Delhi District Court
Rajender Kumar Garg vs Minnatullah on 13 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Dr. RAKESH KUMAR :
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-2,
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLNT010150392024
CS (Comm) No.: 6815/24
In the matter of :-
RAJENDER KUMAR GARG,
PROPRIETOR OF M/S RAJDHANI FOOTWEAR
AT : B-2353, DSIIDC NARELA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
DELHI-110040 ..... Plaintiff
VERSUS
MD. MINNATULLAH
PROPRIETOR OF M/S IQRA FOOTWEAR
11, TOPSIA 2nd LANE, KOLKATA
WEST BENGAL-700046 ..... Defendant
Date of Institution : 07.10.2024
Date on which arguments were concluded : 06.12.2025
Date of pronouncement of order : 13.12.2025
Present :
For Plaintiff : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For Defendant : Ex parte
JUDGMENT :
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.3,31,876/- with pendent-lite and future interest and costs instituted by the plaintiff Rajender Kumar Garg against the defendant Minnatullah.
2. Facts, as per the plaintiff's version, are that the plaintiff is the proprietor of M/s Rajdhani Footwear engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of footwear/shoes; that the defendant is also the proprietor of M/s Iqra Footwear engaged Suit No. 6815/24 Rajender Kumar Garg vs. Minnatullah Page 1 of 8 Digitally signed by RAKESH RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.12.13 16:50:03 +0530 in trading of footwear; that the plaintiff had a business relation with the defendant, and since 2019 had supplied the goods to the defendant through following invoices and challans, namely:-
Sl. No. Dated Invoice No. Amount (in Rs.) 1 25.11.2019 449/2019-20 1,41,649/-
2. 25.02.2020 621/2019-20 25,704/
3. 18.03.2020 661/2019-20 96,768/-
4. 29.10.2020 234/2020-21 1,04,250/-
5. 06.11.2020 261/2020-21 1,29,090/-
6. 11.11.2020 289/2020-21 47,040/-
7. 27.08.2021 161/2020-21 5,040/ Total Rs.5,49,541/-
3. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendant had made the part payments on different occasions against the legal liability towards plaintiff, however, he failed to clear all the outstanding dues and settle the account; that the plaintiff requested the defendant to clear the entire outstanding amount but all the efforts went in vain as the defendant kept on delaying and asking more time on one pretext or other. It is further averred in the plaint that the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant were duly received by the defendant; that the plaintiff maintained a running ledger of the defendant, and as per that ledger a sum of Rs.3.31,876/- is due as outstanding amount of goods supplied along with the interest at the rate of 18% per annum; that the plaintiff, through speed post, served a legal notice dated 12.07.2023 upon the defendant, whereby the defendant was called upon to pay Rs.3.31,876/- along with Suit No. 6815/24 Rajender Kumar Garg vs. Minnatullah Page 2 of 8 Digitally signed RAKESH by RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.12.13 16:50:11 +0530 interest to the plaintiff within 15 days from the receipt thereof, and thereafter filed the present suit for recovery of ₹3,31,876/-.
4. It is further averred in the plaint that as per section 2 (1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 the subject matter of the present suit is a commercial dispute, therefore, before institution of the suit, the plaintiff approached the North District Legal Services Authority for pre-litigation mediation against the defendant, but defendant failed to appear before the said authority for settlement of the issues leading upto the institution of the suit.
5. After institution of the suit, vide order dated 17.03.2025, this Court declared the defendant served, however, none appeared for the defendant, and he was proceeded ex-parte and the plaintiff was directed to bring ex parte evidence by way of affidavit.
6. In support of his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and during his examination-in-chief tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A along with the following documents, namely:-
i) GST details of defendant is Ex.PW1/1,
ii) Invoice no.449/2019-20 dated 25.11.2019 for Rs.1,41,649/ is Ex.PW1/2A,
iii) e-Way bill qua Ex.PW1/2A is Ex.PW1/2A(1),
iv) Invoice no.621/2019-20 dated 25.02.2020 for Rs.25,704/-
is Ex.PW1/2B Suit No. 6815/24 Rajender Kumar Garg vs. Minnatullah Page 3 of 8 Digitally signed by RAKESH RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.12.13 16:50:19 +0530
v) Invoice no.661/2019-20 dated 18.03.2020 for Rs.96,768/-
is Ex.PW1/2C,
vi) e-Way bill qua Ex.PW1/2C is Ex.PW1/2C(1),
vii) Invoice no.234/2020-21 dated 29.10.2020 for Rs.1,04,250/- is Ex.PW1/2D,
viii) e-Way bill qua Ex.PW1/2D is Ex.PW1/2D(1),
ix) Invoice no.261/2020-21 dated 06.11.2020 for Rs.1,29,090/- is Ex.PW1/2E,
x) e-Way bill qua Ex.PW1/2E is Ex.PW1/2E(1),
xi) Invoice no.289/2020-21 dated 11.11.2020 for Rs.47,040/-
Ex.PW1/2F,
xii) e-Way bill qua Ex.PW1/2F is Ex.PW1/2F(1),
xiii) Invoice no.161/2021-22 dated 27.08.2021 for Rs.5,040/-
Ex.PW1/2G,
xiv) Ledger account of the plaintiff maintained for the defendant from page nos.26 to 31 is Ex.PW1/3,
xv) Legal notice dated 12.07.2023 from page nos.32 to 34 Ex.PW1/4, xvi) Screenshot of whatsApp of legal notice sent to the defendant is Ex.PW1/4A, xvii) Certificate of non-starter is Ex.PW1/5, xviii) Certificate under section 63 of BSA is Ex.PW1/6, xix) Tax invoice no.2021-22/025 dated 17.09.2021 for Rs.1,04,328/- issued by another firm of defendant, namely, MM Footwear showing mobile no.97341388847 belongs to the defendant is Ex.PW1/7.
