Delhi District Court
Raunak Vatika Pvt Ltd vs Chandra Shekhar Kumar on 28 April, 2026
1
IN THE COURT OF MRS. VEENA RANI, DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL
COURT)-8, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM.) No.620/2022
CNR No.DLSE01-006556-2022
Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd.
(Through)
Ravindra Kumar Chaudhary (Director)
Son of Banwari Lal Chaudhary,
Office At:
58, UGF, Kailash Hills,
East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065 .....Plaintiff
Versus
Chandra Shekhar Kumar
Son of Surendra Nath Verma
D-15, House No.141, Sector-3,
Rohini, New Delhi-110085 .....Defendant
SUIT FOR THE RECOVERY OF A SUM OF RS.22,00,000/- ALONG WITH
PENDENTAITE AND FUTURE INTEREST @ 24% PER ANNUM FROM THE
DATE OF CAUSE OF ACTION i.e. FROM 07-10-2015 TILL THE DATE OF ITS
REALIZATION
Digitally
Date of filing of suit :19-07-2022 signed by
Veena Veena rani
Arguments heard on :01-04-2026 rani
Date:
2026.04.28
15:34:48
Date of Judgment :28-04-2026 +0530
CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar
2
JUDGMENT
1) The plaintiff has initially filed the present suit under order 37 CPC, against the defendants praying therein that the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- to the plaintiff along with interest @ 24 % P.A. from the date of cause of action i.e. w.e.f. 07-10-2015 till the realization of the said amount along with the cost of the suit. However, vide order dated 13-02-2024, the suit of the plaintiff was treated as an ordinary suit. Briefly the facts for the disposal of the present suit are as under:-
VERSION OF THE PLAINTIFF:
2) The Plaintiff, a Limited Company incorporated in 2009 and engaged in the business of Real Estate and Construction, has instituted the present suit for recovery of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Two Lakhs only). The suit is filed through its Director, Sh. Ravindra Kumar Chaudhary, duly authorized vide a Board Resolution dated 20.05.2022. The Plaintiff's case is predicated on a failed real estate transaction. It is averred that in August 2015, the Defendant, acting as a real estate agent and property dealer, approached the Plaintiff representing himself as the exclusive owner of an industrial plot admeasuring 450 sq. mt. situated at Plot No. 1535, Sector 38, Phase 1, Industrial Estate, (Rai) Sonipat, Haryana -
131029 (hereinafter "Subject Property"). This was followed by Negotiations between the parties which culminated in a sale agreement for a total consideration of Rs.75,00,000/-, with a stipulated completion timeline by the end of the year 2017. Pursuant to this understanding, the Plaintiff transferred a cumulative sum of Rs.23,50,000/- to the Defendant's personal bank account through the following tranches:
i) Rs.3,00,000/- via RTGS on 07.10.2015;
Veena rani Digitally signed by Veena rani Date: 2026.04.28 CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar 15:34:58 +0530 3
ii) Rs.50,000/- via Net Banking on 17.10.2015;
iii) Rs.20,00,000/- via Net Banking on 13.11.2015.
3) The Plaintiff alleges that by April 2017, the Defendant's prolonged silence and failure to progress the deal created a reasonable apprehension that the funds were being misappropriated. Upon the Plaintiff demanding a full refund, the Defendant, purportedly to avoid legal repercussions, made a partial repayment of Rs.1,50,000/- on 08.06.2017, leaving an outstanding balance of Rs.22,00,000/-. Despite repeated follow-ups and the service of a formal Legal Notice dated 21.03.2022 (duly received on 25.03.2022), the Defendant failed to liquidate the remaining liability.
4) The Plaintiff initiated Pre-Institution Mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act on 29.07.2022. However, a 'Non-Starter Report' was issued by the DLSA on account of the Defendant's non-appearance on 17.08.2022 and 02.09.2022.
5) The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's actions amount to personification, breach of contract, and cheating, thereby entitling the Plaintiff to the recovery of the principal amount along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date the cause of action first arose, i.e., 07.10.2015.
CHRONOLOGY OF DATES AND EVENTS
Date Event
August Defendant approached the Plaintiff for the sale of Plot No. 1535, Sector
2015 38, Sonipat for Rs.75 Lakhs.
Digitally
signed by
Veena rani
Veena Date:
rani 2026.04.28
15:35:07
+0530 CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar
4
Date Event
First installment of Rs.3,00,000/- paid by Plaintiff via RTGS (Initial 07.10.2015 Cause of Action).
