Delhi District Court
Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs Zestha Projects Pvt. Ltd on 9 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-06
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSE01-007840-2024
CS (Comm.) No. 2930/2024
Rajesh Kumar Gupta
(Proprietor of Balaji Enterprises)
[email protected]
Registered office at:
D-11/304,
Harinagar Extension,
Jaitpur, Badarpur,
New Delhi-110044
Also at :
249, Block D2,
Part-3, Hari Nagar Extn.,
New Delhi - 110044
(GSTIN: 07AIPPG4292H17Z7)
Mobile: 9811518004
... Plaintiff
Versus
Zestha Projects Pvt. Ltd.
(Through its Directors)
(CIN) U70101DL2003PTC120652)
E.Id:[email protected]
Regd. Office at:
402, 4th Floor.
Shahpyri Tirath Singh Tower,
C-58, Janakpuri,
New Delhi - 110058
NEERA
CS (Comm) No.2930/24 Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Zestha Projects Pvt. Ltd. Page 1 of 17
BHARIHOKE
Digitally signed by
NEERA BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.06.09
14:45:14 +0530
Also at:
401-411,
Plat No.58, Block-C,
Shahpuri Tirath Singh Tower,
DDA Community Center,
Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058,
Also At:
26/1, Knowledge Park-3,
Greater Noida,
Gautam Buddha Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh-201308.
....Defendant
Date of institution of the suit : 31.07.2024
Date on which judgment was reserved : 02.06.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 09.06.2025
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
1. By way of this judgment, I shall decide the suit of the Plaintiff filed for recovery of Rs.6,12,217/- alongwith interest.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS SET UP IN THE PLAINT
2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the Plaintiff in the plaint are that:
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (Comm) No.2930/24 Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Zestha Projects Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 of 17 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.06.09 14:45:24 +0530
a) Plaintiff is the Proprietor of M/s Balaji Enterprises and is engaged in the business of selling and distribution of all kinds of Electrical Goods, Wires & Cables, Iron & Hardware Goods.
b) Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta is Proprietor of M/s Balaji Enterprises and being the Proprietor, he has filed the present suit for recovery against the Defendants.
c) Defendant No.1 and erstwhile Defendant No.2 are Private Limited Companies duly incorporated and registered under the provisions of Companies Act; 1956 with the Registrar of Companies.
Erstwhile Defendant no.2 also had same Directors as represented time to time during the course of business activities by the Defendants.
d) Defendant is involved in real estate activities with own or leased property and activities of Defendant includes buying, selling, renting and operating of self-owned or leased real estate such as apartment building and dwellings, non-residential buildings, developing and subdividing real estate into lots etc. Activities included development and sale of land cemetery lots operating of apartment hotels and residential mobile home sites.
e) Erstwhile Defendant no.2 was also a Private Limited and was involved in hotels; camping sites and other provision of short-stay NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (Comm) No.2930/24 Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Zestha Projects Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 17 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.06.09 14:45:31 +0530 accommodation Restaurant facilities operated in connection with the provision of lodging remain classified in this group.
f) Defendant had business dealings with the Plaintiff and during the course of business dealings, Defendant placed orders from time to time and purchased Electrical Goods, Wires & Cables, Iron & Hardware Goods from the Plaintiff. Defendant induced Plaintiff to supply the aforesaid materials to it on credit. Defendant further represented to the Plaintiff that it would make the payment in respect of the aforesaid materials immediately and promptly.
g) Plaintiff accepted the Defendant's representations. Believing upon the Defendant's assurances and representation, Plaintiff supplied the Electrical Goods, Wires & Cables, Iron & Hardware Goods as sought by the Defendant.
h) Plaintiff has been maintaining the running account and Defendant had made intermittent payment to the Plaintiff during the course of business dealings. A sum of Rs.6,12,217/- was due upon the Defendant as per Ledger Account for the period from 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2024 which the Defendant was bound to pay as outstanding amount for the goods/materials supplied to it by the Plaintiff as per orders placed by the Defendant.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (Comm) No.2930/24 Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Zestha Projects Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 of 17 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.06.09 14:45:39 +0530
i) As per the regular course of business, in the books of account maintained by the Plaintiff, a sum of Rs.6,12,217/- was due upon the Defendant towards the Plaintiff.
