Delhi District Court
Dr Roshanlal Aggarwal And Sons Pvt Ltd vs Haryana Medical Hall And Ors on 17 October, 2023
DR. ROSHAL LAL AGGARWAL & SONS VS. HARYANA MEDICAL HALL & ORS.
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK GARG,
DISTRICT JUDGE-COMMERCIAL COURT-09
(CENTRAL DISTRICT), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR NO.:- DLCT01-002955-2021
CIVIL SUIT (COMMERCIAL) NO.:- 673/2021
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Dr. Roshanlal Aggarwal & Sons Pvt. Ltd.
Having its Registered Office at
16, Netaji Subhash Marg,
Daryaganj, Delhi110002
Through its Director and
Authorized Representative
Shri Nitin Gupta ... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1.M/s Haryana Medial Hall 1712/23, Mangal Building No. 2, Bhagirath Palace, Delhi-110006
2. Mrs. Kamlesh Gupta Partner of Haryana Medical Hall 1712/23, Mangal Building No. 2, Bhagirath Palace, Delhi-110006
3. Mr. Ankit Gupta Partner of Haryana Medical Hall 1712/23, Mangal Building No. 2, Bhagirath Palace, Delhi-110006 ... Defendant SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.33,99,942/- (RUPEES THIRTY THREE NINETY NINE THOUSAND NINE HUN-
DRED FORTY TWO ONLY)
Date of institution : 25/02/2021
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 15/09/2023
CS (COMM)No. 673/2021 Page 1 of 20
DR. ROSHAL LAL AGGARWAL & SONS VS. HARYANA MEDICAL HALL & ORS.
Date of Judgment : 13/10/2023
::- J U D G M E N T -::
1. By way of present judgment, this court shall adjudi-
cate upon suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.33,99,942/- along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS PER PLAINT
2. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present suit, as stated in the plaint, are as under:-
i. The plaintiff is a private limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of trading of homeopathic medicines in the market. The plaintiff is also the distributor of Dr. Rackeweg in India, Nepal and Bangladesh.
ii. The plaint has been signed, verified and instituted by Sh. Nitin Gupta, the Director of the plaintiff company and Sh. Krishan Pal Singh, Sales Manager is also authorized by the plaintiff company vide its Board Resolution dated 15.02.2021.CS (COMM)No. 673/2021 Page 2 of 20
DR. ROSHAL LAL AGGARWAL & SONS VS. HARYANA MEDICAL HALL & ORS.
iii. The defendant no. 1 is the customer/dealer of the plaintiff company. The defendants no. 2 and 3 are the partners of defendant no. 1 firm and are engaged in the business of trading of homeopathic medicines in the market as a chemist.
iv. The defendants approached the plaintiff at its registered office at Daryaganj, Delhi for the purchase of material and the plaintiff had been supplying the medicines at the agreed rates and prices to the defendants against bills/invoices. v. It was also agreed that in case of delay in the payments, the defendants will be liable to pay an interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of invoices/bills raised by the plaintiff upon the defendants.
vi. The plaintiff had been maintaining a running account of the defendants in the ordinary course of business. As per accounts of the plaintiff, defendant is liable to pay outstanding principal amount of Rs.28,80,847/- and he is further liable to pay the interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of each bill/invoice from the expiry of 30 days from the date of supply of material and the said interest comes to Rs.5,19,095.00/-. Thus defenant is libale to pay a total sum of Rs.33,99,942/-.
vii. The defendants kept on assuring the plaintiff that they would make payment of the outstanding CS (COMM)No. 673/2021 Page 3 of 20 DR. ROSHAL LAL AGGARWAL & SONS VS. HARYANA MEDICAL HALL & ORS.
amount at the earliest but no payments were made by the defendants. Having no other option, the plaintiff got served a legal notice of demand dated 08.10.2020 upon the defendant but it was not replied by the other side and no payment was made by the defendant.
viii. It is further averred that a sum of Rs.33,99,942/- is due and payable, as total outstanding amount by the defendant to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant.
