Delhi District Court
Sita Ram And Company Pvt. Ltd vs Bansal Interio on 5 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLWT01006544-2023
CS (COMM) No.598/2023
M/S SITA RAM AND COMPANY PVT. LTD.
At: 73-9/2 & 10/2, Swaran Park,
Main Rohtak Road,
Mundka,
Delhi-110041
......Plaintiff
Versus
M/S BANSAL INTERIO
through its proprietor Mr. Rakesh Bansal
At: B-2/11, Mohan Cooperative Ind. Estate,
Badarpur,
New Delhi-110044
...... Defendant
COMMERCIAL SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.36,73,872/-
(RUPEES THIRTY SIX LAKHS SEVENTY THREE
THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND SEVENTY TWO
ONLY) ALONG WITH PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE
INTEREST
Date of institution of suit : 11.08.2023
Date of Assignment to this court : 11.08.2023
Date of hearing of final argument : 05.02.2026
Date of Judgment : 05.02.2026
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, I shall conscientiously adjudicate upon the commercial suit of plaintiff for Recovery of Rs.36,73,872/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Eight Hundred And Seventy Digitally CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 1 of 37 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA Two Only) along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum till its realisation and costs of the Suit.
2. As derived from the pleadings, the concise facts of the plaint are being summarised hereunder:
2.1 That the plaintiff is a Private Limited Company duly incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 73/9/2 & 10/2, Assam Timber Market, Swaran Park, Mundka, Delhi 110041. The plaintiff is carrying its business of trade, import, and supplies of various types of timber and wood in India. The present suit has been filed through Sh. Sanjay Kumar Mangal, Authorized Representative of the plaintiff company, who is duly authorized to file, sign and represent the plaintiff company to effectively pursue the present Suit before this Court.
2.2 Mr. Rakesh Bansal, Sole Proprietor of M/s. Bansal Interio, approached the plaintiff at its Delhi office i.e. Mundka, Nangloi, Delhi and had desired to purchase the goods dealt by the plaintiff i.e. Timber/ allied goods etc. It is the case of plaintiff that the defendant had assured of timely payments to the plaintiff against goods supplied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff agreed to supply the goods to the defendant, upon believing the assurance of the defendant.
The plaintiff supplied the goods on credit basis to the defendant at Delhi as well as at Faridabad, as per orders placed by the defendant. The branch offices at Delhi and Faridabad are stated to be controlled by the defendant. The defendant made "on account payments" against supplies Digitally CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 2 of 37 PREETI GUPTA signed by AGRAWAL PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA delivered at both the offices of the defendant.
2.3 It is further averred that the plaintiff supplied the goods to the defendant vide various invoices with first invoice, dispatched the goods vide invoice bearing No. L-061 dated 08.04.2019 and the last invoice being No. L-307 dated 06.05.2022. The goods i.e. imported Swan Wood and Planed Wall Panels were dispatched from Delhi Office of plaintiff and the goods were supplied "on credit basis", for a credit period of 30 days from the date of respective invoice, as per the terms and mutual agreement between the parties. The plaintiff claims to have supplied the goods to the defendant vide following invoices:
SNo DATE INVOICE NO. AMOUNT (RS.)
1. 08.04.2019 L-061 3,60,648/-
2. 15.05.2019 L-299 2,98,872/-
3. 29.05.2019 L-388 3,91,177/-
4. 04.06.2019 L-430 6,41,717/-
5. 17.06.2019 L-507 3,52,666/-
6. 19.06.2019 L-522 4,32,325/-
7. 04.07.2019 L-626 4,49,160/-
8. 10.07.2019 L-664 3,13,972/-
9. 18.07.2019 L-738 4,53,640/-
10. 23.07.2019 L-773 4,46,696/-
11. 31.07.2019 L-837 6,63,351/-
12. 09.08.2019 C-352 6,49,320/-
13. 13.08.2019 C-359 6,65,881/-
14. 31.08.2019 C-412 4,48,557/-
15. 07.09.2019 C-434 2,71,976/-
16. 09.04.2021 L-63 2,39,826/-
17. 06.05.2022 L-307 84,665/-
2.4 It is further the case of plaintiff that the defendant after
Digitally
CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 3 of 37 PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
receiving the goods "on credit" from the plaintiff, used to make on account part payments to the plaintiff. The last payment was made by the defendant on 05.05.2022 for a sum of Rs.70,000/-. After giving all adjustments, a principal sum of Rs.30,36,258/- is stated to be due, outstanding and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff as on 06.05.2022. When despite various reminders and requests the defendant did not make the payment to the plaintiff, a legal notice dated 30.12.2021 was issued to the defendant for claiming the due and outstanding amount. However, the said legal notice was neither replied nor complied by the defendant. Hence, the present suit.
2.5 The plaintiff filed an application before DLSA West District, Tis Hazari Courts for institution of pre-litigation mediation. The defendant himself or through any representative failed to appear or participate in the mediation. Consequently, Non-Starter Report dated 18.04.2022 was issued by DLSA, West.
2.6 The cause of action for filing the present suit is claimed at the time of placing order for supply of goods by the defendant; at the time when defendant made part payment on 05.05.2022; when legal notice dated 30.12.2021 was issued and further when plaintiff applied for pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act. The cause of action is still subsisting and continuing. The suit has been filed before this court as appropriate jurisdiction where the defendant placed orders at the plaintiff's office at Mundka, Nangloi Delhi and further Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 4 of 37 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA when part payment was made by the defendant in the account of the plaintiff in Delhi. It is further averred that as per invoices clearly showing "subject to Delhi jurisdiction only", the suit has been filed before this Court.
2.7 It is further averred that the present suit is within Limitation. It is prayed that a decree be passed in its favour and against the defendant for recovery of sum of Rs.36,73,872/- along with pendente lite and future interest.
3. The crystalised facts raised in defence as averred in the Written Statement filed on behalf of defendant, are as under:
3.1 As per averments in the Written Statement, the contents of the plaint are vehemently denied by the defendant. There are several legal objections raised by the defendant, interalia the present suit being hit by Limitation; non-
maintainability of the suit as filed without any valid cause of action; plaintiff approaching this Court with unclean hands; concealment of material facts.