17.10.2015 Second installment of Rs.50,000/- paid via Net Banking.
13.11.2015 Third installment of Rs.20,00,000/- paid via Net Banking.
Plaintiff sought refund due to lack of progress and skepticism regarding April 2017 the deal.
Defendant made a partial refund of Rs.1,50,000/-; balance remains Rs.22 08.06.2017 Lakhs.
21.03.2022 Legal Notice issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.
25.03.2022 Delivery/Receipt of the Legal Notice by the Defendant.
Board Resolution passed by Plaintiff Company authorizing Sh. Ravindra 20.05.2022 Kumar Chaudhary.
Application filed for Pre-Institution Mediation under Section 12A of 29.07.2022 Commercial Courts Act.
Issuance of 'Non-Starter Report' by DLSA due to Defendant's non- 02.09.2022 appearance.
Veena rani Digitally signed by Veena rani CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar Date: 2026.04.28 15:35:15 +0530 5 Date Event
Court order treating the Suit as an Ordinary Suit instead of Order 13.02.2024 XXXVII CPC.
VERSION OF THE DEFENDANT
6) The Defendant has contested the suit by filing a detailed Written Statement, raising several preliminary objections and challenging the very foundation of the Plaintiff's claims. The defense is summarized as follows:
7) Preliminary Objections: Limitation and Jurisdiction
a) Limitation: The Defendant contends that the suit is ex-facie barred by the law of limitation. It is submitted that the alleged payments were made between 07.10.2015 and 13.11.2015. Consequently, the institution of the present suit on 19.10.2022--approximately seven years later--is well beyond the prescribed three-year period.
b) Territorial Jurisdiction: The Defendant asserts that this Hon'ble Court lacks the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter. He states he is a permanent resident of Patna, Bihar, and the business dealings between the parties were centered in Patna.
8) Denial of the Haryana Property Deal: The Defendant categorically denies the existence of any agreement to sell the property located at Rai, Sonipat, Haryana. He clarifies that the Subject Property in Haryana is not his personal property but belongs to a company named 'Krishna Industries', whose directors are his wife, Mrs. Ranjana Srivastava, and her partner, Mr. Krishna Singh. Furthermore, it is submitted that the said land is an HSIIDC allotment and is legally non- Veena rani Digitally signed by CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar Veena rani Date: 2026.04.28 15:35:24 +0530 6 transferable. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff has concocted this version to mislead the Court.
9) The Patna Property Transaction (The Real Transaction): The Defendant's version of the facts is that the money transferred by the Plaintiff was intended for a joint venture in Patna, Bihar.
10) The Project: A property belonging to one Mrs. Leshma Dutt, situated in Rajendra Nagar, Patna, was identified for joint development.
11) The Agreement: Due to a long-standing business relationship and mutual trust between the Defendant and the Plaintiff's Director, Sh. Ravindra Chaudhary, it was orally agreed that the Plaintiff would invest 50% of the sale consideration (totaling approximately Rs. 3 Crores) for the outright purchase and development of this land.
12) Application of Funds: The Defendant states that upon receiving the Rs.23.50 Lakhs into his Axis Bank account in Patna, he immediately prepared Demand Drafts in favor of Mrs. Leshma Dutt as earnest money.
13) Breach by the Plaintiff :The Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff defaulted on the oral understanding by failing to release any further funds beyond November 2015. This default prevented the registration of the Patna land and caused the Defendant significant financial distress, as he had already committed his own share of the capital. The Defendant maintains that the Plaintiff has suppressed the alleged "Board Resolution dated 15.09.2015" because no such resolution exists regarding a Haryana property deal.
14) Denial of Notice and Mediation: The Defendant denies receipt of the Legal Veena Notice dated 21.03.2022. He further denies receiving any summons or notices rani regarding the Pre-Institution Mediation proceedings before the South-East DLSA, Digitally signed by Veena rani Date: 2026.04.28 15:35:31 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar 7 Saket, asserting that the Plaintiff's claims of a "Non-Starter Report" cannot be held against him.
CHRONOLOGY AS PER THE WRITTED STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT:
Date Event
Plaintiff transfers Rs.23.5 Lakhs to
October - Defendant's Axis Bank Account in Patna as
Nov 2015 earnest money for the Patna Property (Mrs.
Leshma Dutt's land).
Defendant enters into an Agreement to Sell December with Mrs. Leshma Dutt and pays earnest 2015 money via Demand Drafts.