EX-PARTE PROCEEDINGS
3. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendants and Sh. Manish Kinha, Advocate appeared on behalf of the de- fendants on 15.09.2021 who sought time to file his Vakalatnama but thereafter none appeared on behalf of the defendants despite several opportunities given to them and so they were proceeded as ex-parte vide order dated 23.04.2022.
4. An application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 23.04.22 was moved on behalf of the defendants which was allowed by Ld. Predecessor Court on 05.11.22 and ex-parte order was set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to the plaintiff.
5. It is relevant here to state that written statement has not been filed by the defendants in this case. It is settled law that CS (COMM)No. 673/2021 Page 4 of 20 DR. ROSHAL LAL AGGARWAL & SONS VS. HARYANA MEDICAL HALL & ORS.
written statement has to be filed by the defendant within 30 days from the date of service and it is extendable to 120 days in total on payment of such costs as the court deems fit but which shall not be later than 120 days from the date of service of summons. However, as a matter of fact, no written statement has been filed by the defendants in the present case.
ISSUES
6. On the basis of the pleadings following issues were settled on 07.03.2023 :
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery as asked for in the plaint? If yes, the interest thereof? (OPP) ii Relief.
EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF
7. In order to prove its case, plaintiff has examined PW1 Sh. Krishan Pal Singh and PW2 Sh. Nitin Gupta.
8. PW-1 Sh. Krishan Pal Singh, AR of the plaintiff company has filed his evidence by way of affidavit and reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint and has also relied upon the following documents:-
# Board Resolution dated 15.02.2021 is Ex.PW1/1.CS (COMM)No. 673/2021 Page 5 of 20
DR. ROSHAL LAL AGGARWAL & SONS VS. HARYANA MEDICAL HALL & ORS.
# Computer generated company master index data obtained fromt the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs is Ex.PW1/2.
# Computer copy of statement of account for the year 20192020 is Ex.PW1/3.
# Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act in support of company master index data, statement of account and tracking report is Ex.PW1/4.
# Copies of the 197 invoices for the period from 03.04.2019 to 21.05.2020 are Ex.PW1/5 to Ex.PW1/201.
# Legal notice alongwith three speed post receipts are Ex.PW1/203.
# Tracking report of the service upon the defendants of the legal notice is Ex.PW1/204.
# The nonstarter report dated 27.01.2021 is Ex.PW1/205. # Tax invoice No. 1103 dated 02.11.2020, Tax invoice No. 1183 dated 11.11.2020, Tax invoice No. 1199 dated 13.11.2020 and Tax invoice No. 1272 dated 24.11.2020 are Ex.PW1/206 to Ex.PW1/209.
9. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Coun- sels for the defendants.
10. PW2 Sh. Nitin Gupta, Director of the plaintiff com- pany has filed his evidence by way of affidavit, wherein he reiter- ated and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint. He has relied upon the following documents:-
CS (COMM)No. 673/2021 Page 6 of 20DR. ROSHAL LAL AGGARWAL & SONS VS. HARYANA MEDICAL HALL & ORS.
# The printout of GSTR-1 is Ex.PW2/1
(running into 10 pages)
# Certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence
Act with respect to GSTR-1 obtained from
the website of the GST Department in
support thereof is Ex.PW2/2.
11. This witness was also cross-examined by the Ld. Counsels for the defendants.
12. Since there is no written statement/defence of the defendants on record, this Court straight away heard the final ar-
guments advanced by Ld. Counsels for both the parties. I have perused the material available on record.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS Issue no. 1
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery as asked for in the plaint? If yes, the interest thereof ? (OPP)
13. In order to prove its case, as stated above, the plain tiff has examined PW1, who is the authorized representative of the plaintiff company and he has deposed that he is carrying on the business of trading of homeopathic medicines in the market and he further relied upon board resolution dated 15.02.2021 CS (COMM)No. 673/2021 Page 7 of 20 DR. ROSHAL LAL AGGARWAL & SONS VS. HARYANA MEDICAL HALL & ORS.
