Delhi District Court
Madhuri Devi vs Sanjay on 24 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AAKASH SHARMA: CIVIL JUDGE -02
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CS SCJ No. 2375/21
In the matter of :-
MS. MADHURI DEVI
Sole Proprietor of:
M/s Zenith Express,
Add: 58/5, Near Chaturbhuj Hosptial, Deepak Vihar,
Opposite C-644, Sector-57, Noida, UP-201301,
Through Sh. Dhirender Kumar Choudhary,
SPA Holder of the plaintiff,
Mobile No.7678314031,
E-mail: [email protected]
.... Plaintiff
VERSUS
MR. SANJAY,
Proprietor of M/s Aggarwal Agencies,
Add: 164, Jaipuria Mill Compound,
Opposite Amba Cinema, Clock Tower,
Delhi-110007,
Mobile No. 9868266624
.... Defendant No.1
MR. SOUMYASHREE CHATERJEE
Proprietor of SushreeBoutique,
Add: 4RA, 2/1, Purbanchal-II,
Salt Lake, Kolkata, West Bengal,
Mobile No. 9958144883
.... Defendant No.2
Date of Institution: 26.10.2021
Date of reserving the judgment: 03.12.2025
Date of Judgment: 24.12.2025
Digitally
signed by
AAKASH
CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 1/27
AAKASH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24
17:23:16
+0530
CONTESTED JUDGMENT
(Suit under Order 37 C.P.C. for recovery of amount Rs. 2,00,000/- with
pendente-lite & future interest)
1.This suit has been filed by the plaintiff, Ms. Madhuri Devi against the defendant no.1 Mr. Sanjay Proprietor of M/s Aggarwal Agencies); and defendant no.2 Mr. Soumyashree Chaterjee (Proprietor of SushreeBoutique) seeking:- (a) A decree for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants; (b) Award interest pendente-lite and future interest @18% per annum in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants; (c) Award costs of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
1.2 The brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff is carrying on her business in the name and style of M/s Zenith Express from the address mentioned in the memo of parties. That the present suit is being filed by the plaintiff through her husband, Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary in whose favour, the plaintiff has executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA). That SPA Holder of the plaintiff is well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the present case.
1.3 That the plaintiff is in the business of manufacturing of trading garments/T-shirts, bags and allied accessories etc. That the plaintiff has been in the said business since long and has earned a good repute in the business due to quality products. That upon knowing the goodwill of the Digitally signed by CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 2/27 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 17:23:24 +0530 plaintiff in the manufacturing of aforesaid products, defendant no. 2 approached the plaintiff for purchase of the said goods/products as per his requirements. That after negotiating and agreeing regarding the material and terms and conditions of payment of the plaintiff, defendant no. 2 placed orders upon the plaintiff from time to time since the beginning of December, 2020. That the said products were dispatched and delivered by the plaintiff as per the specifications given by defendant no. 2 at the destination required by defendant no. 2 from time to time through different invoices. That the said products were received by defendant no. 2/consignee of defendant no. 2 unto the entire satisfaction without any complaint of whatsoever nature.
1.4 It is further submitted that defendant no. 2 was liable to make payment of the material purchased from the plaintiff within 7 days (one week) from the date of receiving the respective material/product, however, defendant no. 2 delayed the payment of the said product/material on the pretext of financial constraint. That upon persistent persuasion by the plaintiff for making payment of the due amounts, defendant no. 1, in discharge of liability of defendant no. 2, issued two cheques bearing Nos.
000708 and 000709 both dated 01.01.2021 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each, both drawn on IDBI Bank, branch at Clock Tower, G.T.K. Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007 from current account No. 158810200004633 maintained by defendant no. 1 in the name of his firm M/s Aggarwal Agencies. That defendant no. 1 is close friend of defendant no. 2. That at the time of issuance of the said cheques, the defendant no. 1 as well as Digitally signed by CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 3/27 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 17:23:27 +0530 defendant no. 2 represented and assured to the plaintiff that the said cheques shall be duly honoured on presentation and upon the said assurance and representation of defendants the plaintiff accepted the said cheques in good faith. That on the assurance given by defendants about the encashment of the above said cheques, the plaintiff presented the said cheques with her bankers i.e. ICICI Bank Ltd. for encashment but to the utter shock and dismay of the plaintiff, the same were returned to the plaintiff by her bankers with the remarks, "Account Closed" vide respective return memos dated 25.03.2021. That the plaintiff informed defendants about the dishonour of the said cheques and demanded the amount of the said cheques and other due payments but defendants did not pay any heed to the demand of the plaintiff.
