Delhi District Court
Ardh Sainik Canteen vs Elite Buisness It Services on 25 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-01) NORTH
WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM)/332/23
CNR No.DLNW010040882023
Ardh Sainik Canteen
B-29, 1st Floor, Pushpanjali Enclave,
Pitampura Delhi-110034
Under the Aegis of Ardh Sainik Welfare Trust
Through it Authorized Representative
Sh. Ramesh Kumar
Phone No:-8800001240
Email :- [email protected]
......Plaintiff
Versus
Elite Business IT Services
Through its Proprietor Sunita Singh
At:-B-37, Patel Garden Extension,
Sewak Park Extension, Near NSIT University,
Opposite Ananda, Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059
.......Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 30,57,600.98/-(RUPEES
THIRTY LACS FIFTY SEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED
AND NINTY EIGHT PAISA ONLY) ALONG WITH @18%
PER ANNUM PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST
Date of institution : 02.05.2023
Date of final arguments : 19.03.2026
Date of judgment : 25.04.2026
CS (Comm.)Digitally
No.332/23
signed Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services
DEVENDER KUMAR
by DEVENDER Page 1 of 33
KUMAR JANGALA
JANGALA Date:
2026.04.25
16:06:36 +0530
JUDGEMENT
1. By way of present judgment I shall adjudicate upon the suit of plaintiff for recovery of Rs.30,57,600.98/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Eight Paisa Only) alongwith interest, filed against the defendant.
2.1 Brief facts: The brief facts as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff has been set up and duly registered, under the aegis of Ardh Sainik Welfare Trust, to facilitate the CPMFs, defense and/or army personnel for their overall growth in their personal and social life. That the Plaintiff in order to provide ready-to-work opportunities in various field incorporated it's Stores and also offered its franchise on demand. That the Plaintiff is following all rules and regulations through its trustees, governing body and its board members.
2.2 It is stated that the defendant is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business under the name and style of "Elite Business IT Services"
which is engaged in trading, whole selling and retailing an excellent quality range of thermal printer, Barcode Scanner, etc. under the guidance of Mr. Rahul Saini and Sunita Singh (Owner and Proprietor).
2.3 It is stated that the defendant approached plaintiff at its headquarters, along with documents, for seeking the rights of supplying UPOS-211 DP-1706T, RAISER CASH DRAWER-CD CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 2 of 33 55, WIN 10 IOT (EL) LATEST OS, Thermal Printer and Handheld Barcode Scanner and other products offered by defendant. It is stated that based upon Defendant's offer to provide the abovementioned item, the plaintiff raised demand of UPOS-211 DP-1706T, RAISER CASH DRAWER-CD 55, WIN 10 IOT (EL) LATEST OS, Thermal Printer and Handheld Barcode Scanner for the Price of Rs.69,502/- (Sixty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Two Only). That the defendant acceded to the request to install the raiser cash drawer, thermal printers and other equipment at various locations/depots/canteens as informed by the plaintiff, at the time of placing the orders at the price agreed for one set. That the defendant installed around 125 sets of raiser cash drawer, thermal printers and other equipment at the locations of the plaintiff towards which defendant has even provided/generated bills for every installation.
2.4 It is stated that the plaintiff has paid to the defendant a total amount of Rs.1,01,47,280/- (One Crore One Lakh Forty-Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty Rupees Only) from 21/05/2018 to 05/03/2019, against which the defendant have given goods along with services of worth only Rs.86,87,750/-(Eight-Six Lakh Eighty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Rupees Only) from 21/05/2018 to 05/03/2019.
2.5 It is stated that the plaintiff had paid excess amount of Rs.14,59,530/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Fifty-Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Only) and further the plaintiff has returned the defective items delivered by the defendant having the value/worth of Rs. 3,99,194/- (Rupees Three Lakh Ninety-Nine Thousand and CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 3 of 33 One Hundred Ninety-Four Only). Therefore, the defendant has a total advance/liability to pay Rs.18,58,724/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh Fifty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty-Four Only) towards the plaintiff.
2.6 That the defendant despite receiving the advance payment of Rs.14,59,530/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Fifty-Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Only) and receiving the defective items worth Rs. 3,99,194/- (Rupees Three Lakh Ninety- Nine Thousand and One Hundred Ninety-Four Only), failed to deliver the goods and services despite request and assurances.
2.7 That the plaintiff repeatedly made oral and electronic requests to the defendant. That the defendant assured the plaintiff that he will install the pending set of raiser cash drawer, thermal printers and other equipment worth Rs. 18,58,724/-(Rupees Eighteen Lakh Fifty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty- Four Only) on or before 15.03.2020.