Ex.PW1/1 and computer generated company master index data obtained from the webside of Ministry of Corporate Affairs Ex.PW1/2.
14. He further deposed that plaintiff supplied medicines to the defendants vide 197 (Ex.PW1/5 to Ex.PW1/201). He has further relied upon tax invoices 1103 dated 02.11.2020, 1183 dated 11.11.2020, 1199 dated 13.11.2020 and 1272 dated 24.11.2020 (Ex.PW1/206 to Ex.PW1/209) which are duly re flected in the Statement of Account Ex.PW1/3.
15. As the PW1 has filed the requisite certificates under Section 65B of the Evidence Act and same is Ex.PW1/4, the computerized statement of account Ex.PW1/3 becomes admissi- ble in evidence. The statement of account corroborates the testi- mony of PW1.
16. It is further deposed by him that after adjusting the payments made by the defendant, an amount of Rs.28,80,847/ (principal amount) is due against the defendant as on 24.11.2020.
17. In his crossexamination, this witness has stated that he is working with the plaintiff company for the last 1617 years and he is working as Manager and dealing with sales and market ing of the plaintiff company. He denied that no purchase orders have been filed by the plaintiff and acknowledgement of the re CS (COMM)No. 673/2021 Page 8 of 20 DR. ROSHAL LAL AGGARWAL & SONS VS. HARYANA MEDICAL HALL & ORS.
ceipt is generally taken on the invoices. He further stated that the defendant could not have further sold the goods above the MRP and schemes were provided to all the dealers including the defen dant. He further admitted that some of the invoices filed along with the plaint did not bear the signatures of the AR of the plain tiff company and he voluntarily stated that it is not mandatory on their part. He further stated that during the financial year 2019 2020, plaintiff had sold goods worth Rs.3,75,93,214/ to the de fendant in total and he denied the suggestion that defendant had rather paid excess amount to the plaintiff.
18. PW2 Sh. Nitin Gupta has proved the GSTR1 record of the plaintiff company with respect to some of the transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant which is Ex.PW2/1 and has also proved the certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW2/2.
19. In his crossexamination, PW2 stated that he is one of the Director of the plaintiff company and PW1/1 is the Board Resolution in his favour to appear in this case. He further stated that invoices and the ledger account are maintained by the Ac counts Department under his supervision and the invoices are raised by sales team and it comes to him for verification. Sales team officials fill the data and take the print of the invoices and the sales team has the control over the computer from which the invoices are raised.
CS (COMM)No. 673/2021 Page 9 of 20DR. ROSHAL LAL AGGARWAL & SONS VS. HARYANA MEDICAL HALL & ORS.
20. The GSTR1 record of the plaintiff relied by PW2 needs little elaboration here.
21. It is relevant to mention that after the introduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, it is mandatory for a trader to file the return and show the goods sold to another trader on the GST portal i.e. GSTR-I and the said goods are also reflected on the GSTR-2A of the purchaser to claim Input Tax Credit and the said purchaser can raise objection if any goods which is shown to be sold to him on the GST portal is not delivered to him or false sale is shown by the seller.
22. In the simple words when the supplier files GSTR-I in any particular month disclosing his sales, the corresponding details are captured in GSTR-2A and GSTR-2B of the recipient.
23. Form GSTR-2A is a system generated statement of the outward supplies as mentioned by suppliers in their return or it can be said to be Statement of inward supplies for the recipient. It provides a comprehensive view of purchases made by the buyer and it is a read only document with a list of all the invoices from the various sellers during the month.