1.5 It is further submitted that from the aforesaid conduct of defendants, it is abundantly clear that defendants have been in collusion and connivance with each other and defendant no. 1 issued the said cheques towards discharge of the liability of defendant no. 2 in active collusion with defendant no. 2 with the intention to not to honour the said cheques. That under the circumstances the plaintiff got served a legal notice dated 12.04.2021 upon the defendants thereby calling upon the defendants to tender a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- being the amount of aforesaid dishonoured cheques. That it was further called upon the defendants that since defendant No. 2 has delayed the outstanding payment of the plaintiff beyond agreed time, therefore defendant no. 2 is liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the entire outstanding amount until realization, as defendants Digitally signed by AAKASH CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 4/27 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 17:23:31 +0530 have utilized the money of the plaintiff for their personal requirements/gains, within 15 days from the receipt of the legal notice together with a sum of Rs.11,000/- towards charges for the legal notice within 15 days of receipt of this legal notice failing which the plaintiff shall be constrained to take legal recourse u/s 138 of NI Act as well as under civil recovery laws for recovery of the entire outstanding dues along with interest through the court of competent jurisdiction entirely at the risk, cost and consequences of the defendants.
1.6 That the said legal notice was duly served upon the defendants through speed post. That however, the defendants neither complied with the same nor replied the said legal notice in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this suit. That initially the plaintiff intended to file a complaint case u/s 138 NI Act against the defendants, however, due to the pandemic of Covid-19 during the year 2020 and 2021 since the courts were not functioning regularly and also in the meantime, the counsel for the plaintiff went to his native place, Azamgarh in Uttar Pradesh, therefore, the complaint u/s 138 NI Act could not be filed. That the present suit pertains to commercial transaction. However, since the amount of suit is less than Rs.3 lakh, therefore, the suit is being filed directly before this Court. That since the defendants failed to make the payment of the aforesaid dishonored cheques' amount as per their promise, therefore, the defendants are liable to pay interest @18% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of cheques till realization. However, the plaintiff is restricting her claim towards interest only to the extent of pendente-lite and future interest on the Digitally signed by AAKASH CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 5/27 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 17:23:35 +0530 principal amount till realization or at the rate as deemed fit and proper by this Court. That the cause of action to file the present suit firstly arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants firstly when the defendant no. 2 approached the plaintiff and placed various orders for purchase of the material/garments being manufactured by the plaintiff. The cause of action further arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants when the defendant no. 2 received the said material without any complaint or objection. The cause of action further arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants on various days and dates when the plaintiff demanded her due payments from the defendants but the defendant no. 2 kept on delaying the same. The cause of action further arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants when the defendant No. 1, in discharge of liability of defendant no. 2, issued two cheques bearing Nos. 000708 and 000709 both dated 01.01.2021 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each, both drawn on IDBI Bank, branch at Clock Tower, G.T.K. Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007 in discharge of liability of the defendant no. 2 with the assurance that the said cheques shall be duly honoured on presentation and upon the said assurance and representation of defendants the plaintiff accepted the said cheques in good faith. The cause of action further arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants when the said cheques were dishonoured by the bankers of defendant no. 1 and plaintiff received the information to this effect vide respective return memos dated 25.03.2021. The cause of action further arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants when the plaintiff informed defendants about the dishonour of the said cheques and demanded the amount of the said Digitally signed by CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 6/27 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 17:23:39 +0530 cheques and other due payments but defendants did not pay any heed to the demand of the plaintiff. The cause of action further arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants when the plaintiff got served the legal notice dated 12.04.2021 upon the defendants which was duly served upon the defendants but the same fell to the deaf ears of the defendants. Hence, the cause of action is still subsisting and continuing. That the present suit is being filed on the basis of dishonour of instruments i.e. cheques in question which comes under the purview and provisions of Order 37 of CPC. No relief which does not fall within the ambit of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been claimed in the suit. That the defendant no. 1, who issued the cheques, subject matter of the present suit is residing and working for gain in Central District of Delhi. That Central District is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present suit. That the value of the suit for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction for the relief of recovery is fixed at Rs.2,00,000/- upon which the requisite Court fee of Rs.4,296/- has been paid and annexed with the plaint. That the present suit is being filed within the prescribed period of limitation under the law. Hence, it is prayed that a decree for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- with pendente-lite and future interest @18% per annum till the date of actual realization be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants no.1 and 2. Cost of the suit is also prayed.
