Delhi District Court
Triveni Cargo Express India Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Accurate Freight Logistics And Anr on 4 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-06
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSE01-005336-2024
CS (COMM) No.400/2024
Triveni Cargo Express India Private Limited
A Company registered under
the Companies Act, 2013
Having its registered office at
Plot No-480, First Floor, Flat No.301,
Street No.15, L Block,
Mahipalpur Extension,
New Delhi-110037
Through It's A.R.
Sh. Pramod Kumar Mishra
... Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics
A Proprietorship Concern,
(Through its sole proprietor
Ms. Aanchal Gill)
At 259/355,
Babugarh Cantt.
Bachhlota, Ghaziabad,
(U.P.) Pincode-245201
2. Amit Kumar,
Authorized Signatory,
M/s Accurate Freight Logistics,
NEERA
At 259/355, BHARIHOKE
Digitally signed by
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 1 of 36 Date: 2025.10.04
15:21:17 +0530
Babugarh Cantt.
Bachhlota, Ghaziabad,
(U.P.) Pincode-245201
Both also at:
Corporate office Accurate Freight Logistics
at TA 93A 3rd Floor,
Above PNB Bank,
Tughlakabad Extension,
New Delhi-110019.
....Defendants
Date of institution of the suit : 22.05.2024
Date on which judgment was reserved : 19.09.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 04.10.2025
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
1. By way of this judgment, I shall decide the suit of the Plaintiff filed for recovery of money 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:
a) Plaintiff is a private limited company duly incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 2013 and is engaged in the NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 2 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:21:38 +0530 business of domestic and international freight forwarding, custom clearance etc. and is an IATA agent.
b) The present suit has been filed through Mr. Pramod Kumar Mishra, son of Late Yogender Mishra, Director / Authorized Representative / Signatory of the Plaintiff who has been authorized vide Board Resolution dated 24.09.2021 to file the present suit on behalf of the Plaintiff.
c) The Plaintiff in its normal course of business engaged other freight forwarders in India and overseas as sub-agents to give effect to its business, further, the Plaintiff also rendered other allied services including but not limited to Custom-Clearances, etc.
d) Defendants were also in the same business and Defendant No.1 runs her business in the name and style of her sole proprietorship concern "Accurate Freight Logistics" and Defendant No.2 is her husband and Authorized Signatory/Representative and all the operational/ financial transactions were handled by Defendant No.2, who was also in-charge of day-to-day affairs and business activities of the proprietorship i.e. of Defendant No.1.
Defendant No.2 dealt with Plaintiff for and on behalf of Defendant No.1.
e) Plaintiff appointed Defendant No.1 as sub-agent for providing logistics services for ocean/sea transportation of an NEERA CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 3 of 36 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:21:43 +0530 import cargo, pertaining to its customer M/s Bhatia Shipping Pvt. Ltd. i.e. (shipment container of 40 feet containing toothpaste sorting system H.S. code 8428320000 in 09 packed packages) from Shanghai (China) the port of loading to port of discharge Mundra- (India) for onward direct delivery after custom clearance and inland transportation to the consignee M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Factory premises situated at Unit-2 (TP) Plot No.1, Sector 1A I.I.E. Ranipur, Haridwar-05, Uttarakhand-249403.
f) Defendants were appointed for providing said services, contacted its agent M/s Ningbo Dashing International Company Logistics, which in turn loaded the container from China on board vessel to discharge the same at port of discharge Mundra/CFS/Warehouse, however, there arose an issue that the Defendants had some past outstanding about US $10,000/- payable to M/s Ningbo Dashing International Company Logistics and said Chinese company refused to surrender original Bill of Lading of the shipment in question and stressed upon that unless and until the past outstanding was paid Bill of Lading would not be released, therefore, Bill of Lading was not released in time, thus for the acts and omissions qua past outstanding of Defendant, the delivery order could not be issued timely and demurrages/detention charges/ground rents/stamp duty had become payable extra. The shipment was got released by Plaintiff by paying an advance loan with the help of M/s Bhatia Shipping Pvt. Ltd to clear past outstanding of the Defendants, on the special request of the NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 4 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:21:50 +0530 Defendants, for bailing out of situation, and also on promise of the Defendants to pay 2% monthly interest on the loan advance alongwith all other extra expenses which were incurred due to non- release of Bill of Lading and Delivery Order, solely because of previous outstanding of Defendants moreover completely unrelated to the Plaintiff and M/s Bhatia Shipping Pvt. Ltd.
g) M/s Bhatia Shipping Pvt. Ltd. jointly alongwith Plaintiff without putting blame and accusations inter-se and/or trying to fasten guilt on any particular party entered into a Tripartite Agreement-cum-Promissory Note with the Defendants and executed the same on 11.03.2021.
h) Defendants in discharge of their liability towards the Plaintiff had issued a cheque towards partial payment of their outstanding/ liability, which was due and payable towards the Plaintiff. Defendant No.2 represented that he is authorized signatory of Defendant No.1 and had already signed the aforesaid Tripartite Agreement-cum-Promissory Note and was therefore fully competent to sign and hand over the cheque in terms of Tripartite Agreement/Promissory Note. The details of the said cheque are mentioned herein below:
Amount (Rs.) Chq. No and Date Bank(Drawn on) 13,00,000/- 000123 dated Kotak Mahindra, M-43A, M Block, 11.05.2021 Market, Greater Kailash, New Delhi-
110048 NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 5 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:21:55 +0530
i) The aforesaid cheque was presented for encashment on 15.07.2021 by Plaintiff in its Bank being 'Yes Bank Limited' and the same got dishonored and was returned unpaid by the bank of the Defendant for the reason "Drawers Signature Differs" and the Plaintiff came to know on 17.07.2021, the factum of dishonor of aforesaid cheque on receipt a cheque, return advice dated 16.07.2021 issued by the service branch of the Banker of Plaintiff.
