Delhi District Court
S.R.Printing And Binding House vs Abhishek Gupta on 7 July, 2025
M/S S.R.Printing & Binding House vs. Aayansh Stationary World
DLCT010020992023
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK GARG,
DISTRICT JUDGE-COMMERCIAL COURT-09
(CENTRAL DISTRICT), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CIVIL SUIT (COMMERCIAL) NO.:- 239/2023
IN THE MATTER OF :-
M/S S.R. Printing & Binding House
Address: 872/4, Gali Madarsa Hussain Bakhsh,
Churi Walan, Chawri Bazar, Delhi 110006
....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1.Aayansh Stationary World 4058, Nai Sarak, Delhi 110006
2. Abhishek Gupta @ A.K. Gupta 4058, Nai Sarak, Delhi 110006.
....Defendants SUIT UNDER ORDER XXXVII RULE (2) FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 3,75,271/- ALONG WITH INTEREST PENDENTELITE @ 18% P.A. Date of institution : 08/02/2023 Date on which Judgment was reserved: 07/07/2025 Date of Judgment : 07/07/2025 CS (COMM)No. 239/23 Page 1 of 14 M/S S.R.Printing & Binding House vs. Aayansh Stationary World ::- J U D G M E N T -::
1. By way of present judgment, this court shall adjudicate upon this summary suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.3,75,271/- along with pandentelite and future interest.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF
2. The brief facts of the case as per the case of the plaintiff are as under:
i. Plaintiff is dealing in printing and binding works etc. and Mohd. Sartaj is the proprietor of the plaintiff firm . ii. Defendant no. 1 is proprietorship firm and the defendant no. 2 is the proprietor of defendant no. 1 and is responsible for day to day functioning of the firm.
iii. Defendants placed several orders for job work of printing and binding etc. to the plaintiff firm.
iv. That as per the order placed by the defendant no. 1, the plaintiff printed the goods (books/copies) for the defendants and invoices have been issued to this effect.
v. As per the account of the plaintiff, defendant no.1 and 2 are liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,75,271/- to the plaintiff firm. vi. That the defendant no. 2 had issued eleven separate bank cheques in favour of plaintiff firm against the dues of Rs.3,75,271/- which on presentation were dishonoured with remarks "Funds Insufficient".CS (COMM)No. 239/23 Page 2 of 14
M/S S.R.Printing & Binding House vs. Aayansh Stationary World vii. That the defendants are liable to pay to the plaintiff Rs.3,75,271/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realisation. Hence, the plaintiff had filed the present sum- mary suit for recovery against the defendants under Order 37 CPC.
3. Summons were issued to the defendants, who appeared through coun- sel and filed their appearance and in due course also accepted the summons for the judgment and filed application seeking leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) CPC.
LEAVE TO DEFEND
4. Vide order dated 29.04.2024 application of the defendants seeking leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) CPC was allowed by the Court and the defendants were directed to file the written statement. Defen- dant no. 1 is the proprietorship firm and defendant no. 2 is the proprietor of the same. The written statement has been filed by defendant no. 2 being the proprietor.
CASE OF DEFENDANT
5. Defendant no. 2 in written statement has averred that he and Mohd. Sartaj (plaintiff) are known to each other and during the pandemic, defendant no. 2 was in need of money because of the financial losses due to lockdown CS (COMM)No. 239/23 Page 3 of 14 M/S S.R.Printing & Binding House vs. Aayansh Stationary World and during this period, Mohd. Sartaj approached him with a proposal to get personal loan sanctioned in his name from a nationalised bank, to which he agreed.
6. It is further averred that Mohd. Sartaj brought some blank papers which were signed by defendant no. 2 for obtaining loan and he (defendant no. 2) also delivered 15 blank signed cheques to Mohd. Sartaj for the payment of future EMIs and handed over the same to him who represented that after the sanction of the loan, the name of the bank as well as the EMI amount would be duly filled in the cheques and the photocopies of the cheques would be delivered to him.
7. Defendant no. 2 has denied getting any printing or binding work from plaintiff i.e. Mohd.Sartaj and it is stated that the cheques have been misused by the plaintiff and that the present suit has been filed on the basis of forged and fabricated bills of printing and binding work in the name of the firm of the defendant and hence in totality this suit is liable to be dismissed.
ISSUES
8. On the basis of the pleadings following issues were settled on 09.08.2024:
(i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the amount as claimed in the plaint? OPP CS (COMM)No. 239/23 Page 4 of 14 M/S S.R.Printing & Binding House vs. Aayansh Stationary World
(ii). If the issue no. (i) is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the pendente-lite and future interest, if so at what rate and for what period? (OPP)
(iii). Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
9. Plaintiff has examined Mohd. Sartaj, Proprietor of plaintiff company as PW1 who filed his evidence by way of affidavit ExPW1/A and relied upon documents as under:
i. The visiting card of the plaintiff company is Ex.PW1/1 ii. The copy of the cash invoices are ExPW1/2 (colly.) iii. The 09 cheques issued by the defendant are Ex.PW1/3 (colly.) iv. The cheque returning memo are Ex.PW1/4 (colly.) DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
10. Defendant has examined Sh. Abhishek Gupta as DW1 who filed his evidence by way of affidavit ExDW1/A. ISSUEWISE FINDINGS Issue no. 1
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the amount CS (COMM)No. 239/23 Page 5 of 14 M/S S.R.Printing & Binding House vs. Aayansh Stationary World as claimed in the plaint? OPP
11. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff.