AAKASH SHARMA CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 7/27 Digitally signed by AAKASH SHARMA Date: 2025.12.24 17:23:43 +0530 DEFENDANTS' VERSION
2. Summons were issued to the defendants under the prescribed proforma under Order 37 of C.P.C. vide order dated 26.10.2021. Thereafter Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 appeared on 19.01.2022. Affidavit regarding appearance under Order 37 Rule 3 C.P.C. was filed on 21.12.2021 on behalf of the defendant no.1 and the same was taken on record on 19.01.2022. Affidavit regarding appearance under Order 37 Rule 3 of C.P.C. was filed on behalf of defendant no.2 on 21.01.2022 as observed in the order dated 23.03.2022. Thereafter, summons for judgment were issued to the defendants no.1 and 2 returnable for 25.05.2022. Thereafter, leave to defend applications were filed on behalf of defendant no.1 on 17.05.2022 and defendant no.2 on 10.05.2022, which were allowed and defendants no.1 and 2 were granted leave to defend and were directed to file written statement vide order dated 20.02.2023. Written statements were filed on behalf of defendants no.1 and 2 respectively as observed in the order dated 19.04.2023.
2.1 In written statement, it is submitted on behalf of defendant no.1 that the defendant no.1 is sole proprietor of M/s Aggarwal Agencies, having its office at 164, Jaipuria Mill Compound, Opposite Amba Cinema, Clock Tower, Delhi-110007. That all the contents averred by the Plaintiff in the present suit are vehemently and fervently denied by the defendant no.1. That there is no iota of truth in the allegations averred by the plaintiff in the suit. That the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit before this Court. That the plaintiff has not substantiated her allegations with the Digitally signed by CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 8/27 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 17:23:47 +0530 support of relevant documents. That the plaintiff has instituted the present suit before this Court with an intention to mislead this Court and with a malafide intention to claim extraneous reliefs from this Court. That the present suit is a vexatious suit filed by the plaintiff with an intention to harass the defendant no.1. That defendant no.1 only after institution of the present suit came to know that Ms. Madhuri Devi is the proprietor of M/s Zenith Express. That Sh. Dharmendra Kumar Choudhary always represented himself as the proprietor of M/s Zenith Express and is engaged in the business of services. That the present suit filed by the plaintiff with malafide motive to extort money from answering defendant no.1 and as such merits rejection. That the plaintiff has failed to show on record any association with the defendant no.1 and with defendant no. 2. That the Tax Invoice relied upon by the plaintiff does not pertain to the defendant no.1. That further, the sub total of Rs. 44,474/- mentioned in the Tax Invoice is nowhere close to the amount sought for recovery. That also, the said bill does not pertains to defendant no.1. That the tax invoice is computer generated and is not supported by Affidavit u/s Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and in absence thereof, its authenticity cannot be believed. That at any stage/point of time, neither defendant no.2 asked the defendant no.1 to stood as his guarantor, nor, defendant no.1 agreed to discharge the legal liability of defendant no.2 at any point of time. That there is no agreement placed on record by the plaintiff from where it is learnt that defendant no.1 will discharge the liability of defendant no.2. Further defendant no.1 is not a close friend of defendant no.2 as alleged in the plaint. That further, the SPA relied upon by the plaintiff does not bear Digitally signed by AAKASH CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 9/27 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 17:23:51 +0530 the signature of the witnesses and in absence thereof, it cast a cloud of doubt respect to genuineness, authenticity and verity and attestation of the document. That further, the plaintiff has willfully and intentionally deposed falsely on oath that they are engaged in the business of manufacturing of trading garments/T-Shirts, bags and allied accessories and has been in the said business since long and has earned a good repute in the business due to the quality products. That as a matter of fact, the plaintiff is the proprietor of M/s Zenith Express having its office at 58/5 Near Chaturbhuj Hospital, Deepak Vihar Khora Opp.-C 644 Sector 57 Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-20130 engaged in the business in nature of "supplier of services" and not in the business of "manufacturing of trading garment /T- Shirts, bags and allied accessories. That the nature of core business of activity of the plaintiff's firm is very well described and displayed in the website of GST portal https://services.gst.gov.in/services/searchtp and can easily be searched by entering GST number of the plaintiff's firm. That the GST number of the plaintiff's firm is very well mentioned in the invoice annexed with the plaint at page no. 20 of the suit. That further, the plaintiff has failed to prove and show by bringing any document on record which well suggests/proves that the defendant no.1 at any point of time, agreed to discharge the liability of defendant no.2 and had issued two cheques ("cheques in question"). That as a matter of fact, the cheques in question has been misused by