2.8 It is stated that ever since after 15.03.2020, the plaintiff had been requesting defendant to install the pending set of raiser cash drawer, thermal printers and other equipment as mentioned worth Rs. 18,58,724/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh Fifty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty-Four Only) or alternatively to refund the excess amount. However, the defendant started avoiding the request raised by the plaintiff and had finally refused to install or CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 4 of 33 refund the remaining amount of Rs. 18,58,724/- on 12.03,2020. It is stated that there is an outstanding liability Rs. 18,58,724/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh Fifty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty- Four Only) about which the plaintiff has reminded the defendant more than 40 times through phone calls and emails but the defendant did not bother to clear the remaining/outstanding amount.
2.9 It is stated that the plaintiff has also suffered in its trade due to the defendant's unprofessional response and illegal trade practice by not complying with the agreement of sale purchase and intentionally and illegally retaining and enjoying the fruits of the advance of Rs. 18,58,724/-. It is stated that the liability of payment of the principal balance of Rs. 18,58,724/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh Fifty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty-Four Only) arises upon the defendant alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of the actual release of payment till actual realization of the said sum. That the plaintiff, through it's advocate, also sent a legal demand notice dated 12.12.2022 sent on 14.01.2023 through speed post and mail/WhatsApp, to the defendant and the said legal demand notice was duly served upon the defendant. That despite the service of the said legal demand notice, defendant has neither replied the same nor complied the same till date.
2.10 That the Plaintiff initiated pre-institution mediation on 23.01.2023 in compliance with the legal requirements. Notices were CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 5 of 33 duly served upon the Defendant for appearance on two occasions; however, the Defendant failed to participate or make any effort to resolve the dispute. Consequently, mediation failed and a Non- Starter Report dated 17.03.2023 was issued.
2.11 It is stated that despite repeated demands by the Plaintiff and assurances given by the Defendant to clear the outstanding dues along with interest @ 18% per annum, the Defendant deliberately defaulted. It is stated that as on the date of filing of the suit, a total sum of Rs. 30,57,600.98/- is due and payable, which includes the principal amount of Rs. 18,58,724/- and interest of Rs. 11,98,876.98/- calculated @ 18% per annum. That the defendant is unlawfully withholding the said amount and is further liable to pay pendente lite and future interest until full realization.
2.12 It is stated that the cause of action firstly arose when the defendant approached the Plaintiff with an offer to supply equipment, upon which the Plaintiff placed orders relying on such representations. That the Plaintiff paid a total sum of Rs. 1,01,47,280/- between 21.05.2018 and 05.03.2019, whereas the Defendant supplied goods and services worth only Rs. 86,87,750/-, resulting in a shortfall. That further, defective goods worth Rs. 3,99,194/- were returned by the Plaintiff. That the cause of action further arose when the defendant assured supply of the remaining goods worth Rs. 18,58,724/- by 15.01.2020, but failed to fulfill the CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 6 of 33 same and ultimately refused on 12.03.2020 to either supply or refund the amount. That it further arose on sent of legal demand notice dated 12.12.2022 (dispatched on 14.01.2023) which was duly served upon the Defendant, but no reply or compliance was made. The mediation proceedings also failed. The cause of action is continuous and subsisting as the Defendant has not paid the outstanding dues till date.
2.13 It is stated that this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit, as the Defendant approached the Plaintiff within its jurisdiction, negotiations were conducted, invoices were raised, and part payments were made within the jurisdiction of this Court.
2.14 With the aforesaid submissions, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking a decree for recovery of Rs. 30,57,600.98/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing till realization. The Plaintiff has also prayed for grant of pendente lite interest and the cost of the suit.
3. Vide order dated 02.05.2023 the summons of the suit were issued to the defendant. The summons were received back unserved, However, on 13.09.2023, Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Ld.counsel for defendant put the appearance and filed memo of appearance on behalf of defendant. Copy of plaint and documents was supplied and CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 7 of 33 the defendant was directed to file written statement within stipulated period. Despite opportunity no written statement was filed on behalf of defendant and vide order 24.07.2024, due to non filing of written statement, the defence of defendant was struck off and the defendant was also proceeded exparte on 20.09.2024.
4. From the pleadings in the plaint, following notional issues were framed vide order dated 24.07.2024:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a Decree for Recovery in the sum of Rs. 30,57,600.98/-or any other amount, against the defendant? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the decretal amount ? If Yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP
3. Relief.
5. In support of case of plaintiff Ms. Jyoti, AR of the plaintiff has examined herself as PW-1. The PW-1 adduced her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A, reiterating therein the contents of plaint and relied upon the following documents:-
1. Copy of Bills/Tax Invoices received from Defendant Ex.PW1/1(Colly.).
2. Copy of ledger of defendant maintained by plaintiff Ex.PW1/2(OSR).
CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 8 of 33
3. Copy of Legal Demand Notice dated 12.12.2022 Ex.PW1/3.
4. Original postal receipt EX. PW-1/4.
5. Printout of copies of tracking report Ex.PW1/5.
6. Printout of copy of mail EX. PW-1/6.
7. Copy of Certificate of Non-Starter Report issued on 17.03.2023 EX. PW-1/7.
8. Certificate U/S. 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW1/8.
6. Further examination in chief of PW1 was deferred. Thereafter on 23.04.2025, PW has produced original bills / tax invoices received from the defendant, and the same were exhibited from page no.27-74, 76-120, 122-146, 149-158 as Ex.PW1/1(colly) (OSR). Bills / invoices annexed at page no.75, 121, 147 and 148 were marked as Mark A, B, C and D respectively.