Plaintiff fails to release the remaining 50% of 2016 -
the promised sale consideration for the Patna 2017 project.
Deadline for the deal passes; transaction stalls End of due to Plaintiff's default, causing financial 2017 loss to the Defendant.
Expiry of the standard 3-year limitation 13.11.2018 period (calculated from the last payment Veena date).
rani Digitally signed by Veena rani 21.03.2022 Date of Plaintiff's Legal Notice (Receipt Date: 2026.04.28 15:35:47 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar 8 Date Event denied by Defendant).
July - Sept Pre-Institution Mediation process (Defendant 2022 denies receiving any notice/intimation).
Institution of the present suit (Contested as 15.10.2022 being filed after a delay of 7 years).
REPLICATION OF THE PLAINTIFF:
15) In his replication the plaintiff has controverted the averments made by the defendant and reaffirmed the averments of his plaint.
16) From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues framed:-
ISSUE No.1 : Whether the suit of plaintiff is time barred as alleged by defendant in para no.1 of the preliminary objections of written statement? OPD.
ISSUE No.2 : Whether this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties as alleged by defendant in para no.2 of the preliminary objections of the written statement? OPD.
Veena ISSUE No.3: Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of an amount of rani Rs.22,00,000/- as prayed for? OPP.Digitally signed by Veena rani Date: 2026.04.28 15:35:57 +0530
ISSUE No.4 : Whether plaintiff is entitled for pendente lite and future interest, CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar 9 if so, at what rate? OPP.
ISSUE No.5 : Relief.
EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF (PW-1)
Exhibit Particulars Objections of the Counsel
Purpose of Document
No. of Exhibit (Defendant)
Evidence
Affidavit To tender examination-in-chief
Ex.
of the and verify signatures at Points None recorded.
PW-1
Witness A & B.
(Director)
ROC
Master
Data,
Objected to: Not being
Certificate
Ex. To prove the legal existence originals; lack of Section 65-
of
PW-1/1 and registration of the Plaintiff B Certificate. (Plaintiff
Incorporati
(Colly) company. claims these are admitted
on, and
documents).
Letter
from
RERA
Original To prove authorization of Sh. Objected to as not being
Ex.
Board Ravindra Kumar Chaudhary to original since the Resolution
PW-1/2
Resolution sue. Book was not produced.
Digitally
signed by
Veena Veena rani
Date:
CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar rani 2026.04.28 15:36:06 +0530 10 Exhibit Particulars Objections of the Counsel Purpose of Document No. of Exhibit (Defendant) of the Plaintiff Company Statement of Bank To prove the financial Objected to: Mode of proof Ex. Account of transactions/transfer of funds challenged. (Plaintiff claims PW-1/3 the to the Defendant. it is an admitted document). Plaintiff Company Copy of Legal Notice, Ex. To prove the demand for Original PW-1/4 payment and service of notice None recorded.
Postal
(Colly) upon the Defendant.
Receipt,
and Track
Record
Copy of
Applicatio To show compliance with Objected to: Defendant
Ex.
n U/s 12-A mandatory Pre-Institution claims the application was
PW-1/5
of Mediation. never received by them.
Commerci
Digitally
signed by
Veena Veena rani
rani
Date:
2026.04.28 CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar 15:36:14 +0530 11 Exhibit Particulars Objections of the Counsel Purpose of Document No. of Exhibit (Defendant) al Courts Act Original Non-
Objected to: Witness's
Starter To prove the failure of
Ex. competence to prove the
Report mediation due to Defendant's
PW-1/6 report challenged. (Plaintiff
from Delhi non-appearance.
claims it is a Court Record).
Mediation
Centre
Document
s of
Disputed
Objected to: Neither original
Ex. Property To establish the connection of
nor certified copies. (Plaintiff
PW-1/7 and Master the Defendant with the
claims Defendant relied on
(Colly) Data of property/business.
these in Court).
Defendant'
s
Company
Identity
Ex. To establish the identity of the None. (Originals produced,
Document
PW-1/8 witness and his status as seen, and returned by the
s:
(Colly) Director. Court).