the plaintiff to serve her own purpose. That the suit of the plaintiff is misconceived and unsustainable as there is no cause of action in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant and therefore the suit of the plaintiff and is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 Digitally signed by CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 10/27 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 17:23:55 +0530 CPC. That the plaintiff has concealed true and material facts from this Court and therefore, the present suit is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. That Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary, husband of the plaintiff, always used to represent himself as the proprietor of M/s Zenith Express and it is only during the lis, that the defendant no.1 came to know that the plaintiff is the sole proprietor of M/s Zenith Express and not Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary. That the defendant no. 1 is a proprietor of M/s Aggarwal Agencies. The defendant no.1 is engaged in the business of sales, purchase and distribution of various Stationery items viz Note books, registers, and gift articles etc. That Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary and defendant no.1 has business relations. That the defendant no.1 used to send the goods viz. Stationary products through Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary's transportation services, i.e. M/s Zenith Express to their vendors. It was during the Covid-19 pandemic when the Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary approached the defendant no.1 in the month of November 2020 and expressed dire need of money for business purpose and asked for a friendly loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the defendant no.1. That considering the good relations with Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary and his dire need, the defendant no.1 agreed to financially help Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary with Rs. 2,00,000/- subject to the condition that both the parties will execute a loan agreement. That on 05.01.2021, the defendant no.1 issued two cheques bearing no. 000708 and 000709 for Rs. 1,00,000/- (each) both dated 01.01.2021 and handed over to Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary and requested to execute the loan agreement but the Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary on one pretext or other ignored the request of Digitally signed by CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 11/27 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 17:23:59 +0530 the defendant no.1 and assured him that he will execute the loan agreement in later course of time. That on 16/17.01.2021, the defendant no.1 had closed his Current Account with IDBI Bank, Clock Tower, Branch and informed about the same to Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary and requested not to deposit the above mentioned cheques through WhatsApp Communication. That despite being informed well in advance and just before expiration of the said cheques, to the utter surprise and shock of the defendant no.1, the Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary presented the said cheques on 28.03.2021. That the allegations and contentions raised by the plaintiff in her plaint are false, bogus, baseless and concocted. That the tax invoice relied upon by the plaintiff at page no. 20 of her plaint is a computer generated document and is nowhere related to sale of garments. That a bare perusal of the document shows it's a Transport Bill and the amount mentioned in the bill stands nowhere in comparison with the cheque in question.
2.2 That the SPA relied upon by the plaintiff does not bear the signature of the witnesses and in absence thereof, it cast a cloud of doubt respect to genuineness, authenticity and verity and attestation of the document. That since the said SPA executed by the plaintiff in favour of Shri Dhirendra Kumar Chaudhary does not bear the signature of witness/s, Shri Dhirendra Kumar Chaudhary cannot be considered as a power of attorney holder of Mrs. Madhuri Devi. It is denied that the plaintiff is in the business of the manufacturing of trading garments, T-shirts, bags and allied accessories. It is denied that the plaintiff has been in the said business since Digitally signed by CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 12/27 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 17:24:03 +0530 long and has earned a good repute in the business due to quality products. That as matter of fact, the plaintiff is the proprietor of M/s zenith express having its office at 58/5, Near Chaturbhuj Hospital, Deepak Vihar Khora Opp-C 644 Sector 57 Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, 20130 and is engaged in the business in nature of "supplier of services" and not in the business of "manufacturing of trading garment/t-shirts, bags and allied accessories. It is denied that at the time of issuance of the said cheques, the defendant no. 1 as well as defendant no. 2 represented and assured to the plaintiff that the said cheques shall be duly honoured on presentation upon the said assurance and representation of defendants the plaintiff accepted the said cheques. It is denied that on the assurance given by the defendant about the encashment of the cheques in question, the plaintiff presented the said cheques with her banker, i.e. ICICI Bank Ltd. for encashment. It is prayed that the suit be dismissed.