7. The Plaintiff did not examine any other witness and vide statement dated 23.04.2025, plaintiff's evidence was closed.
8. Final arguments at length, were advanced by Sh.Sarabjeet Singh Narula, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff. Written arguments on behalf of the plaintiff are also filed. It is argued by Ld.counsel for plaintiff that despite putting the appearance, the defendant has failed to file written statement and its defence was CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 9 of 33 struck off and subsequently the defendant was proceeded exparte. That the testimony of PW1 Ms. Jyoti has gone unchallenged and unrebutted. That in view of unrebutted testimony of PW1 and documents placed on record, the decree as prayed may kindly be passed.
9. I have perused the entire record including the pleadings, documents and oral testimony of PW1 Ms. Jyoti on record. The defendant remained ex-parte, and has not cross- examined the sole plaintiff witness PW-1, hence the Court shall consider the testimony of witness and the documents, as they exist being un-rebutted and un-challenged.
10. It is well settled law that even in the exparte suit or where the defence of defendant is struck off, the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs. The weakness of the defendant does not give ipso facto right to the plaintiff to get the relief from the court of law. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Harish Mansukhani vs. Ashok Jain reported as 2009(109) DRJ (DB) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that the plaintiff has to prove his own case in accordance with the law and has to stand on his own legs. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in another judgment titled as Sunil Dang vs. RL Gupta reported as CS(OS) 1617/2007 decided on 13.01.2009 has held that on the contrary if the defendant is ex parte, the onus is high on the CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 10 of 33 plaintiff to prove its case and when the defendant is contesting the matter, the fact, which are not disputed are deemed to be proved and need not to be proved. Further when the defendant fails to appear, there can be no admission and the plaintiff has to prove the entire case in accordance with law.
11. It may be relevant now to consider the law pertaining to discharge of burden of proof of the issues as relevant and applicable to the Civil Jurisdiction. In the binding authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in M/s. Gian Chand & Brothers and Another v. Rattan Lal@ Rattan Singh: [2013] 3 S.C.R. 601; it has been laid down:-
1.3. It is well settled principle of law that a person who asserts a particular fact is required to affirmatively establish it. The burden of proving the facts rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative issues and not the party who denies it but the said principle may not be universal in its application and there may be an exception thereto.
12. The various aspects of proving the facts of a case and exceptions, if any, have been duly considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Anil Rishi vs Gurbaksh Singh in Appeal (civil) 2413 of 2006 on 2 May, 2006, wherein the binding legal position has been reinforced as under :-
"Pleading is not evidence, far less proof. Issues are raised on the basis of the pleadings. Indisputably, the relationship between the parties itself would be an issue. The suit will fail if both the parties do not adduce any evidence, in view of Section 102 of the Evidence Act. Thus, ordinarily, the burden of proof CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 11 of 33 would be on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue and it rests, after evidence is gone into, upon the party against whom, at the time the question arises, judgment would be given, if no further evidence were to be adduced by either side."
It has been further laid down (supra) :-
"A distinction exists between a burden of proof and onus of proof. The right to begin follows onus probandi. It assumes importance in the early stage of a case. The question of onus of proof has greater force, where the question is which party is to begin. Burden of proof is used in three ways : (i) to indicate the duty of bringing forward evidence in support of a proposition at the beginning or later; (ii) to make that of establishing a proposition as against all counter evidence; and (iii) an indiscriminate use in which it may mean either or both of the others. The elementary rule is Section 101 is inflexible. In terms of Section 102 the initial onus is always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same.".
13. As per law of the land, the onus to prove is upon the plaintiff and if the plaintiff discharges that onus and makes out a case to entitle him to the relief asserted, in these circumstance, the onus shifts upon the defendant to prove such circumstances which may disentitle the plaintiff to the relief claimed.
14. I have considered the submissions made by Ld. counsel for plaintiff and perused the entire material on record. My issuewise findings are as under:-
CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 12 of 33 ISSUE NO.1
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a Decree for Recovery in the sum of Rs. 30,57,600.98/-or any other amount, against the defendant? OPP.
15. The plaintiff is first required to prove the issue of jurisdiction and the limitation. At the outset, the Court shall first take up the aspect of Limitation which is a legal issue.
16. The plaintiff has alleged that the cause of action finally arose on 12.03.2020, when the defendant refused to either supply the remaining goods or refund the outstanding amount. Therefore, it becomes necessary to discuss the relevant provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and related judicial pronouncements.
17. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Lohmann Rausher Gmbh v. Medisphere Marketing (P) Ltd., decided on 13.01.2005, reported as 2005 SCC OnLine Del 39 while explaining Section 41 and 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as "SOGA") observed that the defendant has a right to inspect the goods and report defect if the goods are of inferior quality or if the defendant wants to return the goods. As per Section 42 SOGA, If reporting of defect by the defendant is not done within a reasonable period of time, the defendant is deemed to have accepted the goods.
CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 13 of 33 The relevant portion is reproduced below:
"20. Section 41 and Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 reads as under:--
"41. Buyer's right of examining the goods.-- (1) Where goods are delivered to the buyer which he has not previously examined, he is not deemed to have accepted them unless and until he has had a reasonable opportunity of examining them for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract.
(2) Unless otherwise agreed, when the seller tenders delivery of goods to the buyer, he is bound, on request, to afford the buyer a reasonable opportunity of examining the goods for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract.
42. Acceptance.--The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them, or when the goods have been delivered to him and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller, or when, after the lapse of a reasonable time, he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them."
21. As per the mandate of Section 41 of the Sale of Goods Act, the defendant not having inspected the goods in question prior to delivery, had a right to inspect the case on delivery and report defects within a reasonable time of delivery. If not rejected within reasonable time, mandate of Section 42 stipulates that the defendant would be deemed to have accepted the goods."
(Emphasis suppled in bold) CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 14 of 33
18. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Remi Sales & Engineering Ltd., decided on 24.12.2025, reported as 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5334 while discussing Section 42 SOGA explained the concept of deemed acceptance in case the buyer does not send any intimation to seller of rejection. The relevant portion is provided as follows:
"34. Ordinarily, once the goods are accepted by the buyer, he becomes liable to pay for the goods sold. Therefore, the act of acceptance of goods is an important step which needs to be proved for claiming the price of the goods sold. The concept of acceptance is dealt with in Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, which provides thus :--
"42. Acceptance The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them, or when the goods have been delivered to him and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller, or when, after the lapse of a reasonable time, he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them."
35. Thus, Section 42 creates a deeming fiction where the goods are deemed to have been accepted when the buyer intimates to the seller that he has accepted them or when the goods have been delivered to the buyer, who acts in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller, or when the buyer retains the goods without issuing intimation of rejection after lapse of reasonable time. In the present case, since the Petitioner has used the tubes in the heat exchangers, such act is construed as an act which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller. Thus, the CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 15 of 33 Petitioner's act of using the tubes in heat exchangers is treated as an acceptance of the tubes."
(Emphasis supplied in bold)
19. Coming back to the facts of the present case, no documentary evidence has been placed on record to substantiate the said assertion that the defendant refused the goods on 12.03.2020. There is no written communication, acknowledgment, or any cogent material to prove that such refusal was ever made by the defendant on 12.03.2020. In absence of any acknowledgment of liability in writing or any proved communication evidencing refusal, the said date cannot be relied upon for the purpose of computing limitation.
20. It is evident from the material available on record that the last admitted transaction between the parties took place on 05.03.2019. The limitation period, therefore, commenced from the said date. The present suit, being one for recovery of money, is governed by the limitation period of three years as prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "LA, 1963"). Accordingly, the limitation period had expired on or about 04.03.2022. After expiry of three years period, he present suit has been instituted on 02.05.2023 i.e., beyond the prescribed period of limitation.
21. In the aforesaid backdrop, it becomes necessary to examine whether the present suit is saved by any of the exceptions to the prescribed period of limitation, particularly under Sections 18 and 19 of the LA, 1963, which provide for extension of limitation in cases of acknowledgment or part payment. Section 18 of the LA, CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 16 of 33 1963 provides for extension of limitation by way of written acknowledgement. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Technical Construction Company v. Engineering Project (India) Limited, decided on 15th March, 2024, reported as 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1924 discussed in detail on aspect of written acknowledgement vis- a-vis Section 18 of the LA, 1963 while relying upon the celebrated decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India v. Assam State Cooperative Marketing & Consumer Federation Ltd, decided on 26.10.2004, reported as (2004) 12 SCC 360. The relevant paragraphs of the Technical Construction (supra) are extracted hereinbelow:
"22. Section 18 of the Limitation Act, reads:
(1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed.
(2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was signed; but subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), oral evidence of its contents shall not be received. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,--
(a) an acknowledgment may be sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right, or avers that the time for payment, delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied by a refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy, or is coupled with a claim to set off, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the property or right,
(b) the word "signed" means signed either personally or by an agent duly authorised in this behalf, and CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 17 of 33
(c) an application for the execution of a decree or order shall not be deemed to be an application in respect of any property or right.
