Delhi District Court
Nitin Gupta vs Anupam Ghosh on 12 January, 2026
CNR No. DLCT01-018068-2024
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)- 03: CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURT (EXTENSION BLOCK) : DELHI
CS (COMM) No. 1270/2024
In the matter of :-
Nitin Gupta
Proprietor of
M/s Singhal Sales Corporation
347, 1st Floor, Chawari Bazar,
Delhi-110006.
......Plaintiff
Versus
Anupam Ghosh
Proprietor of
M/s Anondita Healthcare
Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301.
......Defendant
Date of Institution : 18.11.2024
Date on which Judgment reserved : 06.01.2026
Date on which judgment pronounced : 12.01.2026
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose of the suit for CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 1/33 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.12 16:20:50 +0530 recovery of Rs.11,96,678/- filed by plaintiff against the defendant.
(A) Pleadings of the Parties:-
2. Succinctly stated facts of the case as set out in the plaint are that the plaintiff/Sh. Nitin Gupta is the proprietor of the proprietorship concern namely M/s Singhal Sales Corporation and is engaged in the business of supplying the kraft paper, chart paper, poster paper etc. The defendant is stated to be the Proprietor of proprietorship concern namely M/s Anondita Healthcare.
3. It has been further averred that the defendant had approached the plaintiff and placed the orders for supply of certain paper materials (hereinafter referred to as goods) through email/telephonic conversation and accordingly the plaintiff had supplied the goods as per specifications and orders placed by the defendant and raised invoices from time to time. It has been further averred that the defendant had cleared all the outstanding payments against the goods received by him for the period from 14.01.2019 till 16.11.2020, however, the defendant has only cleared the amount of Rs.21,16,956/- against the goods supplied by plaintiff amounting to Rs.38,13,634/- for the period from 17.11.2020 to 22.04.2021, thereby leaving a balance of Rs.16,96,678/- as on 22.04.2021. The details of the invoices raised by plaintiff and transactions took place between the parties from 14.01.2019 to 22.04.2021 are given in Para 6 and 7 of the plaint.
4. It has been further averred that despite repeated CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 2/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.01.12 Sharma 16:20:57 +0530 reminders/ requests by the plaintiff, the defendant had failed to make the payment and thereafter, the plaintiff had deposited the cheque bearing No. 836209 drawn on Axis Bank for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 17.06.2021 which was given by the defendant to the plaintiff for security purposes and the said cheque was honoured. Hence, a sum of Rs.11,96,678/- remained outstanding towards defendant.
5. It has been further averred that the plaintiff had requested the defendant several times to make the payment but the defendant ignored such requests on several occasions and the defendant had refuted/ declined to make the payment. It has been further averred that on 02.02.2022, at the behest of the defendant, the plaintiff had sent the statement of accounts pertaining to financial year 2020-2021 maintained by him to the defendant, through Speed Post, explicitly stipulating therein that in case no reply is received from the defendant within a fortnight, it will be assumed that the balances shown thereunder stood accepted by the defendant.
6. It has been further averred that since the defendant had failed to clear the outstanding dues, the plaintiff, through its counsel, had sent a legal notice dated 18.09.2023 to the defendant so as to afford a final opportunity to the defendant to clear such dues, however, with no avail. It has been further averred that the plaintiff thereafter approached the District Legal Services Authority, Central District, Delhi for initiating pre-institution mediation proceedings, however, the defendant did not participate in the said proceeding despite issuance of notices CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 3/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.12 16:21:05 +0530 resulting in issuance of the non-starter report dated 02.04.2024 by the DLSA, Central District. Thus, aggrieved by the act of the defendant, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit praying for a decree in the sum of Rs.11,96,678/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the due dates of respective payments of each invoice till its realization.
7. The defendant has contested the suit by filing a detailed written statement. By way of preliminary objection, the maintainability of the suit filed by plaintiff has been challenged on the ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present case because as per Section 20 of CPC, the present suit can only be instituted where the defendant resides, carries on business or where the cause of action arises. It has been further alleged that since the alleged transactions including supply of goods were made in Mathura, therefore the claim of plaintiff of territorial jurisdiction based on invoices raised in Delhi is unfounded and misleading without there being any acknowledgment/ receipt of same. It has been further alleged that all the invoices related to the alleged transactions are false and fabricated as the same were not stamped or signed by the defendant.
8. Another objection is that the invoices dated 04.04.2020, 09.04.2020, 21.04.2020, 27.04.2020 (02 bills), 18.07.2020 and 22.07.2020 are false and fabricated as the goods were never supplied to the defendant against these bills. It has been further averred that there is a proper procedure followed by the defendant upon receiving the goods which includes signing CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 4/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.12 16:21:10 +0530 and providing a stamped copy to the delivery period upon receipt of the goods and additionally, an inward entry is made in the inward register to keep track of the material and since the invoices filed alongwith the suit are not duly signed or stamped by defendant or bear any acknowledgment, the same are fake and fabricated as no such goods were ever supplied to the defendant.
9. Another objection is taken that no receipt of toll, green tax or any transportation documents have been filed to show that said goods had crossed border of Delhi to reach its destination at Mathura, U.P. It has been further averred that the defendant reserves its right U/o II Rule 2 of CPC to claim the amount of Rs.5 lakhs which was wrongly encashed by the plaintiff via cheque bearing no.836209.