2.3 In written statement, it is submitted on behalf of defendant no.2 that the present suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
That the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant no.2 and the same is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. That the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit. That the present suit has been filed with the malafide intention to extract money illegally from the defendant no.2. That the suit is bad for misjoinder of the necessary party as defendant no.2 has been unnecessarily impleaded as a defendant in the present suit only with a motive to extract money from him. That the contents of the plaint are wrong and denied. That it is denied that the Digitally signed by CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 13/27 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 17:24:07 +0530 plaintiff is carrying on business in the name and style of M/s Zenith Express from the address stated in the plaint. That it is also denied that the plaintiff has executed SPA in favour of her husband. It is also denied that the plaintiff SPA is well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. That the SPA has not been legally executed and as such the SPA has no locus standi to present the suit. It is denied that the plaintiff is in the business of manufacturing and trading garments/t-shirts, bags and allied accessories etc. That it is denied that the plaintiff has been in the said business since long and earn good reputation in the business. It is also denied that the defendant no.2 has approached the plaintiff for purchase of the goods and products of the plaintiff. It is denied that after negotiating and agreeing on the terms and conditions of the payment, the defendant no.2 placed the order upon the plaintiff time to time since beginning of December, 2020. That the defendant no.2 is neither the proprietor of SushreeBoutique nor negotiated with the plaintiff regarding any business. That the defendant no.2 had not agreed or any terms and conditions for supply of materials or for the payments as alleged. That there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant no.2. That the suit of the plaintiff is baseless against the defendant no.2. It is denied that the products were dispatched and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant no.2. It is denied that the defendant no.2 had given any specifications for the product and destination for supply. That the defendant no.2 never approached the plaintiff for purchase of any of its products and there was no negotiation between the plaintiff and the defendant no.2. That the plaintiff has not delivered any item to the defendant no.2. That the defendant no.2 never Digitally signed by AAKASH CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 14/27 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 17:24:11 +0530 required or directed the plaintiff to deliver its products to the defendant no.2 or at any destination as alleged. That the bills and invoices as alleged are forged, fictitious and manipulated. That the plaintiff never sent any bill or invoice to the defendant no.2 pertaining to the alleged supply. That it is denied that the products were received by the defendant no.2/consignee of the defendant no.2 and upon entire satisfaction without any complaint. That the defendant no.2 did not receive any consignment from the plaintiff. That the alleged statement of account of the defendant no.2 is false and fabricated. That the clothes and bags were sold in pieces and not by weight. That the alleged invoice/statement of account showing the material supplied by weight for Rs.37,690/- + 18% GST total sum of Rs.44,474/- which also proves that the suit against the defendant no.2 is false. It is denied that the defendant no.2 is liable to make the payment to the plaintiff at any time. That the defendant no.2 has not purchased or received any material from the plaintiff and as such the question of delay in payment or pretext does not arise. It is denied that the persistent persuasion by the plaintiff for making the payment, the defendant no.1 in discharge of liability of defendant no.2 issued alleged two cheques. That the defendant no.2 never instructed or requested the defendant no.1 to issue any cheque to the plaintiff on his behalf. That the defendant no.2 is not aware of issuance of cheques no. 000708 and 000709 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each drawn on IDBI Bank. That the defendant no.2 is not aware of the issuance of the alleged cheques by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff. That it is denied that the defendant no.2 had made any representation and given any alleged assurance to the plaintiff that the alleged cheques would be honoured on Digitally signed by AAKASH CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 15/27 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 17:24:15 +0530 presentation. It is wrong and denied that the defendant no.2 had given any assurance about the encashment of the alleged cheques. It is denied that the plaintiff presented the said cheques with her banker ICICI Bank Ltd. and the same were returned with the remarks as alleged. It is wrong and denied that the plaintiff informed the defendant no.2 about the dishonour of the said cheques as alleged. That the defendant no.2 is not liable to make any payment to the plaintiff as alleged. It is wrong and denied that the defendants are in collusion and connivance with each other. That the defendant no.2 has not received any legal notice from the plaintiff. It is further wrong and denied that the defendant no.2 is delaying the outstanding payment and liable to pay the interest @18% p.a. and further liable to pay the alleged notice charges. That the defendant no.2 is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff and as such the suit against the defendant no.2 is false and is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. That suit of the plaintiff qua defendant no.2 be dismissed with cost.
3. Replications filed by the plaintiff to the written statements filed on behalf of the defendants no.1 and 2 wherein the plaintiff has denied all the averments made in the written statement, and reiterated those made in the plaint.