23. The above-mentioned provision clearly provides that if there is an express acknowledgement of liability in writing by the opposite party, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when acknowledgement was signed. The same has also been laid down by the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India (supra), wherein it was held that that to amount to an acknowledgement of liability within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, it need not be accompanied by a promise to pay either expressly or even by implication. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are set out below:
"14. According to Section 18 of the Limitation Act, an acknowledgement of liability made in writing in respect of any right claimed by the opposite party and signed by the party against whom such right is claimed made before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit in respect of such right has the effect of commencing a fresh period of limitation from the date on which the acknowledgement was so signed. It is well settled that to amount to an acknowledgement of liability within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, it need not be accompanied by a promise to pay either expressly or even by implication.
15. The statement providing foundation for a plea of acknowledgement must relate to a present subsisting liability, though the exact nature or the specific character of the said liability may not be indicated in words. The words used in the acknowledgement must indicate the existence of jural relationship between the parties such as that of debtor and creditor. The intention to attempt such jural relationship must be apparent. However, such intention can be inferred by implication from the nature of the admission and need not be expressed in words. A clear statement containing acknowledgement of liability can imply the intention to admit jural relationship of debtor and creditor. Though oral evidence in lieu of or making a departure from the statement sought to be relied on as acknowledgement is excluded but surrounding circumstances can always be considered. Courts generally lean in favour of a liberal construction of such statements though an acknowledgement shall not be inferred where there is no admission so as to fasten liability on the maker of the statement by an involved or far-fetched process of reasoning. So long as the statement amounts to an admission, acknowledging the jural relationship and existence of liability, it is immaterial that the CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 18 of 33 admission is accompanied by an assertion that nothing would be found due from the person making the admission or that on an account being taken something may be found due and payable to the person making the acknowledgement by the person to whom the statement is made."
22. Thus, it can be said that if there is an express written acknowledgment of liability by the defendant, a fresh period of limitation shall start from the time when such acknowledgment was signed. While strongly relying upon Food Corporation of India (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Technical Construction (supra) said that within the meaning of Section 18 of the LA, 1963, it need not be accompanied by a promise to pay either expressly or even by neccessary implication. The statement which provides foundation for a plea of acknowledgement must relate to a present subsisting liability, though the liability may not be indicated in words. The words as used in the acknowledgment must show that there is an existing jural relationship between the parties which can be implied by a clear statement containing acknowledgement of liability. Courts generally apply a liberal construction method of statutory interpretation in ascertaining whether an acknowledgement of debt results in extension of limitation under Section 18 of the LA, 1963.
23. The Court shall also discuss current judicial position with respect to part payment and its effect on limitation expressly provided under Section 19 of the LA, 1963. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam SEB, decided on 18.12.2019, reported as (2020) 2 SCC 677 discussed in CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 19 of 33 detail while excerpting Section 19 of the LA, 1963. The relevant portion is provided as follows:
"12. Section 19 of the Limitation Act is as follows:
"19. Effect of payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy.--Where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made:
Provided that, save in the case of payment of interest made before the 1st day of January, 1928, an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section--
(a) where mortgaged land is in the possession of the mortgagee, the receipt of the rent or produce of such land shall be deemed to be a payment;
(b) "debt" does not include money payable under a decree or order of a court."
15. Order 7 Rule 6 uses the words "the plaint shall show the ground upon which exemption from such law is claimed". The exemption provided under Sections 4 to 20 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are based on certain facts and events. Section 19, with which we are concerned, provides for a fresh period of limitation, which is founded on certain facts i.e. (i) whether payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy, (ii) an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment.
CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 20 of 33
16. We may notice the judgment of this Court dealing with Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which was akin to present Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In Sant Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad, AIR 1951 SC 477, this Court held that for applicability of Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908, two conditions were essential that the payment must be made within the prescribed period of limitation and it must be acknowledged by some form of writing either in the handwriting of the payer himself or signed by him. This Court further held that for claiming benefit of exemption under Section 20, there has to be pleading and proof. In paras 9 and 10, the following has been laid down : (AIR p. 479) "9. It would be clear, we think, from the language of Section 20, Limitation Act, that to attract its operations two conditions are essential : first, the payment must be made within the prescribed period of limitation and secondly, it must be acknowledged by some form of writing either in the handwriting of the payer himself or signed by him. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that it is the payment which really extends the period of limitation under Section 20, Limitation Act; but the payment has got to be proved in a particular way and for reason of policy the legislature insists on a written or signed acknowledgment as the only proof of payment and excludes oral testimony. Unless, therefore, there is acknowledgment in the required form, the payment by itself is of no avail. The Subordinate Judge, however, is right in holding that while the section requires that the payment should be made within the period of limitation, it does not require that the acknowledgment should also be made within that period. To interpret the proviso in that way would be to import into it certain words which do not occur there. This is the view taken by almost all the High Courts in India and to us it seems to be a proper view to take. (See Mohd. Moizuddin Mia v. Nalini Bala Devi [Mohd. Moizuddin Mia v. Nalini Bala Devi, 1937 SCC OnLine Cal 20 : AIR 1937 Cal 284 : ILR (1937) 2 Cal 137] ; Lal Singh v. Gulab Rai [Lal Singh v. Gulab Rai, 1932 SCC CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 21 of 33 OnLine All 265 : ILR (1933) 55 All 280] , Venkata Subbhu v. Appu Sundaram [Venkata Subbhu v. Appu Sundaram, ILR (1894) 17 Mad 92] , Ram Prasad Babu v. Mohan Lal Babu [Ram Prasad Babu v. Mohan Lal Babu, 1922 SCC OnLine MP 10 : AIR 1923 Nag 117] and Vishwanath Raghunath Kale v. Mahadeo Rajaram Saraf [Vishwanath Raghunath Kale v. Mahadeo Rajaram Saraf, 1933 SCC OnLine Bom 3 : ILR (1933) 57 Bom 453] .)