j) As per market practice and in accordance with the terms and conditions finalized between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and accepted by the Defendant which were reflected on the invoices as well, the Defendant was liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum on amount due from the Defendant. The same are shown in the tabular form in following manner as per Ledger Account for the period from 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2024:-
Invoice No. Invoice Date Invoice Due Invoice Outstanding Date Amount amount INR BE-0729/22-23 10.12.2022 10.12.2022 25,790/- 25,790/- BE-0733/22-23 13.12.2022 13.12.2022 68,222/- 68,222/- BE-0791/22-23 26.12.2022 26.12.2022 14,125/- 14,125/- BE-0792/22-23 27.12.2022 27.12.2022 39,450/- 39,450/- BE-0813/22-23 27.12.2022 27.12.2022 15,517/- 15,517/- BE-0823/22-23 06.01.2023 06.01.2023 4,18,698/- 4,18,698/- BE-0824/22-23 06.01.2023 06.01.2023 53,256/- 53,256/- BE-0839/22-23 13.01.2023 13.01.2023 96,908/- 96,908/-
7,31,966/- 6,12,217.68 (Total bill of Rs.7,31,966/- and received payment Rs.1,11,748.32, outstanding amount is Rs.6,12,217.68) NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (Comm) No.2930/24 Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Zestha Projects Pvt. Ltd. Page 5 of 17 Date:2025.06.09 14:45:50 +0530
k) Plaintiff made several requests to Defendant, thereafter, Defendant & erstwhile Defendant No.2 issued cheques in favour of Plaintiff vide Ch.No.000695 of Rs.2,00,000/- dated 21.04.2023 drawn on HDFC Bank, C-3/8, Opposite C4E Market, Janakpuri, New Delhi-
110058 and the erstwhile Defendant no.2 issued cheque on behalf of the Defendant vide Ch.No.002160 of Rs.1,50,000/- dated 01.03.2023 drawn on HDFC Bank, C-3/8, Opposite C4E Market, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 to discharge the financial liabilities.
l) As per assurance by the Defendant and erstwhile Defendant No.2, the Plaintiff presented the cheques vide Ch.No.000695 of Rs.2,00,000/- dated 21.04.2023 drawn on HDFC Bank, C-3/8, Opposite C4E Market, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 and Ch.No.002160 of Rs.1,50,000/- dated 01.03.2023 drawn on HDFC Bank, C-3/8, Opposite CAE Market, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 to its Bank wherein the Plaintiff was maintaining its account. However, cheque No.000695 got dishonored for the reason "Funds Insufficient" vide return memo dated 20.05.2023 and Ch. No.002160 got dishonored for the reason "Account Number Invalid" vide return memo dated 03.03.2023.
m) After dishonouring of the cheques, Plaintiff intimated to the Defendant, Defendant took time on one pretext or another and did not respond to the Plaintiff. Erstwhile Defendant no.2 belonged to the Defendant, therefore on behalf of the Defendant to discharge NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (Comm) No.2930/24 Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Zestha Projects Pvt. Ltd. Page 6 of 17 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.06.09 14:45:58 +0530 the financial liabilities, erstwhile Defendant no.2 issued aforesaid cheque, however the said cheque had also been dishonored.
n) Defendant had fraudulent intention to cheat the Plaintiff. Whenever the Plaintiff said to the Defendant to clear outstanding bill, otherwise, the Plaintiff would initiate legal proceeding under section 138 R/w Section 142 of N.I. Act against the Defendant, the Defendant took time on one pretext or another by assuring to the Plaintiff that Defendant was arranging fund and would pay the entire outstanding amount soon resulting in lapsing of the statutory period of legal proceeding under section 138 r/w 142 of N.I. Act.