j) Plaintiff on receiving the intimation about the dishonor of the aforesaid cheque, sent a demand notice dated 14.08.2021 to the Defendants to make the payment in lieu of dishonored cheque. The legal notice was dispatched through e-mail, speed post and as well as courier at both the addresses of the Defendants and the same was delivered at both the said addresses of the Defendants by all modes. Defendants were served through e- mail on 15.08.2021 itself and by Speed Post on 21.08.2021 and 23.08.2021 respectively. Notice sent through Courier returned undelivered as Defendants stopped operating regularly from Tughlakabad Address.
k) Defendants received the notice on 15.08.2021, through E-mail, made a call to Sajal Nath Bhaumik of Plaintiff and requested for some more time for making payment. However, the Defendant also sent a formal reply to the notice issued under 138 of NI Act.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 6 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:22:01 +0530
l) Plaintiff in response to reply of Defendants sent its rejoinder through e-mail, denying false and fabricated version of reply and clarifying all the details and particulars and reiterating the contents of notice under section 138 of NI Act.
m) Despite the service of legal notice, the Defendants neither complied therewith in terms of legal demand notice nor any payment had been received by the Plaintiff till filing of the present case.
n) Plaintiff thereafter filed a complaint case bearing No.CC/5276/2021 under section 138 of NI Act 1881 against the Defendants and which is pending before the court of then learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act) Digital Court-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
o) As per ledger account maintained by the Plaintiff in the name of Defendant No.1, the outstanding amount was Rs.13,00,000/- as on the date of filing of the present case.
p) Due to non-payment of principal amount of cheque in question despite complaint case u/s 138 of NI Act filed against the Defendants, Plaintiff also became entitled to interest.
q) The Plaintiff preferred Pre-litigation/Pre-Institution Mediation before the Competent Authority, i.e. SEDLSA, on 20.09.2023, NEERA CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 7 of 36 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:22:08 +0530 however Defendant did not appear before the Competent Authority. Furthermore, the Non-Starter Report for the Pre-Institution Mediation was issued by the Competent Authority, SEDLSA, dated 01.11.2023.
3. Hence, the present suit was filed.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANT AS SET UP IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
4. Brief facts of the case as stated by the Defendant in the Written Statement are that:
Preliminary objection & submissions:
a) The present suit is not maintainable because there exists no cause of action against the Defendants as the Defendants has nothing to do with the alleged transactions as claimed by the Plaintiff. and the suit should be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
b) The present suit is barred by limitation and the same has been filed after the expiry of statutory period provided by law.
c) The Plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands and had suppressed the material fact.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 8 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:22:14 +0530
d) The present suit is an abuse of the process of law as the Plaintiff has not only filed the present suit without issuing a legal notice but has also gone to the extent of filing of one other complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Even though, the aforesaid case has been filed by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff in the cross examination dated 18.01.2023, conducted in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, which made it evident that the Plaintiff filed multiple cases to not only exert pressure on the Defendant but also to extort undue amounts from him due to which the present suit should be dismissed.
e) Plaintiff has not proceeded in accordance with the rules as is laid down under the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, whereby the Plaintiff, prior to filing the present suit, had neither initiated pre Institution Mediation nor had filed the documents in accordance with the aforesaid Act and therefore, the present suit should be dismissed.
f) The Plaintiff has misled this court by stating false and fabricated statements and is therefore liable for prosecution for committing perjury. Plaintiff has not only created a questionable document but has also filed a false and a frivolous suit, which should be rejected.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 9 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:22:21 +0530
g) Plaintiff has also misled this court by not adding the other party namely M/s Bhatia Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the present suit should be dismissed.
Reply on merits :
a) It was denied that Plaintiff appointed Defendant No.1 as sub-
agent for providing logistics services for ocean/sea transportation of an import cargo, pertaining to its customer M/s Bhatia Shipping Pvt. Ltd. i.e. (Shipment container of 40 feet containing toothpaste sorting system H.S.code 8428320000 in 09 packed packages) from Shanghai (China) the port of loading to port of discharge Mundra (India) for onward direct delivery after custom clearance and island transportation to the consignee M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd. factory premises, situated at Unit-2 (TP) Plot No.1 Sector 1A I.I.E. Ranipur, Haridwar Uttrakhand. No such consignment was assigned to the Defendants.
b) The Tripartite Agreement was executed by the Plaintiff in order to show green gates to the Defendants and to work for gain. The agreement was executed on 11.03.2021 and the same was not validated thus it was not a secured asset. The same was executed in order to induce the Defendants. Plaintiff has filed the present suit on 21.05.2024 based on the agreement dated 11.03.2021. Plaintiff has no locus to file the present suit after the expiry of 3 years.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 10 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:22:27 +0530
c) It was denied that the Defendants in discharge of their liability towards the Plaintiff had issued a cheque towards partial payment of their outstanding/liability which was due and payable towards the Plaintiff.