10. ... If the plaintiff's right of action is apparently barred under the statute of limitation, Order 7 Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code makes it his duty to state specifically in the plaint the grounds of exemption allowed by the Limitation Act, upon which he relies to exclude its operation; and if the plaintiff has got to allege in his plaint the facts which entitle him to exemption, obviously these facts must be in existence at or before the time when the plaint is filed; facts which come into existence after the filing of the plaint cannot be called in aid to revive a right of action which was dead at the date of the suit. To claim exemption under Section 20, Limitation Act the plaintiff must be in a position to allege and prove not only that there was payment of interest on a debt or part-payment of the principal, but that such payment had been acknowledged in writing in the manner contemplated by that section."
(Emphasis supplied)
24. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shanti Conductors (supra) while relying upon Sant Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad, decided on 17.10.1951, reported as AIR 1951 SC 477, gave two essentials for a part payment to come under Section 19 of the LA, 1963 which are as follows:
(i) whether payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy, CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 22 of 33
(ii) an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment.
25. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shanti Conductors (supra) while relying upon Sant Lal (supra) held that the part payment for extension of limitation is to be proved in only by a written or signed acknowledgment and not by oral testimony. Unless there is a written acknowledgment in the required form, the payment by itself is of no avail.
26. Hence, in view of Section 19 of LA, 1963, the new limitation period begins from the time of payment for a debt or interest on a legacy only if the payment is made before the original period expired. The payment is required to be made by the person liable to pay or duly authorised agent. A plaintiff can claim exemption only when there was a payment of interest on a debt or part-payment of the principle along with an acknowledgment in writing by the person making the payment.
27. Coming back to the facts of the present case, the plaintiff has failed to place on record any written acknowledgment of debt/liability under Section 18 of the LA, 1963 or any proof of part- payment made within three years period of limitation under Section
19. Thus, the present suit is liable to be dismissed on account of being barred by limitation.
28. Moreover, the issuance of legal notice dated 12.12.2022 sent on 14.01.2023 Ex. PW 1/3 does not extend or save limitation. The CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 23 of 33 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Greatech Fashions vs. S K Industries, decided on 27.05.2025, reported as 2025:DHC:4613- DB has reinforced the settled position of law by stating that the legal notice does not revive or institute a fresh period of limitation while also observing on written acknowledgment of debt or a part payment made within limitation period. The relevant portion is provided as follows:
"10. Thereafter, though in the plaint it is stated that there were certain talks of settlement between the parties, apart from the fact that there is no proof thereof filed with the plaint, in any case, such talks cannot extend the period of limitation. The period of limitation can be extended only under certain circumstances as mentioned in the Limitation Act, 1963, one of them being a written acknowledgment of the debt or a part payment made within the period of limitation. None of those circumstances are made out by the appellant in the present case. Equally, the issuance of a legal notice does not lead to the commencement of a fresh period of limitation. "
(Emphasis supplied)
29. In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, it is evident that the present suit is barred by the law of limitation and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone.
30. Even on the merits of the case, the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for reasons recorded hereinafter.
CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 24 of 33
31. The plaintiff has alleged that a total payment of Rs. 1,01,47,280/- was made to the defendant from 21.05.2018 to 05.03.2019. It is stated that the defendant have given goods alongwith services worth only Rs.86,87,750/- within the said period and a sum of Rs.14,59,530/- remained pending with the defendant and recoverable. However, no cogent documentary evidence in the form of bank statements or any reliable proof of actual transfer of funds has been placed on record. The plaintiff has primarily relied upon its own ledger account Ex. PW1/2.
32. It is well settled law that such a statement of account maintained by the plaintiff itself is a unilateral document and cannot, in absence of independent corroboration, be treated as conclusive proof of liability.
