 There is clear stipulation in the tax invoices, Ex.PW1/B (colly.) that interest @ 24% will be charged, if the bill is not paid within stipulated period. As per the payment term mentioned in the invoices, the bill is to be paid within 90 days from the date of issuance of invoice.
10.4 For ease of convenience, section 34 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which deals with interest is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
Raj "34. Interest.- (1) Where and in so far as a Kumar decree is for the payment of money, the Court Tripathi may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as Digitally signed by Raj Kumar the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the Tripathi Date: 2025.08.21 principal sum adjudged, from the date of the 10:18:33 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.14/2025 (Silverline Graphics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Aravali Printers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd.) Page No. 10 of 13 suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent, per annum, as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit.
Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent, per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalized banks in relation to commercial transactions......".
10.5 The concept of awarding interest on delayed payment has been explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Authorized Officer, Karnataka Bank v. M/s RMS Granites Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.12294/2024, wherein, it was held as under:-
"It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say ten years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest on the principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B ten years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with Raj himself and earned interest on it for this period. Kumar Hence equity demands that A should not only Tripathi pay back the principal amount but also the Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi interest thereon to B. [See: Alok Shanker Date: 2025.08.21 10:18:44 +0530 Pandey v. Union of India: AIR 2007 SC 1198.]"
10.6 Further, in the case of Secretary, Irrigation Department Government of Orissa v. G.C. Roy (1992) 1 SCC CS (COMM.) No.14/2025 (Silverline Graphics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Aravali Printers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd.) Page No. 11 of 13 508, the constitution bench of Hon'ble Apex Court opined that a person deprived of use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name. It may be called interest, compensation or damages. This is also the principle of section 34 of The Civil Procedure Code.
10.7 In the case of M/s Tomorrowland Ltd. v. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. & Another SLP(C) No. 34338/2016 decided on 13.02.2025, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"49. It is trite law that under Section 34 of the CPC, the award of interest is a discretionary exercise steeped in equitable considerations. The law in this regard has been succinctly discussed in the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra & Ors.; (2002) 1 SCC 367, which states:
"Award of interest pendente lite or post-decree is discretionary with the Court as it is essentially governed by Section 34 of the CPC de hors the contract between the parties. In a given case if the Court finds that in the principal sum adjudged on the date of the suit, the component of interest is disproportionate with Raj Kumar the component of the principal sum actually Tripathi advanced, the Court may exercise its discretion in awarding interest pendente lite and post-Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi
decree interest at a lower rate or may even Date: 2025.08.21 decline to award such interest. The discretion 10:19:13 +0530 shall be exercised fairly, judiciously, and for not arbitrary or fanciful reasons.
[Emphasis supplied"
10.8 Applying ratio of law laid down in the aforementioned cases with respect to grant of interest to the facts of the present case and as the transaction between the parties is commercial in nature, this Court is of the considered view that CS (COMM.) No.14/2025 (Silverline Graphics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Aravali Printers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd.) Page No. 12 of 13 interest of justice shall be subserved, if plaintiff is granted interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payment.
10.9 The issue no.(iii) is decided accordingly in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Relief 11.1 For the forgoing reasons and discussions and findings returned on issue no.(i) to (iii), the suit of plaintiff is decreed with cost. Defendant is directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,57,712/- to plaintiff along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 21.12.2024 till actual realization of the amount.
12.1 Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. 13.1 File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed Raj by Raj Kumar
Tripathi
Kumar Date:
2025.08.21
Tripathi 10:19:19
Announced in the open court +0530
Dated: 20.08.2025 (RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-08, South-East District, Saket Courts,New Delhi CS (COMM.) No.14/2025 (Silverline Graphics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Aravali Printers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd.) Page No. 13 of 13