10. It has been further alleged that the orders placed with the plaintiff were always in writing, either through email or whatsapp and the defendant never relied on verbal communication as alleged by the plaintiff. It has been further alleged that all payments for genuine transactions have already been made in full and on time and no amount is outstanding as on date. It has been further averred that an email dated 12.09.2023 was sent to the plaintiff stating that all payments have been made and no outstanding amount is payable and that no revert to this mail has been filed by the plaintiff which clearly shows that no amount was outstanding or payable.
11. It has been further alleged that the plaintiff has failed to provide any purchase invoices or evidence to show that CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 5/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.12 16:21:17 +0530 they had the goods in their possession to supply to the defendant during the alleged period and without proof of procuring the goods from a third party or holding them at the time of the alleged transactions, it cannot be assumed that the plaintiff was in possession of the goods they claim to have supplied.
12. On merits, each and every averments made in plaint have been denied and it is reiterated that no purchase order was ever raised by the defendant verbally/telephonically and it is impractical and unreasonable to conduct business worth lakhs of rupees based on verbal agreements.; that the invoices are fake and fabricated as the same does not bears the signatures, stamp or acknowledgment of the defendant; and that there is no outstanding dues on the part of the defendant till date; that the plaintiff had illegally encashed the cheque of Rs.5 lacs which was given as a security by the defendant. Rest of the averments made in the plaint have also been controverted on merits and it is prayed that suit of plaintiff be dismissed.
13. The plaintiff has filed the replication reiterating the averments made in the plaint and denying the contra averments made in the written statement. It has been averred that not only the cause of action arose in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court but the invoices pertaining to transactions clearly stipulates that the jurisdiction would lie exclusively in Delhi. It has been further averred that the plaintiff conducted its business from Delhi, invoices were raised from Delhi, goods were supplied from Delhi and the part payments in respect of the goods supplied by the plaintiff were also made in Delhi. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon judgment in case of Auto Movers CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 6/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.12 16:21:23 +0530 vs. Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (MANU/DE/2032/2021).
14. It has been further denied that invoices dated 01.04.2020, 09.04.2020, 21.01.2020, 27.04.2020, 18.07.2020 and 20.07.2020 are false and fabricated and the goods were never supplied to the defendant under said invoices. It is averred that qua every invoice issued and raised by the plaintiff, applicable GST has been duly paid and the corresponding ITC thereof must have been perforce availed by the defendant in its relevant Form GSTR-3B. It is averred that the alleged inward register is an internal private document veracity whereof has been doubted and disputed being in exclusive possession of the defendant. It has been further submitted that the cheque of Rs.5 lacs was encashed to recover the legitimate dues and not to cheat the defendant and moreover the stand taken by the defendant is wholly mispositioned and unreliable as the defendant has neither demurred nor objected to the encashment prior to same being mentioned under WS for the very first time. It has been further averred that all the goods were supplied and delivered to the defendant and all the transactions are genuine and authentic. It has been further reiterated that all the orders placed by the defendant with the plaintiff were always in writing, either through Whatsapp or email. As the business between plaintiff and defendant matured with transactions, plaintiff did not place orders formally upon the plaintiff. It has been further averred that the plaintiff in response to the email dated 12.09.2023 sent the legal notice dated 30.09.2023 and did not revert to the email personally. Lastly, it has been reiterated that as on date the CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 7/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.12 16:21:30 +0530 defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.11,96,678/- alongwith applicable interest thereon to the plaintiff which he is trying to escape. Thus, it is prayed that suit of the plaintiff be decreed.
15. The Plaintiff as well as defendant filed their respective admission/denial on affidavits.
(B) Issues :-
16. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-
1) Whether the Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the case filed by the plaintiff? (OP Parties)
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of Rs.11,96,678/- against the defendant, as prayed for? (OPP)
3) Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest. If so, at what rate and for which period? (OPP)
4) Relief.
(C) Evidence :-
17. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff has examined the plaintiff Sh. Nitin Gupta as PW-1. He reiterated the averments made in plaint in his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and relied upon following documents:-
S.No. Details of documents Exhibit No.
1. The printout of purchase order dated 26.02.2020 Ex. PW-1/1 bearing PO No. AHC/PO/2020-21/M-491 (colly) communicated by defendant over email dated 26.02.2020 CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 8/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.12 16:21:36 +0530
2. The printout of invoices alongwith corresponding Ex PW-1/2 e-way bills (colly)
3. The printout of ledger maintained in respect of Ex. PW-1/3 the defendant (colly)
4. The printout of screenshots of whatsapp Ex. PW-1/4 conversations (colly)
5. The original statement of account sent through Ex. PW-1/5 speed post to the defendant
6. The office copy of legal notice dated 30.09.2023 Ex. PW-1/6 issued to the defendant through email dated 30.09.2023
7. The Certificate u/s 63 of BSA Ex.PW1/7
8. The Non-starter report dated 02.04.2024 Ex.PW1/8
18. During his cross-examination, PW1 has testified that he used to deal with the defendant directly but he did not remember the exact date and time of meeting when the defendant had approached him for the procurement of certain paper material and further testified that the meeting took place at his office at 347, First Floor, Chawari Bazaar, Delhi-110006. He has further testified that all the terms were verbal but it was agreed that as soon as goods were supplied by him, the defendant would make payment thereof. He has further testified that the goods were sent to defendant at Noida or Mathura upon instructions and sometimes the defendant used to pick goods from his office and that there was no practice of taking/ receiving of the goods at the place of delivery by the defendant or any of his employees and voluntarily deposed that the defendant used to give him telephonic call as soon as he received goods. He has further testified that in regular course of his business with other buyers as well, he never took receiving of the goods at the time of their delivery and that the goods delivered at Mathura and/or Noida were delivered through lorries. He has further testified that he CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 9/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.12 16:21:42 +0530 had not placed on record copies of receipts issued to him by the concerned transporter but voluntarily deposed that the transporter never issued him individual receipts but raised bill upon him after 6-7 deliveries. He has further testified that he majorly sent goods of defendant through transport and not that of other buyers.