33. The plaintiff's case rests entirely on his own testimony and the documents produced by him. The present suit is for recovery of excessive amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendant primarily based upon the ledger account Ex. PW1/2. At first, it is first necessary to discuss Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 28 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "IEA" and "BSA" respectively)). Section 34 reads as under:
"34. Entries in books of account, including those maintained in an electronic form, when relevant.--
CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 25 of 33 1[Entries in the books of account, including those maintained in an electronic form], regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability."
34. Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that entries in books of account regularly maintained by the plaintiff is not a conclusive piece of evidence and is to be corroborated with independent documentary evidence. In the absence of such documents, an adverse inference must be drawn in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CBI v. VC Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 410. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India, (2017) 11 SCC 731 while reiterating the settled position of law as laid down in V.C. Shukla (supra) held as under:
"279. It has further been laid down in V.C. Shukla as to the value of entries in the books of account, that such statement shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability, even if they are relevant and admissible, and that they are only corroborative evidence. It has been held that even then independent evidence is necessary as to trustworthiness of those entries which is a requirement to fasten the liability."
35. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Jay Ambe Industries Proprietor Shri Dinesh Kumar Bajranglal Somani Versus Garnet Specialty Paper Ltd., decided on 02.02.2022, reported as 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 18 discusses Section 34 IEA while taking help from landmark judgments. The relevant portion of Jay Ambe CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 26 of 33 (supra) is reproduced below for easy reference:
"15) In Chandi Ram vs. Jamind Kanta Deka, reported in AIR 1952 Assam 92, the Assam High Court held that if a ledger is not supported by any Day-book or Roznama, it would not fulfill the requirement of Section 34 of the Evidence Act and cannot be regarded relevant under that section. In the opinion of the Assam High Court there is no daily opening or closing balance in the ledger accounts which is maintained in some other books and ledger can be prepared at any time. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as relevant
16) In Hira Meher vs. Birbal Prasad Agarwal, reported in AIR 1958 Orissa 4, the Orissa High Court held that if the plaintiff relies on the entries in his credit ledger which he himself has scribed out, the plaintiff does not assert that the transaction on credit took place actually the credit register cannot be relied upon because there will be no corroboration of the entries made therein.
17) In Sohan Lal vs. Gulab Chand, reported in AIR 1966 Raj. 229, the Rajasthan High Court held that Bahi Khata is an account book if maintained in regular course of business and entries therein are not admissible if not supported by corresponding entries on Rokam or Nagal Behi.
18) In Zehna Sorabji vs. Mirabella Hoter Col. (Pvt.) Ltd., reported in AIR 1981 Bom 446, the Bombay High Court held that a ledger by itself cannot be a book of account of the character contemplated by Section 34 of the Evidence Act unless it is corroborated by the entries in the cash-book.
19) In Beni vs. Bisan Dayal, reported in AIR 1925 Nag.
445, the Nagpur High Court held that, the entries in the books of account by itself are not sufficient to charge any person with liability unless there is independent evidence of the CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 27 of 33 transaction to which the entries relate.
20) The proposition laid down in the above referred authorities about the admissibility of ledger without the corroborative evidence being led in support of the entries in the ledger cannot be disputed. It is well settled that a ledger, though an account book, has no evidentiary value unless the entries made therein are proved by independent evidence which, in other words, would mean that there must be corroboration of entries which corroboration can be supplied by proving the transaction or by proving the entries in the Daily cash book or Roznama. Without corroboration, entries in the ledger cannot be brought within the purview of Section 34 of the Evidence Act. In the instant case, it is, therefore, to be seen, whether apart from the entries in the ledger, there was corroborative evidence in support of the entries in the ledger. This matter would largely depend on the facts of each case."
36. The legal position emerging from judicial precedents is that entries in books of account, do not automatically become reliable evidence merely because they are maintained in the course of business. A recurring concern highlighted by various High Courts is the inherent nature of a ledger. A ledger is not a primary record of transactions; rather, it is a secondary compilation derived from original books like day-books, cash books, or roznama. Since it can be written up at a later stage and does not necessarily reflect contemporaneous entries, courts have treated it with caution. In the absence of supporting primary records, a ledger loses its evidentiary reliability. Mere bookkeeping cannot substitute proof of an actual transaction. In other words, the existence of a debt or liability must CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 28 of 33 be independently established, and ledger entries can only support and not create that proof.
37. The consistent thread running through all these decisions is that corroboration is indispensable. Such corroboration may come in different forms, where it may be oral testimony, documentary proof of transactions or supporting entries in primary books of account. Without this supporting evidence, ledger entries remain insufficient to impose liability. Ultimately, the admissibility and evidentiary value of ledger entries depend on the facts of each case. Courts undertake a factual inquiry to determine whether there is adequate independent evidence to support the entries. If such corroboration exists, the ledger can be relied upon as supporting evidence; if not, it remains merely a self-serving document with limited legal value.