d) The cheque was taken by the Plaintiff on the execution of the agreement dated 11.03.2021 and the cheque No.000123 bears no amount, date or any other particulars. If the agreement was executed on 11.03.2011, then the Defendants would issue a cheque dated 11.05.2021 on 11.03.2021. The cheque No.000123 was taken by the Plaintiff fraudulently. The Plaintiff had no locus to present the said cheque before any bank of before any court of law.
e) It was denied that the demand notice dated 14.08.2021 was served on the Defendants through e-mail on 15.08.2021. Plaintiff in the complaint under section 138 of NI Act as CC NI Act 5276 of 2021 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi did not exhibit the demand notice dated 15.08.2021 and it was a marked document.
f) It was denied that the Defendants made a call to Sajal Nath Bhaumik of Plaintiff and requested for some more time for making payment. Plaintiff inserted present para in this suit just to cover his lacuna in the suit. The Plaintiff already filed a complaint under section 138 of NI Act as CC NI Act 5276 of 2021 pending before NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 11 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:22:33 +0530 learned Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi. The arguments in the said complaint were heard at length by the Court on 08.12.2023 and during the arguments, the learned Counsel for the accused/Defendants herein argued that the e-mail dated 15.08.2021 did not bear the attachment/legal notice. Therefore, the legal notice was not served to the Defendants herein. The Plaintiff realized the issue and trying to cover the same through this para in the plaint. It was denied that the legal notice was served on 15.08.2021 through e-mail. The complainant witness No.2 Mr. Sajal Nath Bhaumik submitted in the said complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. The alleged legal notice dated 15.08.2021 was sent to only one Defendant on 15.08.2021 but in his cross examination dated 23.08.2023, he submitted contradictory statements.
g) It was denied that the present plaint is filed within period of limitation. The alleged agreement dated 11.03.2021 was executed on 11.03.2021 and the present suit is filed after the expiry of stipulated time. There were irregularities in the alleged agreement dated 11.03.2021. Therefore, the present suit is not filed within limitation.
5. Relying on the said averments, the Defendants have submitted that there is no merit in the present suit and it deserves to be dismissed.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 12 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:22:39 +0530 REPLICATION OF THE PLAINTIFF
6. Replication has been filed by the Plaintiff, wherein the Plaintiff has denied the contents of the Written Statement and reiterated the contents of the plaint.
7. On 06.11.2024, Plaintiff filed an application for summary judgment. Vide order dated 27.01.2025, the application of the Plaintiff under Order XIII-A of CPC was allowed and present suit was partly decreed for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of receipt of this amount by the Defendants till its realization. It was also held that the liability of the Defendants shall be joint and several and for the remaining amount, the present suit was directed to be proceeded with on merits.
ADMISSION / DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
8. Vide order dated 19.03.2025, admission/denial of documents was concluded and the Defendants admitted Tripartite Agreement dated 11.03.2021 as Ex. P-1, the cheque dated 11.05.2021 as Ex. P-2, complaint case No.5276/2021 as Ex. P-3 (collectively) and Bill of Lading as Ex. P-3.
FRAMING OF ISSUES
9. Vide order dated 19.03.2025, on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 13 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:22:47 +0530 (1) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount? OPP (2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.
(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
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
10. On 05.05.2025, Plaintiff examined PW-1 Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra. 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) Bill of Lading No. SHAZ08487400 dated 18.01.2021 is Ex. PW-1/1 (already exhibited as Ex. P-3).
(ii) Tripartite Agreement-cum-Promissory Note with Defendants already exhibited as Ex. P-1.
(iii) Cheque already exhibited as Ex. P-2.
(iv) Certified copy of complaint case bearing No. CC/5276/2021 already
exhibited as Ex. P-3 (Colly.)
(v) Document already exhibited as Ex. P-4.
(vi) Non-Starter Report dated 01.11.2023 is Ex. PW-1/2.
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 14 of 36
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.10.04
15:23:14 +0530
(vii) Statement of Defendant given in complaint bearing
No.CC/5276/2021 is Ex. PW-1/3.
11. PW-1 was cross examined by learned Counsel for Defendants and discharged on 05.05.2025.
12. On 05.05.2025, Plaintiff also examined PW-2 Shri Sajal Nath Bhaumik. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW-2/A. He relied upon the following documents: -
(i) Original copy of Board Resolution dated 11.03.2021 already exhibited as Ex. P-1.
(ii) Cheque bearing No.00123 dated 11.05.2021 of Rs.13,00,000/-
already exhibited as Ex. P-2.
13. PW-2 was cross examined by learned Counsel for Defendants and discharged on 05.05.2025. On the same day, Plaintiff's Evidence was closed on the statement of Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Director/ Authorized Representative of the Plaintiff and the matter was listed for Defendants' Evidence.
DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE
14. Several opportunities were granted to the Defendants to file affidavit of evidence, but Defendants did not file the same. Therefore, Defendants' NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 15 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:23:21 +0530 Evidence was closed vide order dated 21.07.2025 and the matter was listed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
15. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff made his submissions in line with the case of the Plaintiff and submitted that the Plaintiff has filed all the relevant documents in support of his submissions made in the present matter. He argued that because of non-payment of the due amount of the Plaintiff by the Defendants, the Plaintiff was constrained to file a Complaint Case against the Defendants under Negotiable Instruments Act which is still pending. He further submitted that the defence taken by the Defendants is a sham defence is substantiated by the fact that despite several opportunities granted to the Defendants, the Defendants did not step into the witness box in the present matter.