3.2 Though, it is admitted that the defendant is the proprietor of M/s Bansal Interio and also that he had business relations with the plaintiff, it is outrightly denied that the defendant placed any purchase orders upon the plaintiff or that the defendant received any goods, as alleged by the plaintiff.
3.3 It is the defence put forth by the defendant that the plaintiff has failed to prove delivery of goods as alleged. The claim Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 5 of 37 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA in the suit is also denied on the ground that by way of present suit, plaintiff relies upon merged Ledger account belonging to defendant. The defendant has furnished its GST No.06ADMPR6302F1ZL in respect of its business as M/s Bansal Interio at Faridabad and GST No. 07ADMPR6302F1ZJ for the same firm at Badarpur, New Delhi.
3.4 On merits, defendant has outrightly denied actual supply of any goods to defendant by the plaintiff, at any point of time. The defendant has vehemently denied having approached the plaintiff for purchase of any alleged goods or that he had assured timely payments. All the alleged invoices issued in the names of defendant's firms are stated to be forged and fictitious.
3.5 The defendant has categorically denied that any goods were purchased by the defendant from the plaintiff, therefore, there was no question for the credit period of 30 days, as claimed by the plaintiff. It is further denied that the defendant made any part payments in favour of the plaintiff and has outrightly denied that he made a payment of Rs. 70,000/- on 05.05.2022, in favour of the plaintiff.
3.6 The case of the plaintiff is denied in toto on behalf of the defendant with the defence that there was no business between the plaintiff and the defendant in respect of any supply of goods, as claimed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. It is denied that the defendant ever placed any order of purchase upon the plaintiff. It is further the Digitally CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 6 of 37 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA case of the defendant that there were no part payments made by the defendant to the plaintiff against the alleged supplies of goods thereby absolutely denying that he ever acknowledged any pending outstanding or dues payable to the plaintiff. The claim of the plaintiff for interest @ 18% per annum is denied and it is also denied that there was any mutual agreement between the parties by way of alleged invoices or otherwise in respect of the payable interest, as claimed by the plaintiff. It is prayed that suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with exemplary costs.
4. Replication was neither filed nor sought to be filed, on behalf of plaintiff, despite opportunity.
5. On completion of pleadings, following issues were arrived at, to be adjudicated upon by the Court:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of principle amount of Rs. 30,36,258/- from defendant? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest, if any, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable as plaintiff has merged two accounts of defendant? OPD
4. Whether no goods were ever received by defendant? OPD
5. Relief.
6. Plaintiff in support of its case got examined Sh.Sanjay Kumar, AR of plaintiff company as PW1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A bearing his Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 7 of 37 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA signatures at Point A and Point B. By way of affidavit of chief-examination, the plaintiff witness has deposed as per the averments in the plaint and has relied upon documents, detailed as under:-
SNO. DOCUMENT(S) EXHIBITED AS
1. Board Resolution dated 07.09.2021 in favour of EX. PW1/1
Sh. Sudhir Singhal
2. Board Resolution dated 19.09.2023 EX.PW1/2
3. Computer generated invoice & e-way bill dated Ex. PW1/3A
08.04.2019
4. Computer generated invoice & e-way bill dated Ex. PW1/3B
15.05.2019
5. Computer generated invoice & e-way bill dated Ex. PW1/3C
29.05.2019
6. Computer generated invoice & e-way bill dated Ex. PW1/3D
04.06.2019
7. Computer generated invoice & e-way bill dated Ex. PW1/3E
15.06.2019
8. Computer generated invoice & e-way bill dated Ex. PW1/3F
19.06.2019
9. Computer generated invoice & e-way bill dated Ex. PW1/3G
04.07.2019
10. Computer generated invoice & e-way bill dated Ex. PW1/3H
10.07.2019
11 Computer generated invoice & e-way bill dated Ex. PW1/3I
18.07.2019
12. Computer generated invoice & e-way bill dated Ex. PW1/3J
23.07.2019
13. Computer generated invoice & e-way bill dated Ex. PW1/3K
31.07.2019
14. Computer generated invoice & e-way bill dated Ex. PW1/3L and 09.08.2019 and corresponding transport receipt Ex. PW4/A
15. Computer generated invoice & e-way bill dated Ex. PW1/3M and 13.08.2019 and corresponding transport receipt Ex. PW4/B
16. Computer generated invoice & e-way bill dated Ex.PW1/3N and 31.08.2019 and corresponding transport receipt Ex. PW4/C
17. Computer generated invoice & e-way bill dated Ex.PW1/3O and 07.09.2019 and corresponding transport receipt Ex. PW4/D
18. Computer generated invoice & e-way bill dated Ex. PW1/3P 09.04.2021 Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 8 of 37 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA
19. Computer generated invoice & e-way bill dated Ex.PW1/3Q
06.05.2021
20. statement of account for the period 01.04.2019 to Ex.PW1/5 31.03.2023
21. Legal notice dated 30.12.2021 Ex.PW1/6 (colly)
22. Speed Post receipts Ex.PW1/7 (colly)
23. Affidavit of Sh. Sudhir Singhal in support of Ex.PW1/8 and electronic record Ex.PW1/9 6.1 At the stage of chief-examination/examination-in-chief, learned counsel for the defendant raised an objection about Exhibiting the mode of proof of documents Ex. PW1/3A to Ex. PW3/Q, Ex. PW1/4A to Ex. PW1/4D and document Ex. PW1/5 on the ground that the same are not exhibited as per law. The above objections were left open for consideration before Ld. Trial Court, in due course.