19. In response to a question as to whether he had maintained any record of the goods handed over by him to the transporter for delivery since he (transporter) was not giving him individual receipt/bills but used to raise consolidated bills, the PW1 replied that the bill of transporter found mention of his invoice number through which goods were sent for delivery and he used to check his record from the same before making payment to the transporter. He has further testified that he had not placed on record any bill, consolidated or individual, issued to him by the transporter on Court record and that he does not have any knowledge of the number of toll plazas which fell enroute to Noida and/or Mathura. He has denied the suggestion that he did not supply any goods to defendant or that due to this reason he was unable to produce any record of transportation of goods to Noida and/or Mathura or that due to this reason he was also not able to produce record of any goods which he claimed were collected from his office by the defendant.
20. During his further cross-examination, the PW1 has admitted that he has placed on record only one purchase order i.e. Ex. PW-1/1 and has further testified that the defendant had placed other orders also for supply of goods but they were CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 10/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.12 16:21:48 +0530 telephonic. He has further testified that there was no discrepancy in account maintained by him and that maintained by defendant in September, 2021 and that he did not receive any telephonic or written communication with defendant regarding discrepancy in their respective accounts in September, 2021. He has further testified that the defendant had given him a cheque of Rs. 5 lakhs towards security at the beginning of their business transactions and that when defendant failed to clear his account, he informed the defendant that he would be encashing the said cheque and accordingly, got the said cheque encashed sometimes in the year 2021 which is reflected in his statement of account Ex. PW-1/3. After seeing the statement of account filed by the plaintiff, the witness states that Rs.16,96,678/- was due and payable by the defendant before the plaintiff encashed the cheque. He has further deposed that the defendant did not issue him any other cheque except the cheque issued by the defendant towards security. He has denied the suggestion that the cheque which was reflected to have been encashed by him on 17.06.2021 was some other cheque or that it was not the same cheque which was given to him by the defendant towards the security amount. He has further testified that he had visited the premises of defendant at Mathura but he was not aware of the manner in which defendant used to receive goods at his premises at Mathura i.e. whether he was maintaining any inward/outward register etc. or not and that he was also not aware if defendant has office at places other than Mathura and Noida.
21. No other witness was examined on behalf of plaintiff. Therefore, PE was closed.
CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 11/33 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: 2026.01.12 Sharma 16:21:56 +0530
22. In order to prove his defence, the defendant has examined Ms. Swati Sharma, its employee, as DW1. She reiterated the facts averred in the written statement in her affidavit Ex.DW-1/A and relied upon following documents:-
S.No. Details of documents Exhibit No.
1. Original Authorization letter Ex. DW-1/1
2. Copy of inward register Ex DW-1/2
3. Computer generated copy of email dated Ex. DW-1/3
12.09.2023
23. During her cross-examination, the DW1 has testified that she had been working with the defendant firm as a Purchase Manager since 21.09.2018 and they used to raise the purchase order on the plaintiff and the payments were made after the submission of invoice, e-way bill and proof of delivery. She did not remember the exact date as to when the business relationship commenced between the parties or that the payments were made invoice-wise or in lumpsum indicating reciprocal balances but testified that majorly invoicewise payments were there. She has further testified that she was the point of contact person for all the purchases and their corresponding payments.
24. The DW1 has further testified that she had handed a cheque of Rs.5 lacs to the plaintiff as a security and the plaintiff was not supposed to deposit the same since it was a security cheque and that a ledger was maintained by defendant's Accounts Department. She did not remember that she has been asked by the plaintiff to get the ledger maintained by defendant in respect of supplies made by the plaintiff matched with the plaintiff's CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 12/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.12 16:22:02 +0530 ledger maintained in respect of the defendant; that she also did not remember the invoices disputed in the present suit by the defendant; that she did not remember that she has been asked to pay the outstanding dues involved in the present suit by the plaintiff but voluntarily stated that all the dues were already paid and they sent the e-mail dated 12.09.2023 for the same; that as per the ledger maintained by defendant's Accounts Department, all the payments stand cleared.