4. From the pleadings of the parties i.e. plaint, written statement and replication, the following issue was framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 19.04.2023:-
i) Whether the SPA filed by the plaintiff is correct in form and Digitally signed by AAKASH CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 16/27 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 17:24:18 +0530 as per law ? OPD-1
ii) Whether there is any privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 ? OPD-1
iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.2,00,000/-
along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum, as prayed for ? OPP
iv) Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
5. In support of her case, the plaintiff got examined Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary as PW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. PW-1 relied upon the following documents:-
i) Ex.PW1/1 is the SPA executed by the plaintiff in favour of the deponent.
ii) Ex.PW1/2 (Colly.) are the computer generated tax invoices.
iii) Ex.PW1/3 (Colly.) is the computer generated statement of account of defendant No. 2 maintained by the plaintiff.
iv) Ex.PW1/4 is the Certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
v) Ex.PW1/5 & Ex.PW1/6 are the dishonoured cheques.
vi) Ex.PW1/7 and Ex.PW1/8 are the returning memos.
vii) Ex.PW1/9 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 12.04.2021.
viii) Ex.PW1/10 and Ex.PW1/11 are the Speed Post and Courier Digitally signed by AAKASH CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 17/27 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 17:24:23 +0530 receipts.
PW-1 was cross-examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 and 2. During cross-examination of PW-1, PW-1 was confronted with document Ex.PW1/DX1 i.e. printout of Whatsapp chat filed on behalf of defendant no.1.
5.1 In support of its case, the plaintiff got examined Sh. Himanshu Sharma, Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd, Vasundhara Enclave, New Delhi who deposed that he was the summoned witness and had brought the summoned record i.e. the statement of account no.164005000879 in the name of M/s Zenith Express, regarding the payments transferred by SushreeBoutique for the period December, 2020 to March, 2021. The attested copy of the same was exhibited as Ex.PW2/1 (Colly.9 pages).
Cross-examination of PW-2 by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 was treated as nil despite opportunity given, whereas, PW-2 was cross- examined by the Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
6. In support of its case, the defendant no.1 Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal got examined himself as DW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A. DW-1 relied upon the following documents:-
i) Ex.DW1/1 is the computer generated copy of the GST Tax Payer Search result.
Digitally signed by AAKASH CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 18/27 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 17:24:28 +0530
ii) Ex.DW1/2 (Colly. 3 pages) is the copy of the WhatsApp communication (which had already been exhibited as Ex.PW1/DX-1).
iii) Ex.DW1/3 is the Certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
DW-1 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff at length.
6.1 In support of its case, the defendant no.2 Sh. Soumyashree Chatterjee got examined himself as DW-2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW2/A. DW-2 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff at length. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff put the document Ex.DW2/B to the witness which was an affidavit filed by defendant no.2 alongwith his reply to the application under Section 151 C.P.C. for bringing on record additional documents.
FINDINGS
7. I have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and carefully perused the record. Issue as stated hereunder is discussed hereafter: -
i) Whether the SPA filed by the plaintiff is correct in form and as per law ? OPD-1 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 19/27 SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 17:24:32 +0530
ii) Whether there is any privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 ? OPD-1
iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.2,00,000/-
along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum, as prayed for ? OPP
iv) Relief.
Issue No.1
8. The onus of proving issue no.1 lies upon the defendant no.1. It has been contended on behalf of the defendant no.1 that the SPA i.e. the Special Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of her husband Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary, SPA Holder is neither valid nor in accordance with law as same has not been witnessed/attested by any witnesses and therefore is neither genuine nor authenticated/attested as per law. I have carefully considered the SPA i.e. Ex.PW1/1. The same bears the signatures of the plaintiff and the signatures of the SPA Holder as well as the stamp and signatures of the Sh. Satya Kumar, Notary Public, Delhi (India) bearing registration no.17804. The SPA Ex.PW1/1 has been proved by PW-1 in his evidence. The SPA authorizes the SPA Holder who is the husband of the plaintiff as her attorney and on her behalf to do the acts, deeds and things w.r.t. the present recovery suit as comprised therein. It is pertinent to observe that the SPA Ex.PW1/1 is executed for a specific purpose i.e. empowering the SPA Holder to represent and act for the plaintiff on her behalf w.r.t. the present recovery suit. Under Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, Court shall presume that every document Digitally signed by CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 20/27 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 17:24:35 +0530 purporting to be a power of attorney and to have been executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public was so executed and authenticated. This is a rebuttable presumption of law. In the opinion of this Court, the defendant no.1 has failed to rebut the presumption of law that the said SPA Ex.PW1/1 was validly executed and authenticated by the concerned Notary Public. The fact that the SPA Ex.PW1/1 was not attested by any witness shall not in the opinion of this Court invalidate the SPA as same does not concern transfer of any property. It is well settled that only in cases of transfer of property, there is requirement of compulsory attestation by two or more witnesses as per Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is nothing to suggest that the SPA filed by the plaintiff is incorrect or not in accordance with law. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1.