6.2 The plaintiff witness PW1 namely Sh. Sanjay Kumar, has been cross-examined by learned Counsel for the defendant. During cross-examination, PW1 reiterated that he was an employee of the plaintiff company and testified that there was an Account section in the plaintiff company where four persons namely Adesh Rajput, Gopal and two more persons were deputed. He deposed that one Mr.Gopal was maintaining the Ledger of the plaintiff company, who entered the credit and debit entries in the Statement of Account relied upon vide Ex. PW1/5, categorically denying the suggestion that Ex. PW1/5 was not a complete statement of account. The witness was confronted with the entry of Rs. 3,60,648/- at Point A in Statement of account (Ex. PW1/5) as balance on 08.04.2019. PW1 was confronted with the invoices (Ex. PW1/3A to Ex. PW3/Q) whereby he admitted that there Digitally CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 9 of 37 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA was no signatures of receiver on these invoices. PW1 was also confronted with the transport receipts/bilties (Ex. PW1/4A to Ex. PW1/4D) of which PW1 replied similarly as showing no signatures of the receiver. However, PW1 categorically denied the suggestion that defendant did not receive the goods mentioned in the invoices or that the invoices and transport receipts were forged and fabricated documents. During further cross-examination, PW1 agreed that Ex. PW1/5 is a merged Ledger account in respect of two firms of the defendant. He denied that there was no agreement between the plaintiff and defendant in respect of interest @ 18% per annum. PW1 thereafter was discharged.
6.3 The second witness on behalf of plaintiff is a summoned witness namely Ms. D.V. Lakshmi, Assistant Section Officer (ASO), Ward No.29, Department of Trade and Taxes, ITO, New Delhi as PW2, who brought the summoned record regarding GST return/record of plaintiff and defendant and tendered following documents:
SNO DOCUMENT(S) EXHIBITED AS
1. GSTR-9 of plaintiff for the Financial Year 2019-20 EX. PW2/A
and 2021-22; (colly)
GSTR Form 3B for the Financial 2019-20 for the months from April to September;
GSTR 3B for the Financial Year 2021-22 for the month of April;
GSTR Form 1 for Financial Year 2019-20 for the months April to July;
GSTR Form 1 for Financial Year 2019-20 for the month of April;
Supplier detail for Financial Year 2019-20 for the months April to September along with Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
6.4 The last witness on behalf of plaintiff is another CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 10 of 37 PREETI Digitally signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA summoned witness namely Sh.Amit Kumar, GST Inspector, Ward No.94, GST Office, ITO, New Delhi as PW3, who brought the summoned record i.e. record of e- way bills, GSTR-1, GSTR-2A, GSTR-3B and GSTR-9 and tendered following documents:
SNO DOCUMENT(S) EXHIBITED AS
1. Copies of e-way bills Ex. PW3/1(1) to
Ex. PW3/1(15)
2. GSTR-1 of defendant company for Financial Ex. PW3/2 (colly) Year 2019-20
3. GSTR-2A of defendant company for Ex. PW3/2 (colly) Financial Year 2019-20
4. GSTR-3B of defendant company for Ex. PW3/4 (colly) Financial Year 2019-20
5. GSTR-9 of defendant company for Financial Ex. PW3/5 (colly) Year 2019-20 The plaintiff's evidence was, thereafter, closed.
7. In Defence Evidence, defendant failed to examine any witness, despite several opportunities. Accordingly, vide order dated 09.09.2024, opportunity of the defendant to lead defendant evidence was closed.
8. Sh. Sewar Singh, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Sh. Kunwar Arish Ali, Ld. Counsel for defendant have formally addressed final arguments on behalf of their respective parties. The Court has duly appreciated the pleadings and material on record. The law, as applicable to the facts of the present case and binding legal precedents, have been duly considered.
Issue-wise findings are being discussed hereunder:-
9. Keeping in view that issue No.3 raises an objection Digitally CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 11 of 37 PREETI GUPTA signed by AGRAWAL PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA pertaining to maintainability of the suit, it is considered to adjudicate this issue first.
ISSUE NO. 3:
Whether the suit is not maintainable as plaintiff has merged two accounts of defendant? OPD 9.1 The onus to prove the issue lies on the defendant. The defendant in his written statement has averred that plaintiff have not filed the correct statement of account along with its plaint as admittedly the plaintiff file the merged ledger to claim its alleged recovery which means that two ledger of separate firms have been merged by the plaintiff by its own to raise the illegal demand by way of the present suit which is not legally enforceable as both the firms have separate legal entity and also having separate GST number which is very much reflected from the alleged invoices on which the suit was filed by the plaintiff i.e. 06ADMPR630F1ZL and 07ADMPR6302F1ZJ. Further, it is averred that GST Number 06ADMPR6302F1ZL of defendant is Bansal Interio, Faridabad, Haryana and GST Number 07ADMPR6302F1ZJ is Badarpur, New Delhi.
9.2 The plaintiff has contended to this argument that the record establishes that both GST registrations of the defendant belong to the same proprietor. It is further contended that the defendant placed orders for its proprietorship concern M/s Bansal Interio, for supply of goods by the plaintiff, as per its requirements for dispatch of its firm at either of the two addresses at Faridabad, Haryana or Badarpur, New Delhi. It is further considered Digitally CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 12 of 37 PREETI GUPTA signed by AGRAWAL PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA that distinct GST number for the firm of the defendant at Faridabad and Badarpur was due to applicable taxation regime of each region/State and that the supplies were made by the plaintiff to the defendant as proprietor of M/s Bansal Interio, that is the same proprietorship concern.
9.3 The Court has examined the evidence on record whereby the plaintiff through its witness PW1/ Sanjay Kumar Mangla has testified in support of averments in the plaint as regards the supplies placed by the defendant for supply of goods duly entered vide credit and debit entries in the Statement of Account of the plaintiff company vide Ex.
PW1/5, which is the merged account Ledger of the defendant firm, having localize addresses at two locations. There is nothing in the cross-examination of PW1 to support the objection of the defendant as to why the suit is not maintainable as assailed on the basis of merged accounts. There is no other relevant testimony on record on this aspect.
9.4 The defendant has not placed any oral or documentary evidence on record to substantiate its legal objection. There is nothing to show that such a merged ledger account is not admissible in evidence or that there is any reliance upon the merged Statement of Account by the plaintiff. The defendant further has not tendered any evidence, oral or documentary, suggests that the merged statement of account is false and fabricated.
9.5 It may now be relevant to examine Section 25(2) of the Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 13 of 37 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA Central Goods and Services Act 2017. The section is reproduced herein below:-
"Section 25 : Procedure for registration A person seeking registration under this Act shall be granted a single registration in a State or Union territory:
[Provided that a person having multiple places of business in a State or Union territory may be granted a separate registration for each such place of business, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.]"