[Aadhaar
Digitally
signed by
Veena Veena rani
Date:
CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar rani 2026.04.28
15:36:25
+0530
12
Exhibit Particulars Objections of the Counsel
Purpose of Document
No. of Exhibit (Defendant)
Redacted],
PAN Card,
DL, and
Company
PAN
Allotment
Letter
(Suit
Property),
Master
Objected to: Labeled an
Ex. Data To rebut facts raised in the
"after-thought" as documents
PW-1/9 (Anant Written Statement regarding
were not filed with the
(Colly) Rubber/An property ownership.
original plaint.
ant
Homes),
and Sec
65-B
Affidavit
OTHER OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:
17) Document Admissibility: Regarding Ex. PW-1/1, it is noted the Plaintiff's submission that the document was previously admitted by the Defendant;
however, a final decision on the lack of a Section 65-B Certificate was reserved for the stage of final arguments.
Digitally signed by Veena Veena rani Date:
rani 2026.04.28
15:36:37
+0530 CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar
13
18) Mode of Proof: The objection to Ex. PW-1/3 (Bank Statement) pertains to the
"Mode of Proof." Under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, certified copies are usually required if the original ledger is not produced.
19) Late Filing: Ex. PW-1/9 was filed along with the replication. The Court will have to decide if the Plaintiff has shown "sufficient cause" for not filing these documents with the plaint, as per the procedural requirements for commercial/civil suits.
EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT (DW-1) Defendant Chandra Shekhar Kumar Exhibit / Particulars of Purpose of Objections / Judicial Remarks Mark Document / Event Evidence Ex.
Evidence by way Formal testimony
DW-1/D --
of Affidavit in chief.
A
Objected by Plaintiff: Original
Ex. Copy of Aadhaar Proof of identity
not produced. Admissibility to be
DW-1/1 Card and residence.
decided by the Court.
Conflict: Plaintiff admitted
To establish the
Letter from original is in his possession;
Ex. historical status of
HSIDC to Krishna Court to decide if it should be
DW-1/2 the Rai, Sonipat
Industries exhibited given the Plaintiff's
plot.
possession.
Mark-A Discharge Evidence of Collective marking; designated as
Digitally
signed by
Veena Veena rani
Date:
rani 2026.04.28 CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar
15:36:45
+0530
14
Exhibit / Particulars of Purpose of
Objections / Judicial Remarks
Mark Document / Event Evidence
Summaries Defendant's
(Mediversal & medical condition Mark rather than Exhibit.
Apollo Spectra) (3 pages).
To prove the
Copy of Status: Ex. DW-1/4 deleted;
contract for the
Mark-B Agreement to Sell retained only as a Mark
Rajendra Nagar,
(Patna Property) (Document not proved).
Patna plot.
To show payments
Mark
Copies of 16 made to Ms. Status: Ex. DW-1/5 deleted;
C-1 to
Demand Drafts Leshma Dutt & retained only as Marks.
C-16
others.
Copy of Axis To corroborate Objected by Plaintiff: Certified
Mark-D Bank Statement (2 financial copies not produced. Ex. DW-1/6
Pages) transactions. deleted.
20) It is pertinent to note that the primary defense of the Defendant (the Patna
Property transaction) rests on Mark-B and Mark C-1 to C-16. Since these are designated as "Marks" rather than "Exhibits," their legal weight is diminished until the originals are produced or the execution is proven as per the Indian Evidence Act.
21) The record reflects that several exhibits (DW-1/4, DW-1/5, DW-1/6) were deemed deleted from the affidavit. This usually occurs when the documents are Digitally signed by Veena Veena rani Date: CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar rani 2026.04.28 15:36:52 +0530 15 photocopies and the opposing counsel refuses to admit them, or the mandatory certificates (e.g., Section 65B for bank statements) are missing.
22) Regarding Ex. DW-1/2, the fact that the Plaintiff possesses the original creates a unique scenario under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, where the Defendant may be permitted to lead secondary evidence because the original is in the hands of the adversary.
WITNESS DW-2: Sh. Mr. Shivam Rai, Assistant Manager, Axis Bank, Branch East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065 Exhibit / Particulars of Purpose of Objections / Date Mark Document / Event Evidence Judicial Remarks To establish the OSR: Original ID Card Copy of Employee ID identity of the Seen and
--
(OSR) issued by Axis Bank. summoned Returned by the
witness. Court.
Covering Letter: To authenticate the Collective exhibit
Ex.
22.08.202 Signed by Sh. Navjot production of bank (Colly) covering
DW-2/A
5 Singh Duggal, Senior records under all bank-related
(Colly)
Manager. summons. documents below.
DD Pay Slip: Signed To prove the Corroborates the
Ex.
13.11.201 by Defendant formal request for Defendant's claim
DW-2/A
5 (Chandra Shekhar the issuance of a of a transaction on
(Colly)
Kumar). Demand Draft. this specific date.