25. The DW1 has further testified that she was not aware about the encashment of the security cheque of Rs.5 lacs drawn on Axis Bank and that she was not in contact with the plaintiff when the security cheque of Rs.5 lacs was encashed. She has further testified that she did not remember that with a view to get the legitimate outstanding dues cleared from the defendant, the plaintiff shared the ledger maintained by the plaintiff in respect of the defendant on previous occasions. She has further testified that the plaintiff never asked for any specific invoice amount or any specific invoice number over the whatsapp and they already cleared all the balance as per defendant's ledger. She has further testified that there were some quality issue with the material as the plaintiff had supplied them the second hand material and the plaintiff accepted the same and they also sent the e-mail for it. She has further testified that in-ward register is defendant's internal document which was never shared with the plaintiff and it remained in their exclusive possession with no knowledge of the same being maintained by defendant but voluntarily stated that the plaintiff never asked for the same and that their in-ward register is not false or unreliable and that they CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 13/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.01.12 Sharma 16:22:08 +0530 had paid as per balance available in their ledger account.
26. The DW1 has further admitted that there were business transactions after the date of said alleged 07 invoices. She has denied that they never raised any dispute about the said 07 invoices or that they kept assuring the plaintiff to make payment of those 07 invoices. She has testified that she did not remember whether any reply to the legal notice sent on behalf of the plaintiff was sent by their firm; that she did not know whether anyone from defendant has participated in Pre-Institution Mediation Proceedings. After seeing the invoices dated 04.04.2020, 09.04.2020, 21.04.2020, 27.04.2020 (02 invoices), 18.07.2020 and 22.07.2020 forming part of Ex.PW1/2 (colly) from the judicial record and after having gone through the same, she has stated that she cannot admit or deny that these invoices are being reflected under the corresponding GSTR 2B without consulting the Accounts Department. She has denied the suggestion that all the said invoices are duly reflected under the GSTR 2B of the defendant.
27. The DW1 has further testified that it is a matter of record that the defendant used to claim Input Tax Credit corresponding to the goods supplied under the cover of respective invoices under its (defendant's) GSTR 3B. She has further testified that there is no written communication made as per documents placed on record by the defendant objecting the encashment of the cheque but voluntarily stated that it was a security cheque and any such objection might have been communicated in writing by the other department of plaintiff CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 14/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.12 16:22:15 +0530 firm. She has admitted that in the entire communication made through whatsapp, there was no dispute raised about the aforesaid 07 invoices but voluntarily stated that they were not aware about the said invoices. She has denied that in the communication made through whatsapp, the defendant assured the plaintiff to make payment but voluntarily stated that it was regarding the balance in the ledger book of the defendant and defendant never admitted the liability in respect to the said 07 invoices.
28. The DW1 has further denied the suggestion that the defendant was well aware about the liability qua the said 07 invoices prior to the present suit or that defendant never denied its liability prior to filing of the present suit or that the plaintiff kept repeating to make payment or that when no payment was made regarding the entire liability including the said 07 invoices, the plaintiff presented the said cheque for encashment. She has admitted that the purchase order used to be through whatsapp as well as e-mail by them but they never placed any verbal purchase order. She has denied the suggestion that there was no procedure as to signing and providing a stamped copy to the delivery person upon receipt of goods by the defendant. She has further testified that she is aware about the said procedure of acknowledging the receipt of goods as it is followed in all our branches including Mathura and other Cities.
29. The DW1 has further denied the suggestion that on several occasions, the transportation for supply of goods was arranged by defendant or that the contents of e-mail dated CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 15/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.12 16:22:23 +0530 12.09.2023 are false and manipulated or that the entries made in the in-ward register qua the supplies received from the plaintiff are selective, incomplete and unreliable in order to frustrate the claim of the plaintiff or that all the goods qua the aforesaid 07 invoices were duly supplied to the defendant or that they made only partial payments and did not clear the entire account of the plaintiff or that in order to avoid liability to make payment qua the subsequent invoices, the defendant has raised a false dispute qua the genuineness of aforesaid 07 invoices or that before encashment of cheque of Rs. 5 lacs drawn on Axis Bank bearing No. 836209 to the plaintiff, the outstanding payable by the defendant was Rs.16,96,678/- or that as on date there is liability of the defendant towards the plaintiff of Rs. 11,96,678/- qua the supplies made by plaintiff to the defendant during the period from 17.11.2020 to 22.04.2021.
30. No other witness was examined on behalf of defendant . Therefore, DE was closed.
31. Arguments were addressed by Sh. Bharat Bhushan, Counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. Sameer Nandwani and Sh.Abhishek Kumar Anand, Counsels for defendant. Written submissions have also been filed on behalf of parties.
32. During the course of arguments, counsels for plaintiff and defendant reiterated respective averments made in the plaint and written statement and also referred to documents filed on behalf of respective parties as well as evidence adduced on record by them.
CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 16/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: Sharma 2026.01.12 16:22:31 +0530
33. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant in pursuance of orders placed upon plaintiff by defendant stood dispatched from the plaintiff's place of business which is in territorial jurisdiction of this Court and same is evident from the particulars of e-way bill generated for transporting such goods. It has been further submitted that there was no practice of signing and acknowledging the invoice as claimed by the defendant, rather the invoice used to be shared by the plaintiff with the defendant over Whatsapp. It has been further submitted that most of the times defendant used to pick goods from the plaintiff's office through the transport arranged by the defendant and the same is categorically deposed by the plaintiff in his oral testimony and could also be gathered from Whatsapp conversations Ex.PW-1/4. It has been further submitted that the part-payments in respect of such supplies stood duly received by the plaintiff from the defendant at its aforesaid registered address in terms of having delivered cheques at such address. It has been further submitted that the underlying invoices categorically stipulated that the same are subject to jurisdiction of Delhi Courts only and such invoices were never objected by the defendant. It has been further submitted that the payments qua supply of goods made to the defendant were also to be made within the jurisdiction of this Court.