9.6 It is a legal requirement to have different GSTIN numbers for the businesses carried on in different states. Therefore, the defendants were carrying on the same business but in different territories under different GSTIN. It is the case of the plaintiff that the goods were supplied by the plaintiff to both the territories, where the defendant's firm was doing business.
9.7 Further, it is considered that the plaintiff filed merged ledger account for both the locations of the firm, on instructions of the Court. Therefore, it was for the convenience of the court that the plaintiff brought on record merged statement of account.
9.8 In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, the defendant has failed to show as to why the present suit is not maintainable on the ground that the plaintiff has merged two Statement of Account of the defendant. The issue is, accordingly, decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
10. It may be now relevant to examine issue No.4 since the Digitally CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 14 of 37 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA same relates to the defence raised by the defendant denying that no goods were ever received by the defendant. ISSUE NO.4:
Whether no goods were ever received by defendant? OPD 10.1 Although, the onus to prove this issue has been laid upon the defendant, nevertheless, the plaintiff is legally bound to prove its own case by bringing cogent and believable evidence to show that the goods were supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant against orders placed by the defendant from time to time. As considered, it is the case of the plaintiff that M/s Sita Ram and Company Pvt. Ltd.
is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and stated to be carrying on the business of trade, import and supplies of various types of timber and wood in India. The Defendant, M/s. Bansal Interio is claimed to be a registered firm and stated to have approached the plaintiff at its Delhi office i.e. Mundka, Nangloi, Delhi and had desired to purchase the goods dealt by the plaintiff i.e. Timber/allied goods etc. The plaintiff had agreed to supply/sell its goods to the defendant. It is the case before the court that based upon assurance and representations of the defendant, plaintiff had been supplying its goods, on credit, to the defendant to his Delhi as well as Faridabad branch, as both the branches are owned & control by the same proprietor and the defendant used to make 'on account payment.' 10.2 It is further the case of the plaintiff that in regular course Digitally CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 15 of 37 PREETI GUPTA signed by AGRAWAL PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA of its business, plaintiff company was issuing invoices for the goods supplied to the defendant for the period 08.04.2019 to 06.05.2020 through the invoices collectively relied upon as Ex. PW1/3A to Ex. PW1/3Q. It is further claimed that the defendant after receiving the aforesaid goods on credit from the plaintiff in regular course of business, made part payments to the plaintiff. After giving all adjustments and credit of the payments made by the plaintiff to the defendant for previous outstanding, a principal sum of Rs. 30,36,258/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh Thirty Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Eight only) is stated to be still due, outstanding and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff with the averment that the last payment was received by the plaintiff from the defendant on 05.05.2022 for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only). The goods were supplied on credit basis allegedly, as per the terms of invoice and allegedly, there was a mutual agreement between the parties that the supplies were on credit for a period of 30 days from the date of respective invoice.
10.3 It is the defence raised by the defendant that the plaintiff did not supply any goods to the defendant, at any point of time. Though, the defendant had admitted having business relationship with the plaintiff, it has been outrightly denied that the defendant has ever placed any purchase orders upon the plaintiff. It is contended that as per Sections 31 to 36 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the delivery of goods is required to be established in a case when a suit for recovery of money is filed in respect of the sale of goods Digitally CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 16 of 37 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA by a seller.
10.4 The defendant has alleged that all the invoices relied upon by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated and has denied that there was any mutual agreement between the parties for supply of goods to the plaintiff by the defendant with a credit of 30 days. It is even denied that the defendant made any part payment against the received goods, alleged by the plaintiff and has denied having made any payment of Rs. 70,000/- on 05.05.2022, as claimed by the plaintiff.
10.5 The appreciation of evidence reveals that the plaintiff has examined three witnesses in order to support the alleged supply of goods by the plaintiff upon the defendant. The computer generated invoices with supporting e-way bills of even date with the first date of the invoice and e-way bill dated 08.04.2019 has been tendered as Ex. PW1/3A and the last computer generated invoice and e-way bill dated 06.05.2021 has been tendered as Ex. PW1/3Q. In all, there are 17 invoices between the period 08.04.2019 to 06.05.2021 with corresponding e-way bills, collectively relied upon vide Ex. PW1/3 to Ex. PW1/3Q with each successive invoice and e-way bill, duly tendered on record as Ex. PW1/3A, Ex. PW1/3B and so on till the last invoice relied upon as Ex. PW1/3Q. During cross-examination of PW1, who is the Authorised Representative of plaintiff company, by way of Board Resolution (Ex. PW1/2) in favour of the deposing witness, the witness was confronted with the invoices (Ex. PW1/3A to Ex. PW1/3Q) to admit that the invoices did not have any signatures of the CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 17 of 37 PREETI Digitally signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA receiver and also that there were no such signatures in the bills of exchange / transport bilties (Ex. PW1/4A to Ex. PW1/4D). However, PW1 categorically denied that the defendant did not receive any goods against the invoices or that the invoices and bilties were forged or fabricated.
10.6 The plaintiff further examined PW2 namely Ms. D.V. Lakshmi, Assistant Section Officer of Ward No.29, who produced the summoned record viz. GSTR-9 of plaintiff company for the year 2019-20 and 2021-22; GSTR Form 3B for the Financial Year 2019-20 for the months from April to September; GSTR 3B for Financial Year 2021-22 for the month of April; GSTR Form 1 for Financial Year 2019-20 for the months from April to July; GSTR Form 1 for Financial Year 2021-22 for the month of April; Supplier detail for Financial Year 2019-20 for the months from April to September along with certification u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. The said documents were collectively exhibited as Ex. PW2/A. 10.7 All the documents tendered by PW2 were collectively tendered on record as Ex. PW2/A, which were pertaining to the Ward No.29 with respect to plaintiff company. The witness has not been challenged despite cross- examination. Also examined another witness on behalf of plaintiff as PW3 namely Sh. Amit Kumar as GST Inspector of Ward No.94 pertaining to the defendant firm. PW3 tendered the e-way bills in respect of invoices issued by the plaintiff as Ex. PW3/1(1) to Ex. PW3/1(15); GSTR-1 of defendant company for the Financial Year Digitally CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 18 of 37 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA 2019-20 as Ex. PW3/2 (colly.); GSTR-2A of defendant company for Financial Year 2019-20 as Ex. PW3/3 (colly.); GSTR-3B of defendant company for Financial Year 2019-20 as Ex. PW3/4 (colly.); GSTR-9 of defendant company for Financial Year 2019-20 as Ex. PW3/5 (colly.).