24. In the present case as stated above PW2 who is the Director of the plaintiff company has filed record of GSTR-I in respect of the plaintiff firm (Ex.PW2/1) for the period 01.04.2020 CS (COMM)No. 673/2021 Page 10 of 20 DR. ROSHAL LAL AGGARWAL & SONS VS. HARYANA MEDICAL HALL & ORS.
to 21.05.2020 and the said document contains entries with regard to 12 invoices Ex.PW1/190 to Ex.PW1/201 and the value of the goods supplied to the defendant under the said invoices is around Rs.60,43,199/-, which is more than the amount claimed in the present suit and this evidence corroborates the case of the plain- tiff that the goods were supplied to the defendants.
25. It is further relevant here to mention that if no goods were supplied by the plaintiff to the defendants under the invoices in question, the defendants could have filed the record of his GSTR-2A to show that there is no corresponding entries of the said invoices in GSTR-2A but no such record from the side of the defendants has been filed.
26. Since there is no defence of the defendants as writ- ten statement was not filed on their behalf, the documents and testimonies of both the witnesses of the plaintiff has remained al- most unrebutted. The documents including the invoices raised by the plaintiff and the statement of account ExPW1/3 are admissi- ble in evidence being maintained in regular course of business. There is nothing in the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 to doubt their credibility. The defendants have failed to cast any doubt in the case of the plaintiff.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT CS (COMM)No. 673/2021 Page 11 of 20 DR. ROSHAL LAL AGGARWAL & SONS VS. HARYANA MEDICAL HALL & ORS.
27. The arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for defen- dants are primarily as under:
i. It is argued that there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the present suit and hence it is liable to be rejected U/O 7 Rule 11 CPC.
ii. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant that Board Resolution dated 15.02.2021 filed by the plaintiff i.e. Ex.PW1/1 is not in accordance with Section 179 of the Companies Act 2013 r/w Rule 8 of the Companies (Meeting of the Board and its powers) Rules 2014 and it is further argued that PW2 Sh. Nitin Gupta, Director of the plaintiff company could not have authorized himself while sitting in the Board Meeting to act and appear on behalf of the company when there are more than two Directors in the company. Reliance is placed upon the judgment titled as NIBRO Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (1991) 70 Company Cases
388.
iii. It is further argued that the invoices filed by the plaintiff are highly doubtful as these are not supported by GSTR record of the relevant period, most of the invoices are not signed by the Director/official of the company and the said invoices are computer generated invoices but no certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act has been filed and hence the same are not admissible in evidence.
CS (COMM)No. 673/2021 Page 12 of 20DR. ROSHAL LAL AGGARWAL & SONS VS. HARYANA MEDICAL HALL & ORS.
iv. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that there is no record to show that the defendant has placed any purchase order with the plaintiff at any point of time and further the plaintiff has failed to file any document to show that the goods in question were actually delivered or dispatched to the defendant at any point of time.
28. Now, I shall deal with these arguments/objections one by one.
WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF HAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION
29. The word 'cause of action' has not been statutorily defined. However, a comprehensive definition of the same emerges from the various judicial pronouncements of the supe rior courts. The expression 'cause of action' has acquired a judi cial settled meaning. 'Cause of action' constitutes the circum stances forming the infraction of the right for the immediate oc casion for the action. 'Cause of action' means the bundle of facts, which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if tra versed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court. In legal parlance, the expression, the expression 'cause of action' is generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a court or a tribunal, a group of operative facts giving rights to one or more basis for su CS (COMM)No. 673/2021 Page 13 of 20 DR. ROSHAL LAL AGGARWAL & SONS VS. HARYANA MEDICAL HALL & ORS.
ing; a fact or situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person. Reliance is place upon Naveen Chandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2000 SC 2966.
30. The cause of action has to be culled out from the pleadings in the plaint which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, in order to obtain a relief from the court. It is settled principle of cause that averments made in the plaint are the GER- MANE and the cause of action has to be culled out on a conjoint reading of the entire plaint.