34. It has been further submitted that in so far as the disputed 07 invoices Ex.PW1/2 (at page No.91, 93, 97, 99, 101, 113 and 115) by way of having denied delivery of goods covered CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 17/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.12 16:22:37 +0530 under such invoices, no plea of set-off stood raised/ claimed in the entire WS in terms of Order VII Rule 6 of CPC. It has been further submitted that since no such issue stood framed, the plaintiff should not be denied the relief on the premises of having failed to prove the delivery of goods covered under such invoices. It has been further submitted that the defence raised by the defendant that no goods were delivered under such 07 invoices stands falsified because during the period from April 2020 to July 2020, the defendant had made a payment of Rs.33,57,959/- against the goods of Rs.19,61,445/-. It has been further submitted that since such 07 invoices pertaining to the period from April 2020 to July 2020 disputed by the defendant aggregates to Rs.16,63,870/- and the payment of Rs.13,96,514/- appearing to have been paid in excess was rather towards such 07 invoices which have been wrongly and falsely disputed by the defendant to escape his legitimate liability.
35. It has been further submitted that the evidence tendered by DW-1 on behalf of the defendant is unmaintainable and void ab initio in the eyes of law and the documents relied upon by DW1 are not admitted. It has been further submitted that the liability of outstanding dues of Rs.11,96,678/- alongwith applicable interest stood admitted and accepted by the defendant.
It has been further submitted that the averments made in plaint have been proved by PW1 and it is prayed that suit of plaintiff be decreed. In support of the contentions, counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) In case titled as Auto Movers vs. Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (MANU/ DE/ 2032/ 2021);CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 18/33 Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.12 16:22:43 +0530
(ii) In case titled as Badat and Co. vs. East India Trading Co. (MANU/SC/0011/1963);
(iii) In case titled as Lohia Properties (P) Ltd., Tinsukia, Dibrugarh, Assam vs. Atmaram Kumar (MANU/SC/0549/1993);
(iv) In case titled as Thangam and Ors. vs. Navamani Ammal (MANU/SC/0161/2024);
(v) In case titled as Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Samir Chandra Chaudhary (MANU/SC/0414/2005);
(vi) In case titled as Chandra Kunwar vs. Chaudhuri Narpat Singh and Ors. (MANU/MH/0026/1906) ;
(vii) In case titled as Chowdamma (D) by L.R. and Ors. vs. Venkatappa (D) by L.Rs. and Ors.
(MANU/SC/1162/2025);
(viii) In case titled as Nagindas Ramdas vs. Dalpatram Ichharam & Ors. (Para 27), MANU/ SC/ 0417/ 1973;
(ix) In case titled as I.K. Merchants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Para 13, 13.1, 14 and 16), MANU/ SC/ 0416/ 2025.
36. Per contra, Counsel for defendant has submitted that the suit filed by plaintiff is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction u/s 20 of CPC since the business of the defendant is carried out in Mathura, UP and not in Delhi. It has been further submitted that the invoices dated 04.04.2020, 09.04.2020, 21.04.2020, 27.04.2020 (02 bills), 18.07.2020 and 22.07.2020 Ex.PW1/2 are false and fabricated as the said invoices neither bear the defendant's signature nor stamp or any other CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 19/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.12 16:22:50 +0530 acknowledgment of delivery of the said goods. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the goods were dispatched. It has been further submitted that the disputed invoices were allegedly raised during strict covid lockdown when transport movement was severely restricted and the plaintiff has not explained as to how goods were physically supplied during that period. It has been further submitted that no proof of purchase of the said goods by the plaintiff to sell the same to the defendant has been placed on record and the said fact has been admitted by the plaintiff in his cross examination. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff has failed to file any transportation records, toll receipts or green tax receipts to support his alleged claim of supply of goods in question and to establish that the goods were ever crossed the Delhi Border to reach Mathura. It has been further submitted that PW1 in his cross examination has admitted that the transporter had raised bills in respect of the alleged consignments, however despite such admission, no transporter bills have been filed on record. It has been further submitted that the onus to prove the delivery lies upon the plaintiff which he has completely failed to discharge.
37. It has been further submitted that DW1 in her cross examination has stated that the proper procedure on the delivery of goods was followed which includes delivery partner to obtain a signed and stamped copy of the receipt of goods from the defendant at the time of delivery. It has been further submitted that the In-Ward Register Ex.DW1/2 demonstrates that the plaintiff did not supply any goods in pursuance to the invoices in question. It has been further submitted that the claim of the CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 20/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.12 16:22:57 +0530 plaintiff that verbal orders were placed is false and baseless. It has been further submitted that the screenshots Ex.PW1/4 filed by the plaintiff do not establish anything as all the documents shown in those screenshots have not been downloaded and produced thereof. It has been further submitted that mere screenshots without any complete or verifiable contents are incapable of proving supply of goods or any liability of the defendant.