38 Applying the settled position of law to the facts of the present case, the ledger account Ex. PW1/2 reflecting the business transactions between the parties is a unilateral document created and maintained by the plaintiff. Mere invocation of entries in the ledger account statement without any bank account statement or any independent bank witness as per Section 34 IEA does not create any entitlement in favour of the Plaintiff. (See VC Shukla (Supra); Gopal Krishna Ketkar v Mohamed Haji Latif, AIR 1968 SC 1413; Mohinder Kumar Gandhi vs. Praveen Kumar, 2025:DHC:8843-DB).
CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 29 of 33
39. Though the plaintiff has placed on record copies of bills/tax invoices Ex. PW1/1 (colly) and statement of account Ex. PW 1/2, tbut hese documents without any corroboratory evidence in support do not establish the actual payments allegedly made by the plaintiff. In absence of any corroboratory proof of payment, these documents cannot be relied upon. Further, the plaintiff has relied upon legal demand notice Ex. PW1/3, postal receipt Ex. PW1/4, tracking report Ex. PW1/5 and email communication Ex. PW1/6. However, these documents only show that a demand was raised by the plaintiff and they do not constitute proof of liability of the defendant. The certificate of Non-Starter Report Ex. PW1/7 and certificate under Section 65B IEA Ex. PW1/8 are also formal in nature and do not advance the case of the plaintiff on merits.
40. Further, the plaintiff has alleged that defective goods worth Rs. 3,99,194/- were returned to the defendant on 12.03.2020. However, no documentary proof has been filed to substantiate such return. There is no delivery challan, return receipt, acknowledgment, or any document showing that the defendant accepted or received the said goods. In absence of any acknowledgment, the alleged return of goods remains unproved. Moreover, no acknowledgment of liability by the defendant has been proved on record at any point of time. Even the alleged date of refusal i.e., 12.03.2020, has not been supported by any documentary evidence and thus cannot be CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 30 of 33 relied upon. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in S.M.S. Traders v. Official Liquidator of the High Court, Madras, 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 2214, relied upon Section 43 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 while observing that when the buyer refuses to accept the goods, it is sufficient to intimate to seller about his refusal to accept the goods. The relevant para is as follows:
"14. As per Section 43 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930, it is not the duty of the purchaser who refuses to take delivery to return the goods to the seller from the place of delivery at his cost. Section 43 reads as under:
"43. Buyer not bound to return rejected goods.--Unless otherwise agreed, where goods are delivered to the buyer and he refuses to accept them, having the right so to do, he is not bound to return them to the seller, but it is sufficient if he intimates to the seller that he refuses to accept them."
When the buyer refuses to accept the goods, it is sufficient if he intimates to the seller about his refusal to accept the goods. By a reading of Section 43 of Sale of Goods Act read with Clause 16 of the Purchase Order, it cannot be said that the Company in liquidation is bound to pay the amount for the rejected pulpwood."
(Emphasis supplied)
41. Concluding the present case, the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proof required in a recovery suit. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff like ledger account Ex. PW1/2, invoices Ex. PW1/1 (colly), are unilateral in nature as per Section 34 IEA explained in detail in V.C. Shukla (supra) and Manohar Lal Sharma (supra). Further, in absence of any proof of rejection of goods or communication thereof, the principles under Sections 41, 42 and 43 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, as discussed in Lohmann Rausher GmbH (supra), Godrej & Boyce (supra), and S.M.S. Traders (supra), also operate against the plaintiff.
CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 31 of 33 Consequently, in the absence of cogent, reliable, and corroborated evidence, the plaintiff has failed to prove his case even on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, and the suit is liable to be dismissed on merits as well.
42. In view of the above, it is held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case by way of preponderance of probabilities. The suit of the plaintiff is also barred by law of limitation. As a result, the plaintiff has failed both on ground of limitation as well as on merits.
Hence, Issue No. 1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant.
ISSUE NO.2
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the decretal amount? If Yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP
43. The plaintiffs have claimed interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the invoices till realisation. However, in the facts of the present case, the claim of interest cannot be considered in isolation. As already discussed while adjudicating Issue No.1, the plaintiff has failed to establish the principal liability on the basis of cogent, reliable and corroborated evidence, and the suit itself has been held to be barred by limitation and even on merits the suit is liable to be dismissed. In the absence of proof of the foundational liability, the question of grant of interest does not arise.
Hence, Issue No. 2 is also decided against the plaintiff and in CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 32 of 33 favour of the Defendant.
ISSUE NO.3
3. Relief.
44. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 30,57,600.98/- along with interest is hereby dismissed, being barred by limitation and also for failure of the plaintiff to prove its claim. Plaintiff is left to bear the cost of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
45. File be consigned to record room, after due completion.
Announced in the open Court today on this 25th April of 2026 ( Devender Kumar Jangala ) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West, Rohini, Delhi.
25.04.2026 CS (Comm.) No.332/23 Ardh Sainik Canteen Vs. Elite Business IT Services Page 33 of 33