7. In his affidavit (Ex.PW1/A), tendered in evidence, PW1 Rajender Kumar Garg reiterated the averments made in the Suit No. 6815/24 Rajender Kumar Garg vs. Minnatullah Page 4 of 8 Digitally signed RAKESH by RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR 16:50:26 Date: 2025.12.13 +0530 plaint, and after tendering of his affidavit, evidence on his behalf was closed.
8. I have heard counsel for the plaintiff and have gone through the material on record carefully.
9. Having drawn the attention of the Court on the testimony of PW1 Rajender Kumar Garg and documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/7 it is submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that at the request of the defendant, by way of invoices Ex.PW1/2A, Ex.PW1/2B, Ex.PW1/2C, Ex.PW1/2D, Ex.PW1/2E, Ex.PW1/2F and Ex.PW1/2G dated 25.11.2019, 25.02.2020, 18.03.2020, 29.10.2020, 06.11.2020, 11.11.2020 and 27.08.2021 respectively, the plaintiff sold footwear/shoes to the defendant for a total price of ₹3,31,876/-. It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that the said goods were delivered to the defendant through delivery challans/e-Way Bills Ex.PW1/2A(1), Ex. PW1/2C(1), Ex. PW1/2D(1), Ex. PW1/2E(1) and Ex. PW1/2F(1) dated 27.11.2019, 18.03.2020, 30.10.2020, 08.11.2020 and 12.11.2020 respectively. It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that each of the said invoices Ex.PW1/2A to Ex.PW1/2G and the delivery challans/e- Way Bills Ex.PW1/2A(1) to Ex.PW1/2F(1) except Ex.PW1/2(B) contained a condition that after due date interest would be charged at the rate 18% per annum. It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that having purchased the goods from the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the price of the same, and therefore, he became liable to pay ₹3,31,876/- as per Ledger Ex.PW1/3. It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that Suit No. 6815/24 Rajender Kumar Garg vs. Minnatullah Page 5 of 8 Digitally signed by RAKESH RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.12.13 16:50:33 +0530 by way of the legal notice dated 12.07.2023, a copy of which is Ex.PW1/4, the plaintiff called upon the defendant to make payment for the price of the goods along with the interest, and the said notice was served upon the defendant by speed post. It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that after service of the notice the defendant made the payment of Rs.50,000/- each on 14.08.2023 and 02.11.2023 and thereafter did not make payment of the balance amount as claimed by the plaintiff, therefore, left with no other option the plaintiff approached the North District Legal Services Authority for mediation before institution of the suit, but none appeared on behalf of the defendant for settlement of the dispute.
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the plaintiff.
11. From the testimony of PW1 Rajender Kumar Garg, being Proprietor and tax invoices Ex.PW1/2A to Ex.PW1/2G and delivery challans/e-Way Bills Ex.PW1/2A(1) to Ex.PW1/2F(1), it has been proved that on 25.11.2019, 25.02.2020, 18.03.2020, 29.10.2020, 06.11.2020, 11.11.2020 and 27.08.2021, the plaintiff sold and delivered the goods to the defendant for price of ₹1,41,649/-, ₹25,704/- ₹96,768/-, ₹1,04,250/-, ₹1,29,090/-, ₹47,040/- and ₹5,040/-, respectively to the defendant. As per the invoices Ex.PW1/2A to Ex.PW1/2G, the payment was to be made with 30 days, and after due date interest would be charged by the plaintiff at the rate of 18% per annum. From the testimony of PW1 Rajender Kumar Garg and documents Ex.PW1/3, Ex.PW1/4, Ex.PW1/5, Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/7, it has also been Suit No. 6815/24 Rajender Kumar Garg vs. Minnatullah Page 6 of 8 Digitally signed RAKESH by RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.12.13 16:50:39 +0530 proved that the defendant did not pay the price of the goods on or before due date, and thus, he became liable to pay ₹3,31,876/- to the plaintiff. From the testimony of PW1 Rajender Kumar Garg and documents Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/4A, it has also been proved that before institution of the present suit the plaintiff also sent a legal notice to the defendant calling upon him to pay ₹4,31,876./- within 15 days, but only ₹50,000/- each was paid on 14.08.2023 and 02.11.2023 but entire payment payment was not made, resulting the plaintiff approaching the North District Legal Services Authority to resolve the dispute by the process of mediation, but the case was returned as non-starter.
12. From the evidence led by the plaintiff, it has been proved that the defendant is liable to pay ₹3,31,876/- to the plaintiff on account of the price of the goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant by way of documents Ex.PW1/2A to Ex.PW1/2G.
13. The plaintiff has also claimed pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum, which, in the opinion of the court, is excessive. Taking into account the fact that transactions were commercial, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to the interest @ 10% per annum on the said amount of ₹3,31,876/- from the date of the institution of the suit till realization of the said amount.
14. In view of above discussion, the suit is decreed with costs in terms that the plaintiff is found entitled to recover ₹3,31,876/- from the defendant along with pendente lite and Suit No. 6815/24 Rajender Kumar Garg vs. Minnatullah Page 7 of 8 Digitally signed RAKESH by RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR 16:50:46 Date: 2025.12.13 +0530 future interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization of the said amount.
15. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and after necessary compliance file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in the Open Court On the 13th day of December, 2025 Digitally signed RAKESH by RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.12.13 16:50:53 +0530 (Dr. RAKESH KUMAR) District Judge- Commercial Court-02 North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi Suit No. 6815/24 Rajender Kumar Garg vs. Minnatullah Page 8 of 8