38. It has been further submitted that DW1 has testified in her cross examination that over whatsapp, the plaintiff never mentioned any specific invoices and that the balance amount had already been cleared. It has been further submitted that there is no outstanding dues remaining as alleged by the plaintiff and all the payments for genuine transactions have been made by the defendant which is also clear from the email dated 12.09.2023 Ex.DW1/3. Reliance is placed on behalf of the defendant upon the following judgments:-
(i) In case titled as M/s Jainsons Lights (Pvt) Ltd. vs. Ashraf 2024 DHC 7596;
(ii) In case titled as Harish Mansukhani vs. Ashok Jain, 2008 Supreme (Del) 1150;
(iii) In case titled as Subhra Mukherjee vs. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 1203;
(iv) In case titled as Rangammal vs. Kuppuswami RLW 2011(2) RJ 1294 (SC);
(v) State of J & K vs. Hindustan Forest Company, 2006 (12) SCC 198;CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 21/33 Digitally signed by Devendra
Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.01.12 Sharma 16:23:03 +0530 (E) Analysis of Evidence and Findings:-
39. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and have also perused the record as well as the written submissions filed on behalf of the parties and my issue-wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE No.1 :-
Whether the Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the case filed by the plaintiff? (OP Parties)
40. Onus to prove this issue was upon both the parties.
Defendant has challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit of plaintiff inter-alia on the ground that defendant neither works for gain nor resides within the jurisdiction of this Court and the alleged transactions including supply of goods were made in Mathura, as such no cause of action, as alleged by the plaintiff, ever arose within territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It has been further submitted that mere invoices do not confer jurisdiction and the claim of plaintiff of territorial jurisdiction based on invoices raised in Delhi is unfounded and misleading without there being any acknowledgment/ receipt of same and that all the invoices related to the alleged transactions are false and fabricated as the same were not stamped or signed by the defendant.
41. On the other hand, plaintiff has asserted that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as the registered office of the plaintiff company is in Delhi. The parties had meetings and discussions at office of plaintiff at Delhi. All the purchase orders were placed by defendant at plaintiff's CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 22/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.12 16:23:10 +0530 registered office at Delhi, the goods were dispatched from said office of plaintiff and the cheques towards payments of goods were delivered at plaintiff's office and on these assertions it is claimed that the Court at Delhi has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the suit filed by the plaintiff.
42. In the case of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, 1989 AIR 1239, it has been held that:-
"In the matter of a contract there may arise causes of action of various kinds. In a suit for damages for breach of contract the cause of action consists of the making of the contract, and of its breach, so that the suit may be filed either at the place where the contract was made or at the place where it should have been performed and the breach occurred. The making of the contract is part of the cause of action. A suit on a contract, therefore, can be filed at the place where it was made. The determination of the place where the contract was made is part of the Law of Contract.
But making of an offer on a particular place does not form cause of action in a suit for damages for breach of contract. Ordinarily, acceptance of an offer and its intimation result in a contract and hence a suit can be filed in a court within whose jurisdiction the acceptance was communicated. The performance of a contract is part of cause of action and a suit in respect of the breach can always be filed at the place where the contract should have performed or its performance completed. If the contract is to be performed at the place where it is made, the suit on the contract is to be filed there and nowhere else. In suits for agency actions the cause of action arises at the place where the contract of agency was made or the place where actions are to be rendered and payment is to be made by the agent.
Part of cause of action arises where money is expressly or impliedly payable under a contract. In cases of repudiation of a contract, the place where repudiation is received is the place where the suit would lie. If a contract is pleaded as part of the cause of action giving jurisdiction to the Court where the suit is filed and that contract is found to be invalid, such part of cause of the action disappears The above are some of the connecting factors. So long as the parties to a contract do not oust the jurisdiction of all the Courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction to decide the cause of action under the law it cannot be said that the CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 23/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.12 16:23:17 +0530 parties have by their contract ousted the jurisdiction of the Courts."
43. The principle of law propounded in the above noted judgment is also reflected from the judgment in case of Auto Movers vs. Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd. MANU/DE/2032/2021 relied upon on behalf of the plaintiff.
44. In the instant case, admittedly parties did not have any agreement to submit to jurisdiction of a specific Court. However, the invoices Ex.PW1/2 (Colly) relied upon by the plaintiff find mention of plaintiff's address as 347, 1st Floor, Chawri Bazar, Delhi-110006 and term and conditions "Subject to 'Delhi' Jurisdiction only". The e-way bills also finds mention of place of dispatch as Delhi-11006. The part payments were credited in the bank account of the plaintiff namely 'Axis Bank Ltd. Ashok Vihar' as per particulars given on the invoice(s). In these circumstances, the part cause of action having arisen within jurisdiction of this Court at Delhi empowers the Court to adjudicate upon the lis in the instant case.
45. Even in the cross-examination of PW1, he has specifically replied that meeting had taken place at the office of the plaintiff at 347, 1st Floor, Chawri Bazar, Delhi and has also testified that sometimes defendant used to pick the goods from the office of the plaintiff. Though the witness was extensively cross-examined on the point of non-delivery of any goods from the office of the plaintiff with suggestion that no such goods were ever delivered/ supplied to the defendant from the office of the plaintiff but in the entire cross-examination there is no denial of CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 24/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.12 16:23:23 +0530 meeting at the place of the plaintiff which itself give rise the part cause of action.