12. In order to prove its case, as stated above, Mohd. Sartaj, proprietor of plaintiff firm has examined himself as PW1 who has deposed that as per the order placed by the defendants, he printed the goods (books/copies) for the defendant and invoices have been issued to this effect and as per the account books of the plaintiff, defendants are liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,75,271/- to the plaintiff, which is reflected in the invoices ExPW1/2 colly.
13. He has further deposed that in discharge of its liability, the defendant no. 2 had issued 9 separate cheques ExPW1/3 colly in favour of plaintiff but the said cheques were dishonoured on presentation vide return memos ExPW1/4 colly.
14. As stated above, the defendants have denied any business relations with the plaintiff and it is the case of the defendants that the invoices re- lied upon by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated and that the blank signed cheques were given to the plaintiff as he had promised to get the personal loan sanctioned in the name of defendant no. 2 from nation- alised bank.
CS (COMM)No. 239/23 Page 6 of 14M/S S.R.Printing & Binding House vs. Aayansh Stationary World
15. It is the case of the defendants that the GST is applicable on printing work. It is argued by ld. Counsel for the defendants that printing involv- ing supply of goods (composite supply) and printing as a pure service (job work/service supply) both attract GST at the rate specified in the cir- culars issued by the government and since the invoices relied upon by the plaintiff do not contain the component of GST, the same are not admissi- ble in evidence.
16. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has fairly admitted during arguments that the invoices ExPW1/2 colly do not contain the component of GST, which is mandatory in law.
17. It is settled position that in civil suits, the plaintiff must prove its claim through admissible evidence under the rules of procedure and evidence. The Kachha account (cash transactions) often informal and undocu- mented lack written agreement receipts and other reliable evidence and the same are in violation of GST Rules and the guidelines issued by Re- serve Bank of India from time to time and hence no credence can be given by the court to such documents.
18. In jurisdictions where Goods and Services Tax (GST) applies, transactions involving sales of goods and services must generally complied with GST Laws including proper invoicing, GST registration for applicable entities and filing of returns, informal transactions such as CS (COMM)No. 239/23 Page 7 of 14 M/S S.R.Printing & Binding House vs. Aayansh Stationary World cash dealings often bypass these requirement, making them unlawful under GST Laws.
19. Under the GST laws of India, every taxable invoice must contain the GST component clearly specifying the tax amount and its break up. This is mandatory under Rule 46 of the CGST rules, 2017.
20. As per rule 46 of CGST Rules, the tax invoice must contains following particulars:
i. Invoice number and date, ii. name, Address, and GSTIN of the supplier; iii. Name, address, and GSTIN (if registered) of the recipient iv. HSN/SAC Code of goods/services v. Description of goods/services vi. Quantity and unit vii. Value of supply (before tax) viii. Rate of GST (CGST, SGST/UTGST, IGST) ix. Amount of GST Charged:
• CGST •SGST/UTGST • IGST x. Place of supply (especially for interstate supply) xi. Signature of digital signature of the supplier.CS (COMM)No. 239/23 Page 8 of 14
M/S S.R.Printing & Binding House vs. Aayansh Stationary World
21. Hence, the rate of GST and the amount of GST charged are mandatory components in an invoice. However, in the present case, the invoices relied upon by the plaintiff ExPW1/2 colly do not have any component of rate of GST and the amount of GST charged and hence, the said invoices are clearly violation of CGST Rules issued by the Government and in view of the same, the same are no invoices in the eyes of law and the same cannot be read by the Court being illegal in law.
22. It is the case of the plaintiff that towards the payment of the amount in question, the defendant had issued 9 cheques ExPW1/3 colly and the said cheques on presentation got dishonoured and hence presumption is liable to be raised against the defendant under Negotiable Instruments Act.
23. However, it is the defence of the defendant that the cheques in ques-
tion were issued for the payment of EMIs in respect of the loan which was to be got sanctioned from a nationalised bank by the plaintiff and plaintiff is stated to be misusing the said cheques.
24. In this regard, it is relevant to state that the Negotiable Instruments Act provides for two presumptions: Section 118 and Section 139:
Section 118 of the Act inter alia directs that it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that every negotiable instruments was made or drawn for consideration.CS (COMM)No. 239/23 Page 9 of 14
M/S S.R.Printing & Binding House vs. Aayansh Stationary World Section 139 of the Act stipulates that 'unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed, that the holder of the cheque received the cheque, for the discharge of, whole or part of any debt or liability'.