16. On the other hand, learned Counsel for Defendants submitted that the Plaintiff has no cause of action against the Defendants. It was also argued on behalf of Defendants that the present suit is not maintainable because the suit has been filed by a person who was not duly authorized to file the present suit. Learned Counsel for Defendants argued that the present suit has been filed by Mr. Pramod Kumar Mishra on behalf of the Plaintiff, but the authorization letter was not tendered by him during his examination in chief. He also argued that the cross-examination of Mr. Pramod Kumar Mishra, PW-1, reveals that he had been making contradictory statements in respect of the date of giving of cheque which got dishonored on presentation, leading to the filing of the present suit as NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 16 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:23:29 +0530 well as the Complaint Case by the Plaintiff against the Defendants. Learned Counsel for Defendants also submitted that the present suit is liable to be dismissed as the same is time barred.
17. In rebuttal, learned Counsel for Plaintiff argued that Mr. Pramod Kumar Mishra, PW-1, tendered the certified copy of complaint case as an exhibit as Ex. P-3(Colly) and one of the documents in that exhibit is the authority letter in favour of Mr. Pramod Kumar Mishra, PW-1, which has been admitted by the Defendants in the Complaint Case. He also argued that the present suit is not time barred and placed reliance on Suo Motu W.P.(C) No. 3 of 2020 in support of the same. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff also argued that this court had already allowed the application of the Plaintiff filed under order XIII-A CPC vide order dated 27.01.2025 awarding amount of Rs. 7,00,000 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and the Defendant has not filed any appeal nor have the Defendants challenged the said order. He argued that the suit deserves to be decreed and prayed accordingly.
FINDINGS
18. I have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record very carefully.
19. My issue-wise findings are given as under:-
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 17 of 36 Date: 2025.10.04 15:23:37 +0530
20. The issue of limitation needs to be decided prior to taking up the other issues and therefore issue no.2 is taken up prior to taking up other issues.
Issue No.2 : Whether the suit is barred by limitation.
The onus to prove this Issue was placed on the Defendants.
21. In Para 2 of preliminary objections in the Written Statement, the Defendants have stated that the present suit is barred by limitation. No evidence has been adduced in support of the objection taken by the Defendants except a bald statement in the preliminary objections in the written statement. However, issue of limitation has to be decided even by this Court. This court had allowed the application of the Plaintiff filed under order XIII-A CPC vide order dated 27.01.2025. The Defendants did not file any appeal against the said order, nor have the Defendants challenged the same not even on the ground of bar of limitation. The order dated 27.01.2025 has achieved finality. Had the suit been barred by time, the Defendants would have challenged the same. Defendants have failed to prove their objection of limitation.
22. During his cross examination, a suggestion was put to PW-1 that the present suit is time-barred because cheque was handed over to Plaintiff in March, 2021 and the suit has been filed in May 2024 which PW-1 denied. Plaintiff came to know on 17.07.2021 the factum of dishonor of cheque in question, Ex. P-2, on receipt of a cheque return advice dated 16.07.2021 issued by the service branch of the Banker of Plaintiff. The cause of action NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 18 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:23:53 +0530 arose on the said date. However, the period of limitation started to run from 01.03.2022 in view of exclusion of period from 17.07.2021 to 28.02.2022 from period of limitation as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suo Motu W.P.(C) No. 3 of 2020. The present suit has been filed in 2024, i.e. within three years from the date of dishonouring of the cheque and therefore the present suit has been filed within limitation. In view of these observations, Issue No.2 is decided against the Defendants and in favour of the Plaintiff and it is held that the suit is not barred by limitation.
Issue No.1 : Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount?
The onus to prove this Issue was placed on the Plaintiff.
23. The Plaintiff has submitted that it is engaged in the business of International/Domestic Freight Forwarding and in its normal course of business engages other freight forwarders in India and overseas as sub- agents and the Defendants being freight forwarders were engaged in respect of transaction in the present matter. Defendant No.2 is husband and Authorized Signatory/Representative of Defendant No.1, which is a sole proprietorship, proprietor being his wife. Plaintiff has further submitted that all the operational/ financial transactions are handled by Defendant No.2, who is also in charge of day-to-day affairs and business activities of the proprietorship i.e. of Defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 has dealt with Plaintiff Company for and on behalf of Defendant No.1. The Defendants have admitted the same in their Written Statement.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 19 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.10.04 15:24:00 +0530
24. Plaintiff has also submitted that it appointed Defendant No.1 as sub- agent for providing logistics services for ocean/sea transportation of an import cargo, pertaining to its customer M/s. Bhatia Shipping Pvt. Ltd. from Shanghai (China) the port of loading to port of discharge Mundra- (India) for onward direct delivery after custom clearance and inland transportation to the consignee M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Factory premises, situated at Unit-2(TP) Plot No.1 Sector 1A I.I.E Ranipur, Haridwar-05, Uttarakhand. These submissions have also not been disputed by Defendants in their Written Statement.