o) Plaintiff waited for long on the promises, representations and assurances of the Defendants despite acceptance of the pending outstanding and still the Defendant failed to clear the said outstanding. The Plaintiff sent notice dated 31.01.2024 to the Defendant. However despite service of the said notices upon the Defendant (in pursuance to the internet generated proof of delivery), Defendant failed and neglected to pay the admitted financial liability to the Plaintiff.
p) The Plaintiff preferred a Pre-litigation/Pre-Institution Mediation before the Competent Authority, i.e. SEDLSA, on 15.04.2024, however Defendant did not appear before the Competent Authority. Furthermore, the Non-Starter Report for the Pre-
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (Comm) No.2930/24 Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Zestha Projects Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 of 17 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.06.09 14:46:05 +0530 Institution Mediation was issued by the Competent Authority, SEDLSA, dated 28.06.2024.
3. Hence the present suit was filed.
CASE OF DEFENDANT
4. Summons sent to address of Noida were received back with report of incomplete address. Both Defendants were served through its AR namely Mr. Ashok Kalia (Mob. No.8826903435) on 09.08.2024 at both addresses of Janakpuri.
5. The Defendant and erstwhile Defendant No.2 filed their separate Written Statement alongwith an application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. Erstwhile Defendant No.2 also filed an application under Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC for its deletion.
6. Vide order dated 28.10.2024, applications of both Defendants for condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement were allowed subject to cost of Rs.2,000/- to be paid by each Defendant to Plaintiff.
7. Vide order dated 11.11.2024, the application of erstwhile Defendant No.2 under Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC for its deletion was allowed and erstwhile Defendant No.2 was deleted from array of parties.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANT AS SET OUT IN WRITTEN STATEMENT.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (Comm) No.2930/24 Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Zestha Projects Pvt. Ltd. Page 8 of 17 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.06.09 14:46:11 +0530 I. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:
a) This court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit, therefore, the Plaint ought to be returned for presenting before the court having territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. Defendant is having office-cum-factory in Gautam Budh Nagar, UP and Plaintiff allegedly supplied the goods at Gautam Budh Nagar, UP. All the relevant events as discussed in the Plaint under reply including but not limited to delivery of goods, meetings between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to discuss commercial terms etc. happened in Gautam Budh Nagar, UP.
b) The suit is improperly constituted due to the misjoinder of parties who had no legal connection, interest, or liability in the cause of action as pleaded.
II. PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS
a) The Plaintiff claimed to be into the business of supply of Electrical goods, Wires, cables, Iron and Hardware Goods etc. and approached the Defendant through its agents/representatives soliciting the work of supply of the same. Being in need of such services, Defendant believed the representations of the Plaintiff and agreed to avail the services from Plaintiff. However, it was made clear that quality of the goods should be free from any defect and the charges should be competitive.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No.2930/24 Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Zestha Projects Pvt. Ltd. Page 9 of 17 NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.06.09 14:46:18 +0530
b) Within a short span of time, the Defendants realized that the assurances and promises made by Plaintiff were just a spoof to sell poor goods. The Plaintiff was not having proper infrastructure to provide the said services which resulted into very poor and defective goods. There were repeated delays in supply by Plaintiff, which delayed the work of the Defendant. Due to delays on the part of Plaintiff, Defendant suffered losses as they had to make alternate arrangements at a much higher price. The Plaintiff was also in the habit of raising inflated and exaggerated bills, having no basis. Defendant committed a mistake by believing the assurances and representations of the Plaintiff and it had proved to be quite expensive for the Defendants as it suffered loss of reputation as well as huge loss due to acts of omissions and commissions of the Plaintiff. Hence, the Plaintiff by distorting the facts of the matter had tried to mislead the court and there was no outstanding and all the due payments had already been made to the Plaintiff by the Defendant.
c) The Defendant denied the submissions made in the plaint including issuance of cheques in question and as well as the Ledger Account of the Defendant maintained by the Plaintiff. The Defendant also submitted that erstwhile Defendant no.2 has no relation in the present proceeding and hence Defendant no.2 should be deleted for the array of the parties. The Defendant prayed for dismissal of the present suit by submitting that plaint reflects no cause of action Digitally signed by NEERA CS (Comm) No.2930/24 Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Zestha Projects Pvt. Ltd. Page 10 of 17 NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.06.09 14:46:25 +0530 against the Defendant.