31. In para no. 13 of the plaint, it is mentioned by the plaintiff that the cause of action for filing the present suit arises in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants when the de- fendants failed to make the payments and cleear the outstanding amount due and payable to plaintiff and that the cause of action is still subsisting as the defendants have failed to pay the outstand- ing amount despite the service of the legal notice dated 08.10.2020.
32. Consequently upon perusal of the plaint, it is evident that plaintiff has set out its case in sufficient words giving rise to a basis to institute the present suit for recovery and thus, I have no hesitation in holding that the this argument of Ld. Counsel for the defendant has no merit.
CS (COMM)No. 673/2021 Page 14 of 20DR. ROSHAL LAL AGGARWAL & SONS VS. HARYANA MEDICAL HALL & ORS.
WHETHER THERE IS ANY DEFICIENCY IN THE BOARD RESOLUTION EX-PW1/1
33. In this regard, it is relevant here to state that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff company through its Director and authorized representative Sh. Nitin Gupta who has been examined as PW2 and further the plaintiff has examined Sh. Krishan Pal Singh as PW1. The Board Resolution Ex.PW1/1 is an extract of the resolution passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the plaintiff company held on 15.02.21 wherein Sh. Krishan Pal Singh working as Sales Manager and Sh. Nitin Gupta, Director of the company were authorized to do act, to ap- pear, to plead in the court and perform other acts as mentioned in the said resolution. This document is signed by Sh. Subhash Gupta and Sh. Nitin Gupta both being the Directors of the plain- tiff company. Although Ld. Counsel for the defendant has at- tacked this Board Resolution stating that it is not in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Companies Act and the rules thereto but he has failed to point out as to how the said Resolu- tion is not in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act or of the Rules. He has also failed to show that the Director of a company while sitting in the Board Meeting along with other Di- rectors couldn't have authorized himself to act and appear on be- half of the company.
CS (COMM)No. 673/2021 Page 15 of 20DR. ROSHAL LAL AGGARWAL & SONS VS. HARYANA MEDICAL HALL & ORS.
34. The reliance of Ld. Counsel for defendant on the au thority titled NIBRO (Supra) is also of no help to him because in the said case the plaintiff had not placed on record any Board Resolution of the company authorizing the relevant person to in stitute the suit and there was was no evidence on record to indi cate that the person filing the plaint had the authority to institute the suit but it is not so in the present case. Here, the plaintiff has filed Board Resolution of the plaintiff company dated 15.02.2021 which Ex.PW1/1 in respect of the authority in favour of AR of the plaintiff.
WHETHER THE INVOICES FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF ARE DOUBTFUL
35. In my view, argument of Ld. Counsel for the defen dant that the invoices of the plaintiff are doubtful has no merit. It is not mandatory for the plaintiff to file his GSTR record in sup port of all the invoices. In civil cases, the plaintiff has to prove its case on preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reason able doubt. In the present case, plaintiff has filed GSTR record Ex.PW2/1 in respect of his company for the period 01.04.2021 to 21.05.2021 which is in respect of the 12 invoices Ex.PW1/19 to Ex.PW1/201 and the value of the goods supplied to the defendant under the said invoices is around Rs.60,43,199/ which is more than the amount claimed in the present suit.
CS (COMM)No. 673/2021 Page 16 of 20DR. ROSHAL LAL AGGARWAL & SONS VS. HARYANA MEDICAL HALL & ORS.
36. It is further relevant to state that it is not mandatory that all the invoices must be signed by AR or official of the plain tiff. The invoices are many a time computer generated copies and certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act is filed but in the present case the original office invoices were brought in the court at the time of examination of PW1 and there is endorsement of the court during the examination in chief of the PW1 that all the aforesaid invoices were brought in original and they were seen and returned by the court. Hence in my view there is sufficient compliance and non filing of the certificate U/s 65B in respect of the said invoices is fatal to the case of the plaintiff.