46. Further, DW1 in her cross-examination has also admitted that the purchase order used to be placed through whatsapp as well as email and this admission itself is sufficient to conclude that partly cause of action has arisen at Delhi when the purchase orders were placed.
47. Thus, in the light of above discussion, settled law and evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the defendant has failed to prove that only on the basis of its work place or supply of goods outside Delhi, there is no jurisdiction vested with this Court to try the present matter. On the other hand, plaintiff has proved on record on the preponderance of probability that the business meeting were held between the parties at Delhi, the purchase orders were placed and the part payments were made at Delhi.
48. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that plaintiff has been able to prove his entitlement to maintain the case at Delhi on the preponderance of probability. Hence, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No.2:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of Rs.11,96,678/- against the defendant, as prayed for? (OPP)
49. Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 25/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: Sharma 2026.01.12 16:23:30 +0530
In order to prove this issue plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and proved on record the invoices Ex.PW1/2 (colly), printout of the purchase order dated 26.02.2020 Ex.PW1/1, printout of ledger account Ex.PW1/3, printout of screenshots of whatsapp conversion between the parties Ex.PW1/4 (colly), sending of the statement of account to the defendant through speed post Ex.PW1/5, copy of legal notice Ex.PW1/6 and certificate U/s 63 of BSA in order to prove the computer generated documents.
50. He has been cross-examined extensively on the issue of purchase order, delivery of the goods, encashment of cheque of Rs.5 lakhs. In the present case, the defendant has denied the supply of goods vide invoices dated 04.04.2020, 09.04.2020, 21.04.2020, 27.04.2020 (2 bills), 18.07.2020 and 22.07.2020 alleging them false and fabricated with the contention that the goods against these invoices were never supplied to the defendant with the defense that there is proper procedure followed by the defendant upon receiving the goods which includes signing and providing the stamped copy to the delivery person upon the receipt of the goods in addition to an inward entry which is made in the Inward Register to keep track of materials ordered and received. The other defense of the defendant is that since none of the above said invoices bear signature of the defendant or its authorized person or any acknowledgment on behalf of the defendant, those invoices are false and fabricated. The third defense of the defendant is that all the purchase orders were always in writing and no oral purchase order was ever placed. Last defense is that the cheque of Rs.5 CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 26/33 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.12 16:23:38 +0530 lakhs was the security cheque and was wrongly encashed.
51. As per admission/denial affidavit filed on behalf of the defendant, the defendant has denied all the documents including the purchase order and therefore, it was for the defendant to produce the purchase order which was placed by defendant in writing for the purchase of the goods. As a matter of fact, even no ledger account has been filed or proved on record on behalf of the defendant in order to rebut the ledger entry made in the ledger account of the plaintiff.
52. Had there been regular purchase order in writing, it was for the defendant to prove this fact in order to disprove the purchase order placed on record by the plaintiff vide Ex.PW1/1 (colly).
53. According to the plaintiff, apart from Ex.PW1/1, there were other purchase orders which were placed telephonically and this fact was reiterated by PW1 in his cross-
examination. However, this witness has not been confronted with any other purchase order placed on behalf of the defendant nor there is any denial in any form including the suggestion that no such telephonic purchase orders were placed on behalf of the defendant. Even no suggestion has been given that the purchase order Ex.PW1/1 is forged and fabricated. Thus, it appears that the defense taken by the defendant regarding the genuineness of purchase orders Ex.PW1/1 as well as telephonic purchase orders as afterthought without having any substance.
54. In the entire cross-examination of PW1, except the CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 27/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.01.12 Sharma 16:23:44 +0530 issue of delivery of goods no cross-examination of PW1 has been done on the issue of genuineness of invoices Ex.PW1/2 (colly) or the ledger account Ex.PW1/3 or the whatsapp conversation Ex.PW1/4 (colly) or sending of the statement of account Ex.PW1/5 and about the legal notice Ex.PW1/6.
55. Coming to the issue of delivery of the goods, this witness PW1 has been cross-examined extensively. In his cross- examination, PW1 has testified that he has not placed on record the copies of receipts issued to him by the concerned transporter or any receipt of toll plaza but has denied the suggestion that since there is no receipt regarding the sending of the goods through transport, the goods were never supplied to the defendant.
56. In the present case, in order to rebut the claim of the plaintiff of supply of the goods against invoices Ex.PW1/2 (colly), the DW1 has relied upon the copy of Inward Register Ex.DW1/2. Perusal of Ex.DW1/2 makes it clear that even the first entry on first page bearing entry no.69A does not bear the sign of security officer which is a regular feature in other entries made. This register was maintained by the persons on security duty but he was never examined as a witness in order to prove the documents Ex.DW1/2. In her cross-examination, DW1 has admitted that this document is internal document of the defendant which was never shared with the plaintiff and it remained in the exclusive possession of the defendant with no knowledge of the same to the plaintiff. Therefore, the genuineness of this document itself becomes doubtful as if there was such entry being made, CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 28/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.12 16:23:51 +0530 this document should have been shared when the dispute arises between the parties regarding the supply and payment of the goods. Further, DW1 herself has admitted that despite having dispute regarding the seven invoices Ex.PW1/2 (colly), the payments were being made and in this context the ledger account of the parties becomes relevant.