8. Vide order dated 23.12.2024, the parties were referred for settlement before Mediation Cell. However, mediation efforts failed.
9. On 31.01.2025, Plaintiff filed Amended Memo of Parties and the title of the suit was corrected.
REPLICATION
10. Plaintiff has filed replication to the Written Statement filed by the Defendant, wherein Plaintiff has denied the submissions made in the Written Statement and reiterated the submissions made in the plaint.
FRAMING OF ISSUES
11. The Defendant denied all the documents filed by the Plaintiff except copy of Aadhar Card of plaintiff and Master Data of Defendant. Defendant had not filed any document alongwith Written Statement. Accordingly, admission/denial stood concluded. On the basis of pleadings following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount?
OPP.
2. Whether the goods which were supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant were defective and was there a delay in supply by the plaintiff? OPD.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (Comm) No.2930/24 Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Zestha Projects Pvt. Ltd. Page 11 of 17 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.06.09 14:46:33 +0530
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the suit amount?If yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP
4. Cost.
5. Relief.
12. The matter was adjourned for Plaintiff's Evidence for 18.03.2025.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
13. On 07.04.2025, Plaintiff examined PW-1 Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Proprietor of Plaintiff. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW-1/A. He reiterated the contents of the plaint and relied upon the following documents: -
i. Copy of Registration Certificate GST is Ex.PW-1/1.
ii. Copy of Registration Certificate of Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise is Ex.PW-1/2.
iii. Copy of Ledger Account period from 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2024 is Ex.PW-1/3.
iv. Original Bills/invoices period from 01.04.2022 to 06.01.2023 and printout of invoice dated 06.01.2023 and 13.01.2023 are Ex.PW- 1/4 (collectively.) v. Original cheques and Bank Return Memo are Ex.PW-1/5 (collectively).
vi. Office copy of legal demand notice dated 31.01.2024 is Ex.PW-
1/6.
vii. Original Speed Post receipt dated 31.01.2024 is Ex.PW-1/7.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (Comm) No.2930/24 Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Zestha Projects Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 of 17 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.06.09 14:46:41 +0530 viii. Copy of Adhar card of the Plaintiff (inadvertently mentioned as petitioner) is Ex.PW-1/9.
ix. The original non-starter report dated 28.06.2024 is Ex.PW-1/10.
x. Copy of master data of the Defendant is Ex. PW-1/11.
xi. Certificate under Section 63 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam is Ex.PW1/12.
14. It was observed that in the affidavit of evidence of PW-1, Tracking Report of Speed Post dated 31.01.2024 was mentioned as Ex. PW-1/8. However, there was no Ex. PW-1/8 placed on record.
15. Right of Defendant to cross examine PW-1 was closed vide order dated 09.04.2025 since the Defendant did not cross examine PW-1 despite being given several opportunities. On the same day, Plaintiff's Evidence was closed and the matter was adjourned for Defendant's Evidence for 23.05.2025.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
16. On 23.05.2025, affidavit of evidence was not filed on behalf of Defendant. None appeared for the Defendant on 09.04.2025. On that day also, none appeared for the Defendant. The Defendant was proceeded ex parte. Therefore, the matter was not listed for Defendant's Evidence and the matter was adjourned for final arguments for 02.06.2025.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (Comm) No.2930/24 Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Zestha Projects Pvt. Ltd. Page 13 of 17 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.06.09 14:46:47 +0530
17. On 02.06.2025, learned Proxy Counsel for Defendant submitted that the Director of the Defendant was in Tihar Jail and therefore, she sought time for seeking instructions from him. Similar were her submissions on 07.04.2025 and the cost was imposed on the Defendant vide order dated 18.03.2025 had also not been paid. Since Defendant was proceeded ex parte and had not led any evidence, no ground was made out to adjourn the matter.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
18. On 02.06.2025, learned Counsel for Plaintiff advanced submissions about the factual matrix of the case alongwith reference to the relevant documents which were tendered by PW-1. Clarifications were sought from learned Counsel for Plaintiff that the Defendant had issued cheques of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/-, whereas the suit amount is much more than that to which he replied that these cheques were issued in lieu of part payment of the total outstanding amount and the Plaintiff has also filed Ledger Account of Defendant maintained by the Plaintiff which clearly reflects that an amount of Rs.6,12,217/- is outstanding against the Defendant.