10.8 The documents produced by both the official witnesses PW2 and PW3 are duly proved in accordance with law and remained unchallenged by the defendant. It is considered that PW1 duly proved all invoices, GST E-way Bills, transport documents pertaining to the transport of supply of goods from the plaintiff to the defendant on respective address of the defendant firm. During cross-examination, the defendant failed to dispute the supply or receipt of goods, and bald contrary suggestions of the invoices being forged and fabricated or the transport receipts being unreliable outrightly rejected by the PW1. The testimony of PW1 is duly corroborated by way of official documents produced through the witnesses PW2 and PW3 pertaining to the plaintiff and that of the defendant respectively. The corresponding e-way bills of each of the invoices relied upon by the plaintiff through Ex. PW1/3A to Ex. PW1/3Q are proved in accordance with law. Despite cross- examination of PW1, the only suggestion that was favourable to the defendant was the admission of PW1 about absence of signatures of defendant either on the invoices or the corresponding bilties, relied upon as Ex. PW1/3A to Ex. PW1/3Q. However, the plaintiff has duly discharged its responsibility by summoning official Digitally CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 19 of 37 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA witnesses PW2 and PW3 to show the admissibility and reliability of the invoices tendered through its witness PW1. Whereas the official witness PW2 has placed on record the GST forms pertaining to the business of plaintiff for the relevant Financial Year along with the requisite certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act (now Section 63 of BSA), the same documents pertain to the tax invoices raised by the plaintiff during the relevant period. Further, the plaintiff vide PW3, examined in his official capacity as GST Inspector produced official statutory records pertaining to the defendant's GST Filings, including GSTR-1, GSTR-2A, GSTR-3B and GSTR-9, along with GST E-Way Bills of the plaintiff through Ex. PW3/2 (Colly). The case of the plaintiff has been further duly corroborated by producing and proving GST E-way Bills and movement records corresponding to the invoices raised by the plaintiff. PW3 confirmed the E-way Bills reflecting the transportation and movement of goods from the plaintiff to the defendant's registered places of business. He deposed that the said records were retrieved from the official GST system and were maintained as part of statutory compliance. The testimony of PW-3 independently established the movement and delivery of goods and lends strong corroboration to the plaintiff's documentary evidence.
10.9 The relevant statutory law has been duly considered. As per Section- 31 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 it is the duty of the seller to deliver the goods. The said section is reproduced herein below:
Digitally CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 20 of 37 PREETI GUPTA signed by AGRAWAL PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA "31. Duties, of seller and buyer.-- It is the duty of the seller to deliver the goods and of the buyer to accept and pay for them, in accordance with the terms of the contract of sale."
10.10 As per Section 33 of the said Act, the delivery of the goods is deemed if the seller has done anything which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer. The said section is reproduced herein below:
"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."
10.11 In so far as the delivery of goods is concerned, Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that there is neither any acknowledgment of the defendant on the said invoices nor acknowledgment on e-way bills that are being relied upon by the plaintiff. Imperatively, the plaintiff for proving its claim to the outstanding amount against delivery of goods to the defendant is required to clearly prove the actual delivery thereof when the same is vehemently disputed by the defendant.
10.12 For proving the sale and delivery of goods, the law is governed by Sale of Goods Act, 1930, Carriage by Road Act, 2007 and Carriage by Road Rules, 2011 and the plaintiff has to prove delivery by any of the following methods:-
(i) admission by defendant or defendant acknowledges the delivery, or
(ii) endorsement of receipt by the defendant or his authorised representative on the CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 21 of 37 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA invoice(s), or
(iii) filing and proving Form 7 or Form 8 (Bilty) under Carriage by Road Rules, 2011 to show that plaintiff delivered the goods to the carrier and is entitled to benefit under Section 39 of SoGA, or
(iv) by proving on record that the GST claimed to have been deposited by the plaintiff qua the invoices, i.e. defendant took input tax credit under Section 2(63) of CGST Act, 2017 and plaintiff is entitled to presumption under Section 16(2) of CGST Act, 2017.
10.13 Corroboratively, the defendant has duly availed the benefit of GST credit in the Financial Year 2019-20. A plea has been raised by the defendant that the defendant has availed GST credit input towards Ex. PW3/2 (colly) only on the assurance of the plaintiff that the plaintiff will supply the goods to the defendant later on. However, the defendant has failed to support the same by any cogent evidence. Further, it is highly unfathomable that the defendant has taken the benefit of GST credit input two years back and still raised the plea of not receiving the goods in the year 2019. Thus, taken on the yardstick of preponderance of probability, the defendant has failed to prove that the plaintiff has failed to supply the entire goods to the defendant.