Issue No.2
9. The onus of proving issue no.2 lies upon the defendant no.1. It has been contended on behalf of the defendant no.1 that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1. In support of this contention, the defendant no.1 entered into the witness box and deposed that neither the defendant no.2 asked the defendant no.1 to stand as his guarantor nor the defendant no.1 agreed to discharge the legal liability of defendant no.2 at any point of time. Defendant no.1 deposed that plaintiff had not placed on record any agreement whereby defendant no.1 agreed to discharge the liability of defendant no.2. Defendant no.1 further deposed that the cheques in question had been misused by the plaintiff to serve his Digitally signed by AAKASH CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 21/27 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 17:24:39 +0530 own purpose. Defendant no.1 deposed that Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary approached the defendant no.1 in November, 2020 and requested for friendly loan of Rs.2,00,000/- and considering their good relations, the defendant no.1 agreed to financially help Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary with Rs.2,00,000/- by issuing the two cheques in question for Rs.1,00,000/- each, both dated 01.01.2021 to Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary subject to the condition that both parties will executed a loan agreement but Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary ignored the request and gave assurance that he will execute the loan agreement at later course of time. That on 16/17.01.2021, the defendant no.1 had closed his bank account and informed Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary through whatsapp communication about the same and requested not to deposit the cheques in question. That the whatsapp communication was Ex.DW1/2 and Certificate under Section 65-B I.E.A. was Ex.DW1/3. That despite informing Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary well in advance, he presented the cheques in question just before their expiration. That there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and that defendant no.1 is not a close friend of defendant no.2 as alleged in the plaint. I have carefully considered the evidence of defendant no.1. The testimony of the defendant no.1 does not inspire confidence. Defendant no.1 admitted during cross- examination that he had business relation with the plaintiff firm about one year prior to Covid, however, he again said that it was with Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary and not the plaintiff firm. Defendant no.1 denied acting as introducer of defendant no.2 to Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary or that he represented to the plaintiff firm to start business relations with the Digitally signed by AAKASH CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 22/27 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 17:24:43 +0530 defendant no.2 and assured that proper payments shall be realized. Defendant no.1 admitted issuing the two cheques in question to the plaintiff firm of Rs.1,00,000/- each respectively but contended that they were given to extend loan. The same does not inspire confidence as no one extends loan by way of cheques without entering into any loan agreement. The defence of the defendant no.1 defies common sense as no prudent person would issue cheques to extend loan without any concomitant loan agreement. The contention of the defendant no.1 that he telephonically apprised Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary and not by way of whatsapp to execute the loan agreement within 2-3 days of issuing the cheques is not believable. Defendant no.1 had not brought on record any call logs to show that he telephonically apprised Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary to execute the loan agreement within 2-3 days of issuing the cheques in question. Defendant no.1 even had not written any letter/issued notice to Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary demanding execution of loan agreement. Defendant no.1 admitted that the cheques in question had not been issued in the name of Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary. Defendant no.1 voluntarily deposed that Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary had asked the cheques to be issued in the firm name. Again, this is scarcely believable as no prudent person would advance loan by way of cheques to some third person firm upon the request of the borrower. Defendant no.1 claimed that he had asked for execution of a loan agreement after about 2-3 days of issuing the cheques in question but admitted that he closed his bank account maintained at IDBI Bank bearing account no. 1588102000004633 in the first week of January, 2021 after about 2-3 days of issuance of the Digitally signed by AAKASH CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 23/27 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 17:24:47 +0530 cheques in question and that he had closed this account due to RBI Guidelines mandating OD Facility in one bank only. In the opinion of this Court, this conduct of defendant no.1 is not the conduct of a bonafide person. On one hand, defendant no.1 makes unsubstantiated claim that after 2-3 days of issuance of the cheques in question, he requested Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary to execute the loan agreement but on the other hand, defendant no.1 was simultaneously closing his bank account through which he issued the cheques in question. On the other hand, PW-1 proved in his evidence that the defendant no.1 had issued the cheques in question to discharge the liability of the defendant no.2 qua the unpaid tax invoices Ex.PW1/2 (Colly). Defendant no.1 admitted that he knew defendant no.2 but that he was not aware if defendant no.2 was the proprietor of SushreeBoutique. Even defendant no.2 admitted knowing the defendant no.1 and its proprietorship since a long time as an acquaintance. In the opinion of this Court, the defendant no.1 has not managed to prove that the plaintiff proprietorship firm has no privity of contract with defendant no.1 qua the business transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant no.2 and that the defendant no.1 issued the cheques in question to discharge the legally enforceable liability of defendant no.2. The testimony of defendant no.1 is unbelievable and riddled with falsehoods. The defence of the defendant no.1 qua privity of contract and that the cheques in question were issued to advance a loan to Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary cannot be accepted by any prudent person in view of the evidence available on record. Accordingly, issue no.2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1.
Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 24/27 SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 17:24:55 +0530 Issue No.3
10. The onus of proving issue no.3 lies upon the plaintiff. It has been deposed on behalf of the plaintiff by PW-1 i.e. SPA Holder of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.2,00,000/- in terms of the cheques in question i.e. Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6 from the defendants no.1 and 2 as the plaintiff had provided services of transportation to the defendant no.2 and dispatched products at the destination required by the defendant no.2 from time to time by way of invoices Ex.PW1/2 (Colly) and that defendant no.2 had delayed the payments. That defendant no.1 in discharge of the liability of defendant no.2 had issued the aforesaid cheques in question to the plaintiff firm. However, same were dishonoured upon presentation vide dishonour memos and the plaintiff remains unpaid for the services provided. PW-1 deposed that the defendants have been in collusion and connivance with each-other. Per contra, defendant no.2 deposed that he was not the proprietor of SushreeBoutique. Defendant no.2 deposed that the GST number at point A on Ex.PW1/2 did not pertain to the defendant no.2 or his business. Defendant no.2 denied being the proprietor of SushreeBoutique or having had business relation with the plaintiff firm. Defendant no.2 denied owing the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- or that the defendant no.1 issued cheques qua his liability to the plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/-. Defendant no.2 denied having conversed with Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary telephonically. Defendant no.2 denied knowing Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Choudhary. Defendant no.2 admitted knowing the defendant no.1 but denied meeting the defendant Digitally signed by AAKASH CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 25/27 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 17:24:59 +0530 no.1 and the plaintiff. Defendant no.2 deposed voluntarily that he had never met the defendant no.1 in his life. It is pertinent to observe that the tax invoice Ex.PW1/2 (Colly) have been raised upon SushreeBoutique bearing GSTIN/UIN 19CSFPS4014P1Z5, however, defendant no.2 denied being the proprietor of SushreeBoutique. Defendant no.2 denied knowing any Smt. Sanghuti Sinha. Plaintiff has not been able to prove that defendant no.2 is the proprietor of SushreeBoutique i.e. defendant no.2 proprietorship. However, plaintiff has managed to prove the issuance of the cheques in question on behalf of defendant no.1 to the plaintiff in order to discharge the legally enforceable liability of the defendant no.2. By way of preponderance of probabilities, the plaintiff has managed to prove that plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.2,00,000/- against the cheques in question from the defendant no.1 against the legally enforceable liability of defendant no.2 which defendant no.1 had undertaken to discharge. Plaintiff duly proved by examining PW-2 the statement of account of account no. 164005000879 in the name of plaintiff firm which showed that payments were received by the plaintiff from SushreeBoutique between December, 2020 to March, 2021 and the same was Ex.PW2/1 (Colly). Plaintiff has also proved that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit as the cheques in question were drawn on IDBI Bank, Subzi Mandi, Delhi- 110007 Branch which lies within jurisdiction of this Court, therefore part cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20(c) of C.P.C. The plaintiff has succeeded in proving the liability of the defendant no.1 for a principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as reflected in two cheques bearing Nos. 000708 and 000709 both dated 01.01.2021 for a Digitally signed by AAKASH CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 26/27 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 17:25:03 +0530 sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each, both drawn on IDBI Bank, branch at Clock Tower, G.T.K. Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007 from current account No. 158810200004633 maintained by defendant no. 1 in the name of his firm M/s Aggarwal Agencies. However, the interest @18% per annum claimed by the plaintiff is highly exorbitant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice will be served, if the plaintiff is awarded interest @ 6% per annum on the due amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the date of the cheques in question i.e. 01.01.2021 till the date of realization. Accordingly, issue no.3 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1.
11. Relief.
In view of the above discussion, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1. The plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant no.1, the due amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum calculated from the date of the cheques in question i.e. 01.01.2021 till the date of realization.
Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room as per rules. AAKASH
SHARMA
Digitally signed by
AAKASH SHARMA
Date: 2025.12.24
17:25:10 +0530
Announced in the open (Aakash Sharma)
court today on 24.12.2025 Civil Judge -02 (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
CS No. 2375/21 Madhuri Devi Vs. Sanjay Page 27/27