25. It is the further case of Plaintiff that Defendants, for providing said services, contacted its agent M/s. Ningbo Dashing International Company Logistics, which in turn loaded the container from China on board vessel to discharge same at port of Mundra/CES/ Warehouse. However, Defendants had some past outstanding about US 510,000/- payable to M/s Ningbo Dashing International Company Logistics and said Chinese company refused surrender original Bill of Lading of the shipment in question and stressed upon that unless and until the past outstanding was paid Bill of lading will not be released, therefore, Bill of Lading was not released in time, thus for the acts and omissions qua past outstanding of Defendants, the delivery order could not be issued timely and demurrages /detention charges/ground rents/stamp duty had become payable extra. The shipment was got released by Plaintiff company by paying an advance loan with the help of M/s. Bhatia Shipping Pvt. Ltd to clear past outstanding of the Defendants, on the special request of the Defendants, for bailing out of situation, and also on promise of the NEERA CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 20 of 36 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:24:09 +0530 Defendants to pay 2% monthly interest on the loan advance along with all other extra expenses which were incurred due to non- release of Bill of Lading and Delivery Order, solely because of previous outstanding of Defendants moreover completely unrelated to the Plaintiff company and the M/s. Bhatia Shipping Pvt. Ltd.
26. The Plaintiff has further submitted that M/s. Bhatia Shipping Pvt. Ltd. jointly alongwith Plaintiff without putting blame and accusations inter-se and/or trying to fasten guilt on any particular party entered into a Tripartite Agreement cum Promissory Note with the Defendants and executed the same on 11.03.2021. The Defendants in discharge of their liability towards the Plaintiff had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- bearing no. 00123 dated 11.05.2021 (hereinafter referred to as 'cheque in question') drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Greater Kailash Branch, New Delhi towards partial payment of their outstanding/ liability, which was due and payable towards the Plaintiff. The Defendant No.2 represented that he is authorized signatory of Defendant No.1 and signed the aforesaid Tripartite Agreement cum Promissory Note and is therefore fully competent to sign and hand over the cheque in terms of Tripartite Agreement/ Promissory Note.
27. Plaintiff has submitted that however, the cheque in question was dishonoured on presentation on 15.07.2021 by Plaintiff Company in its Bank being Yes Bank Limited, at Vasant Kunj Branch and was returned unpaid by the bank of the Defendants for the reason "Drawers Signature differs" and the Plaintiff company came to know the same on 17.07.2021 Digitally signed by CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 21 of 36 NEERA NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.10.04 15:24:16 +0530 on receipt of return advice dated 16.07.2021 from banker of Plaintiff's bank.
28. However, the Defendants have submitted that Tripartite Agreement was executed by the Plaintiff in order to show green gates to the Defendants and to work for gain. The Defendants have further submitted that Tripartite Agreement was executed on 11.03.2021 and the same was not validated thus it was not a secured asset and that the same was executed in order to induce the Defendants. The Defendants denied that the cheque in question was issued by the Defendants in discharge of their liability towards the Plaintiff towards partial payment of their outstanding/liability which was due and payable towards the Plaintiff. However, the Defendants have submitted that the cheque in question was taken by the Plaintiff on the execution of the agreement dated 11.03.2021 and the cheque No.000123 i.e. cheque in question bore no amount, date or any other particulars.
29. Thus, the Defendants admitted the execution of Tripartite Agreement. The Defendants have also admitted issuance of cheque in question but subject to their submissions made in the Written Statement. But no evidence has been led by Defendants in support of their defence. The Defendants did not lead any evidence in support of their submissions, so their bare denial is inconsequential.
30. However, learned Counsel for Defendants cross examined PW-1 as well as PW-2 on these as well as other aspects and the same needs to be Digitally signed by CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 22 of 36 NEERA BHARIHOKE NEERA BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.10.04 15:24:23 +0530 considered to determine if the Defendants have been able to disprove the case of the Plaintiff or were able to shake the testimonies of either of the witnesses of Plaintiff. Both PW-1 and PW-2 were cross- examined on the same day so that no witness could fill up the lacunae, if any, in the cross examination of the other witness.
31. The Defendants have taken objection in respect of authority of PW- 1 to file the present suit or depose on behalf of Plaintiff. Learned Counsel for Defendants argued that PW-1 did not file/exhibit his Board Resolution in the present suit and thus violated the provisions of Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC. He referred to the cross examination of PW-1 where he stated that he had not brought Minutes of Meeting in support of his Board Resolution and also that he had not brought original Board Resolution passed in his favor on the day of recording of his evidence. PW-1 had also admitted that Board Resolution was not exhibited in his affidavit of evidence. PW-1 denied the suggestion that in absence of filing Board Resolution, he was not authorized to depose in the present suit.
32. Learned Counsel for Defendants argued that since the Plaintiff failed to produce the relevant record despite possessing the same, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him for failure to bring on record the best evidence.
33. Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC reads as:
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 23 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:24:31 +0530 "In suit by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the corporation by the secretary or by any director or other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case."
34. In his examination in chief, PW-1, Sh. Pramod Kumar Mishra, tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex.PW-1/A and in his affidavit of evidence, he deposed that he is one of the Directors of the Plaintiff Company. His position of being Director in the Plaintiff company has not been disputed by the Defendants since no such suggestion or question was put to him that he was not Director of the Plaintiff company. PW-1, being Director of Plaintiff company was therefore covered under the expression any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the corporation by the secretary or by any director or other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case. PW-1 was able to depose to the facts of the case is established by his unshaken testimony. He categorically stated during his cross-examination that he was working in Plaintiff company since 2017 and stated voluntarily that prior to 2017, since 2005, Plaintiff was a proprietorship concern, and he was the proprietor but dealing in domestic cargo. This statement of PW-1 further corroborates the deposition of PW-1 that he was well versed with the facts of the present case.