10.14 Therefore, it is the law of the land that the plaintiff has Digitally CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 22 of 37 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA duly discharged the onus to prove delivery of goods, once it is proved before the Court of law that the goods were put in transport to the address of the defendant. The law imposes a duty upon the purchaser to accept the goods so dispatched to the purchaser, who is also liable to pay for the goods so received, in accordance with the sale agreement that may be arrived at between the business parties, as envisaged in Section 31 of the Sale of Goods Act. Further, law raises a deemed presumption in favour of the seller by virtue of Section 33 of the Act in having proved that the goods were sent in transportation by the plaintiff through a transporter for which corresponding e- way bills for each of the invoices are duly proved on record. The plaintiff having discharged the onus to prove all the tax invoices with corresponding e-way bills vide Ex. PW1/3A to Ex. PW1/3Q and duly supported by the summoned official records proved vide its witnesses PW2 and PW3, with no challenge to any of the official documents tendered by the two official witnesses of the plaintiff, discharges the onus of the plaintiff and the law presumes the delivery of goods upon the defendant in terms of Section 33 of the Act. The defendant has not tendered any contrary evidence by way of cross- examination of any of the plaintiff witnesses or placing any contrary records of its own business to show that the officially generated e-way bills proved vide Ex. PW1/3A to Ex. PW1/3Q pertaining to the work of the defendant itself are not reliable in any manner. Only a bald denial on behalf of defendant about receipt of the goods from the plaintiff, contrary to the official records maintained by the Digitally CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 23 of 37 PREETI GUPTA signed by AGRAWAL PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA statutory body, itself demolishes the defence raised by the defendant. The plaintiff has duly proved the delivery of goods vide Ex. PW1/3A to Ex. PW1/3Q upon the defendant firm at its two given addresses at Faridabad, Haryana and Badarpur, New Delhi, whereas the defendant had failed to bring any believable reason or evidence to support its defence that the goods were never delivered to the defendant. The defendant has not produced any records of itself by way of its audit accounts/ITR returns etc. to show that he was not dealing with the plaintiff at the relevant time.
10.15 The defendant has not been able to show that no goods were ever received by the defendant. However, plaintiff has duly discharged the onus to prove the delivery of goods vide Ex. PW1/3A to Ex. PW1/3Q upon the defendant firm, as per law. Accordingly, for the facts and reasons discussed hereinabove, the issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of principle amount of Rs.30,36,258/- from defendant?
11. Before adjudicating on the entitlement of the plaintiff to the claimed amount, it may be first relevant to examine the suit of the plaintiff within limitation, though, no legal issue has been raised or framed. The aspect of limitation has already been considered and the plaintiff has successfully Digitally CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 24 of 37 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA discharged the onus to prove the case by discharging the burden laid upon it by way of preponderance of probabilities. It is the duty of the plaintiff to establish its legal right within limitation to seek recovery against the defendant before this Court.
11.1 It is the case put forth by the plaintiff that a running account was maintained by the plaintiff in respect of the business done with the defendant firm at both his sites. A merged Statement of Account (EX. PW1/5) is relied upon by the plaintiff wherein it is the case of the plaintiff that a sum of Rs. 70,000/- was paid by the defendant as the last payment on 05.05.2022. It is prayed that as per law, the period of limitation shall commence from the date of last payment i.e. 05.05.2022 and that the suit has been filed on 11.08.2023, which is well within limitation.
11.2 The legal position as per Section 19 of Limitation Act, 1963 is considered. The statutory provision under Section 19 of Limitation Act is given as under:-
19. Effect of payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy--
Where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made;
Provided that, save in the case of payment of interest made before the 1st day of January, 1928, an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment.
11.3 As per Section 19 of Limitation Act, the extent that is CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 25 of 37 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA relevant here, it is provided that where payment on account of a debt is made before the expiration of the prescribed period, by the person liable to pay the debt or by his agent duly authorized in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation would be computed from the time when the payment was made.
11.4 It is well settled legal preposition as held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as S.N. Nandy & Co. v. Nicco Corpn. Ltd., 2011 SCC OnLine Del 987 that even if part payment is made, it would have the effect of extending the period of limitation under Section-19 of the Limitation Act. The Court relied on the decision of the Privy Council in Rama Shah v. Lal Chand, AIR 1940 Privy Council 63. The relevant text of the impugned judgment is reproduced herein below:-
"Any payment, irrespective of, whether it is made as part payment or otherwise, would extend the period of limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act. In this regard I may refer to the decision of the Privy Council in Rama Shah v. Lal Chand, AIR 1940 Privy Council 63 where the Court, inter alia, observed as under:-
"In the Limitation Act, Section 19, which deals with acknowledgments, is not to be read as based upon the theory of implied promise : and it is difficult to see why Section 20, which deals with payments, should be regarded as based upon a theory of acknowledgment. The Indian Legislature may well have thought that a payment if made on account of the debt and evidenced by writing gave the creditor some excuse for further delay in suing, or was sufficient new proof of the original debt to make it safe to entertain an action upon it at a later date than would otherwise have been desirable. The words in Section 20 by which the matter must be judged are "where part of the principal of a debt is paid". As it is not prescribed by the Section that the payment should be intended by the debtor to go towards the principal debt at all, the words 'as such' having no place in this part of the Section, it is not in their Lordships' view correct to require that the payment should have been made of part as part."
Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 26 of 37 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA 11.5 Similarly, the Court has also considered well settled legal position as laid down in judgment International Print-O- Pac Ltd. v. MAA Communication Bozell (P) Ltd., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1784 wherein the Hon'ble Court relied upon well settled legal position in Bharat Electronics Ltd. v. Stejac Enterprises (P) Ltd., 82 (1999) DLT 78; J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. v. Namit Plastic (P) Ltd., 160 (2009) DLT 340, F.C.C. Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashish Bhardwaj, 145 (2007) DLT 457 (DB) wherein it has been held as under:-
"In the case reported as J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. (supra) it was held that the period of limitation shall be computed from the date of invoices by which goods were sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant, but where there is an acknowledgment in writing of the amount due to the plaintiff by the defendant or on account of part payment of the amount due from the defendants to the plaintiff, the period of limitation shall stand extended for filing the suit in accordance with the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Likewise, in the decisions rendered in the cases of Bharat Electronics Ltd.; The Motor & General Finance Ltd. and F.C.C. Projects Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Court held that a part payment made by the debtor to the creditor would tantamount to the acknowledgment of the amount and a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the date when the last payment is stated to have been made."
11.6 Considering the facts of the present case, it is the contention of the plaintiff and as per the ledger account relied upon by the plaintiff vide Ex. PW 1/5, defendant used to make piecemeal payments and the last payment was made by the defendant was for Rs. 70,000 on 05.05.2022. This was a part payment made by the defendant towards continuing relationship of creditor-
Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 27 of 37 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA debtor between the plaintiff and the defendant respectively. As per the course of business wherein it is the case of the plaintiff that the goods were supplied to the defendant from time to time against credit of 30 days and part payments were made by the defendant towards the goods received, it is well settled legal position that such "on account part payment due from defendant to the plaintiff" shall have the effect of extending the period of limitation for filing of suit. Accordingly, the last alleged payment having been made by the defendant on 05.05.2022 would be relevant date for reckoning the date of limitation. The suit has been filed on 11.08.2023, accordingly, the suit is well within limitation.