19. The detailed submissions of learned Counsel for Plaintiff were heard. I have carefully gone through the record.
FINDINGS
20. My issue-wise findings are given as under:- NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (Comm) No.2930/24 Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Zestha Projects Pvt. Ltd. Page 14 of 17 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.06.09 14:46:53 +0530 Issue No.(1) : Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount ?
Onus to prove this issue was placed on Plaintiff.
21. Plaintiff supplied the electrical goods i.e. wires, cables, iron and hardware to the Defendant and raised invoice in 2022. The last payment of Rs.25,000/- was made by the Defendant on 11.02.2023 as per ledger account, Ex. PW-1/3 and the present suit has been filed in 2024 and the suit is therefore within limitation.
22. The suit of the Plaintiff is based upon the documents placed on record as Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/7 and Ex.PW-1/9 to Ex.PW-1/12. The testimony of PW-1 has been duly corroborated by the other documents placed on record. There is no occasion to doubt the veracity of the said witness and for that matter, the authenticity of testimony led by him. The testimony has gone unrebutted and unchallenged as Defendant did not cross examine PW-1 despite several opportunities leading to closing of right of the Defendant to cross examine PW-1. This court finds no reason to disbelieve the on-oath testimony of the Plaintiff coupled with the relevant documents. Hence, the Plaintiff has successfully proved its case by preponderance of probability. Therefore issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant and it is held that the Plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount of Rs.6,12,217/-.
Issue No. (2) : Whether the goods which were supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant were defective and was there a delay in supply by the Plaintiff?
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (Comm) No.2930/24 Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Zestha Projects Pvt. Ltd. Page 15 of 17 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.06.09 14:47:00 +0530 Onus to prove this issue was placed on Defendant.
23. Defendant had taken the objection that the good supplied to the Defendant were defective in its Written Statement. No document was produced by Defendant in support of its claim and thereafter Defendant stopped appearing. In view of closing of right of the Defendant to cross- examine PW-1 and later, not leading Defendant's Evidence, the Defendant failed to discharge its onus. Therefore, issue no.2 is decided against the Defendant and in favour of the Plaintiff.
Issue No.(3) : Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest on the suit amount ? If yes, at what rate and for which period?.
The onus to prove was placed on the Plaintiff.
24. Plaintiff has claimed the suit amount of Rs.6,12,217/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of outstanding till realization. In view of non-payment of dues of Plaintiff by the Defendant, the interest @ 18% per annum as claimed in the suit is allowed. Accordingly issue no. 3 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
RELIEF
25. In view of finding given on issue No.1 and 3, the present case is decreed in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendant for the sum of Rs.6,12,217/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. Defendant is also directed to pay to Plaintiff the cost of the suit which shall include NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (Comm) No.2930/24 Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Zestha Projects Pvt. Ltd. Page 16 of 17 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.06.09 14:47:07 +0530 pleader's fee and the other costs on the scale provided under section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure as substituted by Commercial Courts Act. If the payment is not made within thirty days, the cost shall also carry simple interest @ 6% per annum.
26. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
NEERA File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance. BHARIHOKE Announced in the open Digitally signed by NEERA Court on 09.06.2025 BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.06.09 (Dr. Neera Bharihoke) 14:47:15 +0530 District Judge (Commercial Court)-06 South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi 09.06.2025 Certified that this judgment contains 17 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Dr. Neera Bharihoke) Digitally signed by NEERA District Judge (Commercial Court)-06 NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi 2025.06.09 14:47:20 09.06.2025 +0530 CS (Comm) No.2930/24 Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Zestha Projects Pvt. Ltd. Page 17 of 17