57. Admittedly, defendant has not filed any ledger account on record.
58. Perusal of the ledger account of the plaintiff, Ex.PW1/5 (Colly), makes it clear that it pertains to the invoices from 04.04.2020 till 22.04.2021 for about 29 invoices raised on behalf of the plaintiff upon the defendant with the opening balance of Rs.6,71,883/- and payments made. In the present case, as per ledger account Ex.PW1/5 (colly), the remaining balance after payment was Rs.16,96,678/- and out of that the amount of Rs.5 lakhs was deducted after encashment of alleged security cheque on 17.06.2021. The defendant had ample time to object the encashment of security cheque as the present suit was filed in the year 2024 i.e. after about three years of the alleged encashment, there is nothing on record to suggest that the defendant has ever objected the encashment of said cheque. Though according to the defendant the entire payment was made to the plaintiff as per their ledger account and the plaintiff has wrongly encashed the cheque of Rs.5 lakhs and thus, according to the defendant it was over and above amount of the balance amount between the parties after all the transactions. This defense of the defendant does not appear to be probable as no CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 29/33 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.01.12 Sharma 16:23:57 +0530 one would make payment of the extra amount specially in case of a company having audited account.
59. In the present case, the defendant has never replied to the legal notice nor ever raised any such objection in the whatsapp conversation. Even if the claim of the defendant for the sake of arguments is accepted to be correct that there was no supply against the invoices disputed by the defendant, the ledger account relied upon by the plaintiff does not correspondence the claim of the defendant and there appears to be payments over and above the above said Rs.5 lakhs against the invoices which have not been disputed on behalf of the defendant inasmuch as a sum of more than Rs.13 lakhs have been paid over and above the goods received barring the disputed supply of the goods against the invoices as discussed herein-above. Thus, defense of the defendant in the absence of any ledger account appears to be without any merit regarding the non-supply of the goods against the disputed invoices as there is no explanation for payment over above the disputed invoices.
60. Further, even DW1 in her cross-examination has failed to explain as to which invoices are disputed stating that she does not remember and she had claimed that all the payments were already made and this was informed to the plaintiff vide email dated 12.09.2023. When she was again confronted with the email that there is no dispute regarding invoices in the said email, she did not give any reply but has testified that as per the ledger maintained by the defendant's account department, all the payments are cleared. Thus, it was incumbent upon the defendant CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 30/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.12 16:24:03 +0530 to produce and prove the said ledger account which has never seen the light of the day in the present matter.
61. When the witness DW1 was cross-examined regarding the whatsapp conversation for outstanding dues, she has denied the same. However, her denial is against the record. Perusal of the whatsapp conversation makes it clear that there is share of e-way bills, regarding the payment and even there is conversation that the accounts department are tallying the claim of the plaintiff and discussion regarding the balance amount of Rs.12 lakhs.
62. When DW1 was cross-examined regarding the supply of goods to the satisfaction of the defendant company, she has taken a fresh defense that there were also some quality issue regarding the goods but neither in the pleadings nor in any of the documents it was ever communicated to the plaintiff regarding the quality issue.
63. In her further cross-examination, the DW1 has denied that the defendant has never raised any dispute about the seven invoices but when she was confronted with the said invoices from the record, after having gone through, she has stated that she cannot admit or deny that these invoices are being reflected under the corresponding GSTR-2B without consulting the accounts department. She has further testified that it is a matter of record that defendant used to claim input tax credit corresponding to the goods supplied under the cover of respective invoices under its GSTR-3B. Thus, from her own CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 31/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.12 16:24:09 +0530 testimony, the defendant has failed to clear that no input credit was ever taken against the said invoices. Had there been no supply of the goods, the defendant would have readily filed on record the GSTR as well as ledger account maintained by the Accounts department. There is no cross-examination of PW1 in this regard that against the said invoices, no GST was deposited by the plaintiff or no credit input was taken by the defendant. DW1 has further admitted that in the whatsapp conversation the defendant assured the plaintiff to make the payment.
65. Thus, from the above discussion, it can be safely held that defendant has failed to prove its case on preponderance of probability. Accordingly, the plaintiff is held entitled to payment of amount of Rs.11,96,678/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Eight only). This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.ISSUE NO. 3
Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest. If so, at what rate and for which period? (OPP)
66. The plaintiff has prayed for grant of pendent lite and future interest @ 24% per annum on the suit amount from the date of respective due payments of each invoice till its realization. Although as per invoices Ex.PW1/2 (colly) plaintiff was entitled to charge interest @ 24% per annum if payment was not received on due date, the interest claimed by plaintiff, however, appears to be on higher side considering the prevailing CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 32/33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.01.12 16:24:15 +0530 reporate for lending money as fixed by the RBI. Therefore, the ends of justice would be met if the plaintiff be awarded simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of last payment i.e. 17.06.2021 till the realization of the decreetal amount.
R E L I E F:-
67. In view of the above, the suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.11,96,678/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Eight only) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of last payment i.e. 17.06.2021 till the realization of the decreetal amount.
68. Plaintiff is also held entitled to the costs of the suit and additionally the amount spent by the plaintiff in pre- institution mediation proceedings.
69. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
70. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Dictated and announced Kumar Kumar Sharma Date:
in the open Court on Sharma 2026.01.12
12th January, 2026. 16:24:22 +0530
(DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-03
Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
CS (COMM) No.1270/2024 Page 33/33