11.7 The Court has adjudicated issue No.4 hereinabove, to ascertain if the delivery of goods has been duly proved by the plaintiff. After detailed appreciation of evidence and law, the Court has come to the finding that the plaintiff has duly discharged the onus to prove that the goods sold vide invoices Ex. PW1/3A to Ex. PW1/3Q were duly transported to the defendant at the given addresses. The defendant has not furnished any evidence by rebutting the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses or otherwise to show that the goods transported to the defendant at his respective addresses were ever returned to the plaintiff, though, no such case has been put by the defendant even otherwise.
11.8 It has been further considered at length, during adjudication of issue No.4 hereinabove in respect of testimonies of PW2 and PW3, who have brought Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 28 of 37 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA summoned record pertaining to the GST records of the plaintiff for the relevant period through its witness PW2 as Ex. PW2/A (colly). PW2 has duly tendered and proved the requisite forms pertaining to the GST paid by the plaintiff for the relevant period against the tax invoices in corroboration of the GST as reflected vide tax invoices (Ex. PW1/3A to Ex. PW3/Q). Accordingly, the tax invoices (Ex. PW1/3A to Ex. PW1/3Q) stand duly corroborated vide corresponding GSTRs of the plaintiff proved as Ex. PW2/A (colly).
11.9 PW3, the other summoned official witness, proved GSTR record of the defendant and tendered as Ex. PW3/2 to Ex. PW3/5. Perusal of Ex. PW3/2, Ex. PW3/4 and Ex. PW3/5 shows taxable inward supplies received from registered person i.e. the plaintiff. PW3 has not been cross-examined on behalf of defendant alleging any deficiency of proving the tax invoices for Financial Year 2019-20 and did not confront the witness to produce any other GSTR record of itself for remaining invoices which are relied upon by the plaintiff as Ex. PW1/3A to Ex. PW1/3Q.
11.10 As per the ledger relied upon by the plaintiff vide Ex.
PW1/5 as on 06.05.2022 the total outstanding amount reflected against the defendant is Rs. 30,36,258. The Ledger (Ex. PW1/5) duly incorporates the alleged last payment claimed by the plaintiff vide Ex. PW1/5. There is no cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness PW1 to dispute or challenge the amounts paid by the defendant as per Ledger account Ex. PW1/5. Apart from bald contrary Digitally CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 29 of 37 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA suggestion to PW1, disputing the authenticity of the Statement of Account (Ex. PW1/5), the defendant has not confronted the plaintiff's witness with any contrary Statement of Account to show if any other payments were made by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, either in cash or through bank transfer. The defendant has not placed on record any Statement of Account pertaining to its business with plaintiff to dispute the payments, if any, made by the defendant which have not been incorporated against the entries in favour of the defendant by way of Ex. PW1/5. Further, it is the defence put forth by the defendant denying outrightly any goods received by way of Ex. PW1/3A to Ex. PW1/3Q. The defendant has outrightly denied receipt of goods vide Ex. PW1/3A to Ex. PW1/3Q or any payments made by the defendant, whatsoever, in favour of the plaintiff.
11.11 It is the defence put forth by the defendant that the plaintiff has not filed the correct statement of account and has raised objections on the ledger accounts. The two ledger of separate firms having been merged by the plaintiff. The objection of the defendant pertaining to the authenticity and admissibility of the merged ledger account (Ex. PW1/5) relied upon by the plaintiff, has been dealt with by the undersigned in the former adjudication of issue No.3 and is not being repeated herein. The findings of the Court on issue No.3 be read part of discussion herein for the purpose of the merged statement of account, which has been held to be admissible as there is no legal impediment.
Digitally CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 30 of 37 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA 11.12 It may be now relevant to examine the well settled principle of law and statutory implications of Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 (Section 28 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). Section 34 of the Act, provides that entries in books of account, including electronic records, when regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire. However, such entries shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability.
11.13 The meaning and purpose of Section 34 of the Act was examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India', (2017) 11 SCC 731 to determine what could be relied upon as evidence under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court reaffirmed the dictum laid down in V.C. Shukla's case, that loose papers and irregular records are inadmissible, only regular account books are relevant, and even those require corroboration before fixing liability and held as under:-
"280. This Court has further laid down in V.C. Shukla [CBI v. V.C. Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 410 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 761] that meaning of account book would be spiral notebook/pad but not loose sheets. The following extract being relevant is quoted hereinbelow:
....................................................................................... ....................................................................................... "17. From a plain reading of the section it is manifest that to make an entry relevant thereunder it must be shown that it has been made in a book, that book is a book of account and that book of account has been regularly kept in the course of business. From the above section it is also manifest that even if the above requirements are fulfilled and the entry becomes admissible as relevant evidence, still, the statement CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 31 of 37 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA made therein shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. It is thus seen that while the first part of the section speaks of the relevancy of the entry as evidence, the second part speaks, in a negative way, of its evidentiary value for charging a person with a liability. It will, therefore, be necessary for us to first ascertain whether the entries in the documents, with which we are concerned, fulfill the requirements of the above section so as to be admissible in evidence and if this question is answered in the affirmative then only its probative value need be assessed.
18. "Book" ordinarily means a collection of sheets of paper or other material, blank, written, or printed, fastened or bound together so as to form a material whole. Loose sheets or scraps of paper cannot be termed as "book" for they can be easily detached and replaced. In dealing with the word "book" appearing in Section 34 in Mukundram v. Dayaram [Mukundram v.