35. In the matter of United Bank Of India vs Sh. Naresh Kumar and Ors, AIR 1997 SC 3, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as:
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 24 of 36 NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:24:45 +0530 "It cannot be disputed that a company like the appellant can sue and be sued in its own name. Under Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure a pleading is required to be signed by the party and its pleader, if any. As a company is a juristic entity it is obvious that some person has to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company. Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, provides that in a suit by against a corporation the Secretary or any Director or other Principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case might sign and verify on behalf of the company. Reading Order 6 Rule 14 together with Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure it would appear that even in the absence of any formal letter of authority or power of attorney having been executed a person referred to in Rule 1 of Order 29 can, by virtue of the office which he holds, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation. In addition thereto and de hors Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a company is a juristic entity, it can duly authorise any person to sign the plaint or the written statement on its behalf and this would be regarded as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A person may be expressly authorised to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company, for example by the Board of Directors passing a resolution to that effect or by a power of attorney being executed in favour of any individual. In absence thereof and in cases where pleadings have been signed by one of it's officers, a Corporation can ratify the said action of it's officer in signing the pleadings. Such ratification can be express or implied. The Court can, on the basis of the evidence on record, and after taking all the circumstances of the case, especially with regard to the conduct of the trial, come to the conclusion that the corporation had ratified the act of signing of the pleading by it's officer."
36. It is further relevant that PW-1 tendered certified copy of Complaint Case bearing no. CC/5276/2021 as Ex. P-3(Colly). In the said Complaint Case, Plaintiff had tendered in the capacity of Complainant, Board Resolution dated 24.09.2021, as Ex. CW-1/A. Vide said Board Resolution, NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 25 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:24:54 +0530 Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra has been authorized to make, sign, verify and file all type of plaints, writ petitions, Special Leave Petitions and other applications, replies, appeals, affidavits or any other documents and also to engage Advocate, sign and file Vakalatnama and also to appear before the various Courts of Law, Tribunals, on behalf of the Plaintiff Company in relation to the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against M/s Accurate freight logistics and others for dishonour of cheque no.000123 dated 11/05/2021. At the stage of admission denial of documents in the said Complaint Case, Defendant had stated that the Defendant did not dispute the genuineness and correctness of the same. Therefore, the correctness and genuineness of the Board Resolution dated 24.09.2021 was admitted by the Defendants and therefore, in the present case the Defendants cannot dispute the same as the present suit has also been filed by relying on the same Board Resolution which was tendered as a part of Ex. PW-1/3 (Colly.) by PW-1.
37. It is well settled law that admitted documents need not be proved and therefore non- production of Minutes of Meeting or not producing Original Board Resolution does not taint the authority of Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra to sign or verify the pleadings to depose on behalf of Plaintiff in the present matter. The present suit has been filed against M/s Accurate freight logistics and others for dishonour of cheque no.000123 dated 11/05/2021, cheque in question, and thus in view of this Board Resolution having been tendered by PW-1 as a part of Ex. P-3(Colly), the submission of the Defendants is incorrect that the Board Resolution has not been tendered by Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra as an exhibit.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 26 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:25:02 +0530
38. In view of these observations, the contention of the Defendants that the suit has not been filed by a duly authorized person is devoid of merits and not sustainable.
39. The Tripartite Agreement, executed on 11.03.2021 contains the detailed terms and conditions which are in coherence with the submissions made by the Plaintiff in the present suit. PW-1 was cross-examined in respect of the Tripartite Agreement as well as Cheque in question. He stated that the cheque in question was given in March 2021 by Sh. Sajal Nath Bhaumik which was given to him by Sh. Amit Cheema i.e. Defendant no.2. PW-1 volunteered that besides that cheque, Tripartite Agreement was also given by Sh. Sajal Nath Bhaumik to PW-1 which was given to him by Sh. Amit Cheema i.e. Defendant no.2. The Plaintiff has placed on record emails exchanged between the Plaintiff and the Defendant no.2 which were marked to Bhatia shipping as well. The emails in respect of Plaintiff, were sent by Sh. Sajal Nath Bhaumik, who deposed as PW-2 and stated in his examination in chief that he was working for gain at the relevant time with the Plaintiff company. During his cross- examination, PW-2 also stated that the cheque, Ex. P-2, was given to him by Shri Amit Cheema. Therefore, both PW-1 and PW-2 gave the same reply in respect of receiving the cheque in question from Sh. Amit Cheema.
40. A question was posed to PW-1 by the court to ascertain information regarding Sh. Amit Cheema and Sh. Amit Kumar if they were two NEERA CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 27 of 36 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:25:09 +0530 different persons, and it was informed that Sh. Amit Cheema and Sh. Amit Kumar are names of same person.
41. Learned Counsel for Defendant has submitted that there is contradiction in the submission of PW-1 as regards the date of giving of the said cheque dated 11.05.2021 and therefore his testimony is unreliable. During cross examination of PW-1, PW-1 was shown his evidence recorded in Complaint Case bearing CC No. 5276/2021{at page 40 of Ex. P-3 (Colly)} and was put a question that in the said statement he had stated that cheque was given to him on 11.03.2021 by Amit Cheema and during cross examination being conducted on that day before this court i.e. 05.05.2025, PW-1 had stated that he received the cheque in question in March, 2021, then which of the two statements is correct. PW-1 replied that the cheque in question was given to him in March 2021 alongwith Tripartite Agreement. He volunteered that there were communications exchanged between Sh. Sajal Nath and Sh. Amit Cheema on phone as well as through mails and the cheque was deposited in May 2021 on asking of Sh. Amit Cheema. He admitted that his statement recorded in Complaint Case bearing CC No. 5276/2021 was wrong.