25. It is to note that Section 139 of the NI Act, which takes the form of a 'shall presume' clause is illustrative of a presumption of law. Because Section 139 requires that the court 'shall presume' the fact stated therein, it is obligatory on the court to raise this presumption in every case where the factual basis for the raising of the presumption had been established. But this does not preclude the person against whom the presumption is drawn from rebutting it and providing the contrary as is clear from the use of the phrase 'unless the contrary is proved'.
26. The court will necessarily presume that the cheque had been issued to-
wards discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability in two circum- stances. Firstly, when the drawer of the cheque admits issuance/execution of the cheque and Secondly, in the event where the complainant proves that cheque was issued/executed in his favour by the drawer. The circum- stances set out above form the fact (s) which bring about the activation of the presumption clause. Reliance is placed on Bharat Barrel Vs. Amin Chand (1995) 3 SCC 35.
27. Mere admission of the drawer's signature, without admitting the exe-
cution of the entire contents in the cheque, is now sufficient to trigger the CS (COMM)No. 239/23 Page 10 of 14 M/S S.R.Printing & Binding House vs. Aayansh Stationary World presumption. Reliance is placed on the judgment Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197.
28. The standard of proof to discharge this evidential burden is not as heavy as that usually seen in situations where the prosecution is required to prove the guilt of an accused. The defendant is not expected to prove the non existence of the presumed fact beyond reasonable doubt. The de- fendant must meet the standard of 'preponderance of probabilities', simi- lar to a defendant in a civil proceedings. Reliance is placed on the judg- ment Rangappa Vs. Mohan AIR 2010 SC 1898.
29. In the present case, DW1 Sh. Abhishek Gupta has pleaded in his writ-
ten statement and has deposed in his evidence that the cheques in ques- tion were issued for the payment of EMIs in respect of the loan which was to be got sanctioned by the plaintiff from a nationalised bank and plaintiff is stated to be misusing the said cheques. He has been cross ex- amined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff but nothing has come in his cross examination to weaken his testimony or to doubt his credibility in this re- gard. Hence, the defendant has been able to rebut the presumption as prescribed under the Act.
30. In this background it was for the plaintiff to prove its case on prepon-
derance of probabilities but he has been failed to do so as he has failed to CS (COMM)No. 239/23 Page 11 of 14 M/S S.R.Printing & Binding House vs. Aayansh Stationary World prove the invoices in question ExPW1/2 colly, being in violation of GST rules.
31. Further, the present suit has been filed in the name of M/S S.R. Print-
ing and Binding House which is the proprietorship firm of the proprietor Mohd. Sartaj and it is settled law that the proprietorship firm is not the le- gal entity in the eyes of law. As per established legal principles, a propri- etorship firm does not have an independent legal personality and there- fore a suit in its name is not maintainable.
32. In the case of Svapn Constructions vs. IDPL employees Cooperative Group 127 (2006) DLT 80 it was held as under:
"16. The petition has been filed in the name of M/s Svapn Constructions and not in the name of Shri.A. K. Khanna its sole proprietor. In the petition filed by the petitioner, no prayer has been made seeking amendment to sue in the name of the sole proprietorship firm. Even according to the averments made in the petition, though it is stated that Mr.A.K. Khanna is the sole proprietor of the firm, M/s.Svapn Construction, however, no permis- sion has been sought to sue in the name of the sole pro- prietorship firm. If the sole proprietorship firm is not a legal entity, the petition should have been filed by the sole proprietor in his name on behalf of his sole propri- etorship firm and not in the name of sole proprietorship firm. Considering it from any point, the inevitable infer- ence is that a petition in the name of a sole proprietor- ship firm's name which is not a legal entity is not main- tainable."CS (COMM)No. 239/23 Page 12 of 14
M/S S.R.Printing & Binding House vs. Aayansh Stationary World
33. In view of the above, since the present suit has been filed by a proprietorship firm which does not have any independent legal personality, the present suit must fail on this ground as well.
34. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the plaintiff has miser-
ably failed to prove its case on preponderance of probabilities.
35. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Issue no. 2
(ii) If the issue no. (i) is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the pendente-lite and future interest, if so at what rate and for what period? (OPP)
36. Since the court come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove its case, the plaintiff is not entitled to interest as well and hence this issue is also decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
CS (COMM)No. 239/23 Page 13 of 14M/S S.R.Printing & Binding House vs. Aayansh Stationary World Issue no. 3
(iii). Relief.
37. As discussed above, since the plaintiff has failed to prove its case on merits and the suit has not been properly instituted as well, this suit is accordingly dismissed. No order as to the costs.
38. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed by DEEPAKDEEPAK GARG GARG Date:
2025.07.07 15:40:40 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Deepak Garg) On 7th Day of July, 2025 Distt. Judge, (Comm. Court)-09, Central District, THC : Delhi CS (COMM)No. 239/23 Page 14 of 14