Dayaram, 1911 SCC OnLine MP 1 : AIR 1914 Nag 44] a decision on which both sides have placed reliance, the Court observed: (SCC OnLine MP para 4) '4. ... In its ordinary sense it signifies a collection of sheets of paper bound together in a manner which cannot be disturbed or altered except by tearing apart. The binding is of a kind which is not intended to be movable in the sense of being undone and put together again. A collection of papers in a portfolio, or clip, or strung together on a piece of twine which is intended to be untied at will, would not, in ordinary English, be called a book. ... I think the term "book" in Section 34 aforesaid may properly be taken to signify, ordinarily, a collection of sheets of paper bound together with the intention that such binding shall be permanent and the papers used collectively in one volume. It is easier however to say what is not a book for the purposes of Section 34, and I have no hesitation in holding that unbound sheets of paper, in whatever quantity, though filled up with one continuous account, are not a book of account within the purview of Section 34........"
11.14 The Hon'ble Apex Court in aforecited and discussed binding citation in Manohar Lal's case (supra) was pleased to duly consider the evidentiary value of a regular account book which was regularly kept in ordinary course of business and was pleased to hold that it is not enough merely to prove that the books have been regularly kept in CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 32 of 37 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA the course of business and the entries therein are correct. As per well settled law, it is incumbent upon the person relying upon these entries in the Statement of account book, to prove that they were in accordance with facts. The Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that loose sheets of papers, without any corroboration, were not admissible under Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act (equivalent to Section 28 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) and did not have any evidentiary value. Accordingly, as per statutory position by law and the binding guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Superior Courts, it is incumbent for the courts to examine the reliability on the Statement of Account, led by a party relying on it, to examine if the Statement of Account/Ledger stands duly corroborative evidence.
11.15 Considering the facts of the present case, the statement of account Ex. PW 1/5 relied upon by plaintiff, may be relevant and admissible evidence as per Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act (Section 28 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023), if such Statement of Account is duly corroborated and supported by sufficient and independent evidence, such as acknowledgment, contract, or delivery documents. In support of the entries of the ledger account statement Ex. PW 1/5 the supporting evidence has been led by way of Tax invoices and computer generated E-way bills. These bills were further corroborated by way of testimony of PW2 and PW3 which duly proved the delivery of goods in terms of Section 33 of the Sales of Goods Act, 1930. As considered, except bald denial of Digitally CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 33 of 37 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA receipt or acknowledgment of the invoices (Ex. PW1/3A to Ex. PW1/3Q) for want of acknowledgment thereupon and ouright denial of transport bilties (Ex. PW1/4A to Ex. PW1/4D), no evidence oral or documentary has been brought forth by the defendant to substantiate his defence.
11.16 In light of the above facts and reasons, plaintiff has duly proved its Statement of Account (Ex. PW1/5) whereby there is an outstanding due and recoverable balance of Rs.30,36,258/-. It is not the case of defendant that outstanding dues have been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff at any point of time. The plaintiff has duly established its entitlement to seek recovery of Rs.30,36,258/- in its favour and against the defendant. Issue no. 1 is accordingly, decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.2:
Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest, if any, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
12. The Plaintiff has prayed for grant of interest @18% PA for a sum of Rs.36,73,872/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakh Seventy Three Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Two Only) computed from May 2022, till the date of filing of the suit. Plaintiff has further claimed interest @18% per annum pendente lite and future in its favour and against the defendant.
12.1 The suit of the plaintiff has been decreed for a sum of Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 34 of 37 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA Rs.30,36,258/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, by way of adjudication herein-above vide issue no. 1. The plaintiff has claimed interest @18% per annum on the amount due, as the agreed rate of interest as reflected in the invoices and considering the commercial nature of the transaction.
12.2 The plaintiff has duly proved its invoices vide Ex. PW 1/3A to PW 1/3Q (Colly). However, no acknowledgment of such agreed rate of interest by the defendant through signatures or otherwise has been proved by the plaintiff. No evidence of such acknowledgment has been placed on record.
12.3 In the absence of any express agreement or documentary proof specifying the contractual rate of interest, the Court is guided by Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 9087, which empowers the the Court to award reasonable interest on the principal sum adjudged, having regard to the circumstances of the case, and the same is extracted below, for ready reference:
"34. Interest.--(1) Where and insofar as a decree is for the payment of money, the court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the 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 Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 35 of 37 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions. (2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit therefore shall not lie."
12.4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'I. K. Merchants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.', Civil Appeal No.4560-4563 of 2025, vide orders dated 01.04.2025, has been pleased to appreciate as to what would be the grant of appropriate rate of interest in Civil Suit and was pleased to hold as under:-
"16. Be it noted, while the discretion to award interest, whether pendente lite or post-decree, is well recognized, its exercise must be guided by equitable considerations. The rate and period of interest cannot be applied mechanically or at an unreasonably high rate without any rationale. Though it is not possible to arrive at the actual value of improvement or the inflation on the fair consideration, if paid at the relevant point of time, it is just and necessary that the rate of interest must be a reparation for the appellant. The Court must ensure that while the claimant is fairly compensated, the award does not become punitive or unduly burdensome on the Judgement Debtor. Therefore, the rate of interest should be determined in a manner that balances both fairness and financial impact, taking into account the "loss of use" principle and economic prudence, in the specific facts of each case."
12.5 Considering that the transaction in question pertains to a commercial dealing, but no contractual rate is proved, the Court deems it just and equitable to award interest at the rate of 8% per annum (simple interest) on the principal sum of Rs. 30,36,258/-, computed from 01.07.2022 till Digitally CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 36 of 37 PREETI GUPTA signed by AGRAWAL PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA filing of the present suit.
12.6 Accordingly, the issue is decided holding with the finding that the plaintiff shall be entitled to reasonable interest @ 8% per annum w.e.f. 01.07.2022 till filing of the present suit. Further, it is the case before the Court that no amount paid towards the outstanding dues and accordingly, plaintiff is also granted the right to recover interest @ 8% per annum w.e.f. filing of the suit till realization. The issue is adjudicated, accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 5:
Relief
13. Keeping in view the above findings, suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, for a sum of Rs.30,36,258/- along with interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of filing of the suit till its realisation.
Parties to bear their own respective costs. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due completion.
Dictated and pronouced in the open Court today on this 5th February, 2026 PREETI Digitally signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi Checked and Digitally signed on 10.02.2026 CS (Comm) No.598/2023 Page 37 of 37