42. Learned Counsel for Defendant has argued that this contradiction in the dates of receiving the cheque is crucial and casts doubts on the testimony of PW-1. However, it is noticed that no question or suggestion was put to PW-1 in this regard as to how that inference is deduced from the contradiction in mentioning the dates of receiving the cheque in question by the Plaintiff.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 28 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:25:15 +0530
43. PW-1 referred to the supporting material to show that he received the cheque in question on 11.03.2021. The emails exchanged between the signatories of the Tripartite Agreement have been filed by Plaintiff on record and the contents of the same fortifies the submissions of the Plaintiff made in respect of Defendants' seeking financial help in respect of their Chinese agent and stating that they i.e. Defendants, would provide the Post Dated Cheques against the said payment and they were ready to pay the interest on total amount. The Plaintiff has placed on record the Email conversation exchanged between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The subject of all the emails is REQUEST FOR HELP originating from Defendants at first instance but learned Counsel for Defendants did not confront PW-1 with those e-mails.
44. Similar are the contents of Tripartite Agreement as deposed by PW- 1 which again was not confronted to him to explain as to how the contradiction in mentioning the date of 11.03.2021 and 11.06.2021 was fatal to the case of the Plaintiff. The Tripartite Agreement clearly records in paragraph 3 of the Tripartite Agreement that "The Third Party (i.e. Defendant) in discharge of admitted as also indisputable liability handed over cheque of Rs.13,00,000/- dated 11/5/2021 drawn on Kotak Bank in advance and in favour of the party of the First Part (i.e. Plaintiff) with unequivocal assurance that the same shall be honoured on its presentation on the due dates so indicated." Therefore, the statement of PW-1 of having received the cheque in question on 11.03.2021, i.e. the date of execution of Tripartite Agreement is also supported by the contents of Tripartite NEERA CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 29 of 36 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:25:22 +0530 Agreement. PW-1 was not confronted with paragraph 3 of the Tripartite Agreement to make a suggestion that the date of giving of the cheque by the Defendants has been wrongly mentioned or has been manipulated/forged.
45. Therefore, the testimony of PW-1 about the date of receiving of the cheque in question has been duly corroborated by the other material placed on record by the Plaintiff and no cross examination of PW-1 was conducted by confronting him with any of these documents referred in the above paragraph to seek any clarification or to give any suggestion. Rather a suggestion was put to PW-1 that the present suit is time-barred because cheque was handed over to Plaintiff in March, 2021.
46. Even Defendants have stated in their Written Statement that the cheque in question was taken by the Plaintiff on the execution of the agreement dated 11.03.2021. Therefore, it is contention of the Defendants as well that the cheque in question was handed over to Plaintiff in March, 2021 and in fact the Defendants have taken the date of March 2021 to be the starting day of running of cause of action. Therefore, the contradiction in the statement of PW-1 does not shake his testimony as he admitted that he had wrongly stated the date of receiving the cheque in Complaint Case. The date mentioned in the present case by PW-1 as date of receiving the cheque in question, i.e. 11.03.2021 is supported by the other materials on record as well as has been taken by Defendants to be the correct date of receiving the cheque in question by the Plaintiff from the Defendants.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 30 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:25:30 +0530
47. During his examination in chief, PW-1 tendered Bill of Lading No. SHAZ08487400 dated 18.01.2021 as Ex. PW-1/1. It has been issued on the letterhead of HMM i.e. Shipping line of South Korea. The name of the shipper is mentioned to be Nimbo Dashing International Logistics Company Limited. In the column of 'consignee' and in the column of 'Notify Party', the details are mentioned of Defendant no.1 i.e. Accurate Freight Logistics. The details of the consignment are mentioned in the column of "Particulars".
48. During his cross examination, PW-1 was asked if he had filed any receipt/bank transaction in respect of the payment made by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants for the shipment assigned to the Defendants and he replied that he had filed Tripartite Agreement and Bill of Lading.
49. PW-1 was asked if he could show the name of Plaintiff on the Bill of Lading and he replied that it was not there. PW-1 volunteered that the name of entity through whom the shipment was sent from China, its name is there on the Bill of Lading. The said submission of PW-1 is correct as already discussed in the paragraph above. Bill of Lading contains details of the Defendant no.1 in the column of 'Consignee complete name and address' as well as 'Notify Party complete name and address'.
50. During his cross examination, Mr. Bhaumik, PW-2, admitted that Bill of Lading, Ex. PW-1/1, does not bear the name of Plaintiff and volunteered that hota bhi nahi hai.(meaning that it does not even happen). No suggestion was put to PW-2 in respect of the volunteered part.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 31 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:25:37 +0530
51. It is not the case of the Plaintiff that it had acted as a freight forwarder in the transaction in question. Plaintiff has submitted that Plaintiff had appointed Defendant No.1 as sub-agent for providing logistic services for ocean/sea transportation of an import cargo pertaining to its customer M/s Bhatia Shipping Private Limited and import cargo was the shipment container of 40 feet containing toothpaste sorting system H.S. Code 842-832-0000 in nine packed packages. Same is the description of the cargo mentioned in the Bill of Lading.