NON FILING OF PURCHASE ORDERS BY THE PLAINTIFF
37. In respect to the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff has not filed any purchase order and plaintiff has not filed any document to show delivery or dispatch of goods to the defendant, it is relevant to state that PW1 in his crossexamination has admitted that no purchase orders have been filed by the plaintiff in this case. In my view, mere fact that plaintiff has not filed purchase orders, the entire case of the plaintiff would not become doubtful. As per the case of the plain tiff both the parties were having a long term business association CS (COMM)No. 673/2021 Page 17 of 20 DR. ROSHAL LAL AGGARWAL & SONS VS. HARYANA MEDICAL HALL & ORS.
for many years and plaintiff has filed a number of invoices from 03.04.2019 onwards and total value of the transactions between both the parties is running into crores with respect to supply of homeopathy medicines to the defendant. The case of the plaintiff has to been seen in totality and since the testimony of both the witnesses of the plaintiff is inspiring, nonfiling of the purchase orders is not fatal to the case of the plaintiff.
38. Regarding nonfiling of any documents with respect to dispatch of goods, PW1 has deposed in crossexamination that he used to receive orders and supplies were made through dispatch department and the acknowledgement of receipts is gen erally taken on the invoices. He further admitted that he cannot say whether all the invoices are containing the acknowledgement or not. The perusal of invoices filed by the plaintiff clearly shows that many invoices do contain the signature as acknowledgement. Ld. Counsel for defendant could have crossexamined the wit ness of plaintiff on the aspect of mode through which the goods were allegedly dispatched to the defendant but he has failed to do so. In civil cases the plaintiff has to prove its case on preponder ance of probability and in the present case, when the defence of the defendant has already been struck off, nonfiling of such doc uments of dispatch etc. wouldn't be fatal to the case of plaintiff. CONCLUSION
39. After considering all the facts and circumstances, I hold that the plaintiff has been able to prove its case by prepon-
CS (COMM)No. 673/2021 Page 18 of 20DR. ROSHAL LAL AGGARWAL & SONS VS. HARYANA MEDICAL HALL & ORS.
derance of probability that the goods in question were sold to de- fendant vide invoices Ex.PW1/5 to Ex.PW1/201 and further Ex.PW1/206 to Ex.PW1/209 and after adjusting the amount paid by the defendant from time to time, the defendants are liable to pay the amount in question and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.28,80,847/-.
40. As far as the interest is concerned, plaintiff has claimed 18% per annum on the aforesaid amount. Considering the current bank rate of interest it would be appropriate to grant interest @ 12% per per annum on the aforesaid amount from 08.10.2020 i.e. the date of issuance of the legal notice for de- mand to the defendants till the filing of the suit. Therefore, I held that plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.28,80,847/- i.e. the principal amount alongwith interest @ 12% from 08.10.2020 till the filing of the suit.
41. As far as grant of pendentelite and future interest is concerned, in my view, since defendants have deprived the plain tiff for use of the amount of sold goods and considering the prevalent rate of interest, I grant interest @ 12% per annum on the decreetal amount from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and thereafter till the realization.
Issue No. 2 :
ii) Relief
CS (COMM)No. 673/2021 Page 19 of 20
DR. ROSHAL LAL AGGARWAL & SONS VS. HARYANA MEDICAL HALL & ORS.
42. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the suit is de creed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for sum of Rs.28,80,847/ along with interest @ 12% per annum on the said amount from the date 08.10.2020 till the date of filing of the suit. Further, plaintiff is also held entitled to recover pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid de creetal amount from the date of filing of suit till the date of de cree and thereafter till its realization. The plaintiff is also held en titled to costs of the suit. The plaintiff is also held entitled to costs of the suit.
43. Decree sheet be prepared according.
44. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court on (Deepak Garg) this 17th Day of October, 2023 Distt. Judge, (Comm. Court)-09, Central District, THC : Delhi CS (COMM)No. 673/2021 Page 20 of 20