52. During further cross examination of PW-1, learned Counsel for Defendants asked him as to how he came into possession of Bill of Lading, Ex. PW-1/1 replied that he did not know, and that Mr. Bhaumik can tell. Mr. Bhaumik was cross examined as PW-2 and stated that Plaintiff got the possession of the Bill of Lading, Ex. PW-1/1, through e-mail sent by Mr.Amit Cheema/Mr. Ali and stated that he did not remember his complete name.
53. The testimony of PW-2 also remained unshaken as regards his depositions made in respect of Bill of Lading, Ex. PW-1/1. Therefore, the Plaintiff has successfully proved that Bill of Lading brought on record by the Plaintiff pertains to the transaction between the parties as explained by the Plaintiff in present matter.
54. No suggestion was put to PW-1 or PW-2 in respect of the cheque in question or Bill of Lading or Tripartite Agreement in respect of their NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 32 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:25:44 +0530 contents or validity or Tripartite Agreement or the cheque in question being inchoate or forged or altered. No suggestion was put to PW-2 in respect of the cheque in question being inchoate or forged or altered.
55. Therefore, the Plaintiff has successfully proved its case by unshaken cogent evidence and the Defendants have been unable to shake the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. Thereby the Plaintiff has proved that it is entitled to recovery of Rs.6 lakhs i.e. the remaining cheque amount out of Rs.13,00,000/- since present suit has already been partly decreed for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of cheque of amount of Rs.13,00,000/- by the Defendants till its realization vide order dated 27.01.2025 whereby the application of the Plaintiff under Order XIII-A of CPC was allowed.
56. During cross examination of PW-1, he was confronted with his statement in the complaint case bearing no. 5276/2021, he had stated that "Amit Kumar used to look after all the day-to-day functioning of Accurate Freight Logistics i.e. Defendant no.1. After filing of the present complaint, we got to know that he has nothing to do with Accurate Freight Logistics"
57. A question was put to PW-1 that since PW-1 had come to know about the same, then why had he impleaded him as a party in the present suit. PW-1 replied that because the whole dealing was with Sh. Amit Cheema, therefore he had been impleaded. No suggestion was put to PW-1 that Sh. Amit Cheema was not a necessary or proper party in the present suit. Nor was any suggestion put to PW-1 that Sh. Amit Cheema was not NEERA CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 33 of 36 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:25:51 +0530 liable for the suit amount. Rather the Defendants in their written statement have categorically admitted the submissions of the Plaintiff made in Para 4 of the Plaint which reads as follows:
"4......Defendant No.1 runs her business in the name and style of her sole proprietorship concern "Accurate Freight Logistics" and Defendant No.2 is her husband and Authorized Signatory/Representative and all the operational/ financial transactions were handled by Defendant No.2, who was also in- charge of day-to-day affairs and business activities of the proprietorship i.e. of Defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 dealt with Plaintiff for and on behalf of Defendant No.1."
58. The admissions on part of Defendants have been taken into consideration in this judgment since admitted facts need not be proved.
59. In view of these observations, the liability of both the Defendants is joint and several. Issue No.1 is therefore decided in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendants and it is held that Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.6 Lakhs from Defendants and the liability of both the Defendants shall be joint and several.
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 this Issue was placed on the Plaintiff.
60. In view of the Plaintiff having been deprived of his legitimate dues by the Defendants, the Plaintiff is entitled to interest on the sum decreed i.e. Rs.6,00,000/-. The Plaintiff has claimed pendente lite and future NEERA CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 34 of 36 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:26:01 +0530 interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization which is too high. It is necessary to assess the reasonableness of the claimed rate of interest as well as the suit amount in the light of the legal principles governing the award of interest under Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the landmark judgment of Central Bank of India vs. Ravindra & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 3095, Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down important guidelines regarding the award of interest. It was held that the discretion to award interest should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The purpose of interest is to compensate the plaintiff for the delay in receiving payment and not to penalise the defendants. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also emphasized that the rate of interest should be reasonable, reflecting the prevailing commercial rates and market condition. This court is of the firm view that interest @ 12% per annum on principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till realization will subserve the ends of justice. Issue No.3 is therefore decided in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendants and it is held that Plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization on the suit amount of Rs.6 Lakhs.
RELIEF
61. In view of my findings given on Issue No.1 to 3, the suit is decreed in part in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants for remaining sum of Rs.6,00,000/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till realization.
NEERA CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 35 of 36 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.10.04 15:26:10 +0530 Defendants are also directed to pay to Plaintiff the cost of the suit which shall include 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. The liability of both Defendants shall be joint and several.
62. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by NEERAAnnounced in the open NEERA
BHARIHOKE
BHARIHOKE
Date:
Court on 04.10.2025
2025.10.04
15:26:19 +0530
(Dr. Neera Bharihoke)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-06
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
04.10.2025
Certified that this judgment contains 36 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Digitally
signed by (Dr. Neera Bharihoke)
NEERA
NEERA
BHARIHOKE District Judge (Commercial Court)-06
BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.10.04 South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
15:26:25
+0530 04.10.2025
CS (COMM) No. 400/24 Triveni Cargo Vs. M/s Accurate Freight Logistics & Anr. Page 36 of 36