Digitally
signed by
Veena Veena rani
Date:
rani 2026.04.28 CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar
15:37:01
+0530
16
Exhibit / Particulars of Purpose of Objections /
Date
Mark Document / Event Evidence Judicial Remarks
To show the
Cheque No. 046786: The cheque was
Ex. source of funds
13.11.201 Amounting to issued in favor of
DW-2/A used for the
5 ₹20,00,000/- signed the Bank for DD
(Colly) preparation of the
by Defendant. preparation.
Demand Draft.
To provide a
Bank Account
Ex. snapshot of the Period limited to
13.11.201 Statement: Account
DW-2/A account activity 13.11.2015 to
5 No.
(Colly) for the date of the 13.11.2015.
914010028418161.
transaction.
To confirm KYC
Establishes the
Ex. Internal Bank Email: compliance and
13.11.201 procedural
DW-2/A Between Axis Bank provide internal
5 regularity of the
(Colly) branches. confirmation of
bank transaction.
DD issuance.
Observations on the Evidence of DW-2
23) Independent Verification: Unlike the documents of DW-1 which were largely
Veena "Marks," the records brought by DW-2 are Exhibits. Being produced by a bank rani official through a summoned record, these carry a high degree of evidentiary value Digitally signed by Veena rani Date: under the Banker's Books Evidence Act.
2026.04.28 15:37:11 +053024) The Leshma Dutt Connection: The evidence of DW-2 specifically links the CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar 17 Defendant's cheque of ₹20 Lakhs to a Demand Draft in the name of Ms. Leshma Dutt. This supports the Defendant's contention in his cross-examination that the funds transferred by the Plaintiff were immediately utilized for the Patna property transaction.
25) Corroboration of Timeline: The date 13.11.2015 is now established across both the bank records and the witness's testimony, providing a concrete timeline for the Court to analyze the "cause of action."
26) KYC Confirmation: The internal email confirming KYC and issuance helps rebut any suggestion of an unauthorized or suspicious banking transaction, affirming that the bank followed standard operating procedures.
27) The witness DW-2 was not cross-examined.
Findings and Observations:
28) I have heard the final argument on behalf of both the parties and gone through the record and written submissions of the parties on record. Issue wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE No.1 : Whether the suit of plaintiff is time barred as alleged by defendant in para no.1 of the preliminary objections of written statement? OPD.
29) Regarding the aspect of the Limitation Period, the contentions of the Plaintiff contends the following in its Written Submissions:
a) The present suit is governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which mandates a twelve-year limitation period for enforcing payment of money secured by a mortgage or otherwise charged upon immovable property.
b) By virtue of Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a statutory Digitally signed by Veena Veena rani rani Date:
2026.04.28 CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar 15:37:18 +0530 18 charge was created in their favor upon the payment of purchase consideration. The Plaintiff argues that this statutory charge arises by operation of law and does not require a formal mortgage to be executed. Judgments relied upon : K. Shanmugam v. C. Samiappan (2013) and P. Muthusamy v. K. Arumugam (2016), contending that such equitable security attracts the extended twelve-
year period rather than the shorter three-year period typically associated with simple money recovery.
c) Fact that the Rs.23,50,000/- were made in October and November 2015 were inextricably linked to an immovable property transaction, a fact corroborated by the delivery of allotment papers and admissions made by DW-1 during cross-examination on 23.07.2025 and 24.07.2025.
d) In the absence of any contrary documentary evidence from the Defendant to rebut the creation of this statutory charge, the Plaintiff submits that the suit instituted in 2022 is well within the twelve-year window commencing from the date the money became due.
e) That the suit is saved by the principles of acknowledgment and part-payment. It is submitted that the Defendant's repayment of Rs.1,50,000/- on 08.06.2017, which is reflected in bank statements and was expressly admitted by the Defendant in cross-examination, operates as an acknowledgment of liability under Sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act.
f) The Plaintiff argues that this payment triggered a fresh period of limitation, extending the maintainability of the suit for twelve years from the date of said repayment.
30) Per contra the Defendant has contended in its Written Submissions that the suit is hopelessly time-barred and that the Plaintiff's attempt to invoke Article 62 of Digitally signed by Veena Veena rani Date:
rani 2026.04.28 CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar 15:37:26 +0530 19 the Limitation Act is a legally flawed afterthought. The Defendant points out that the original and amended plaints describe a simple suit for money recovery, making no mention of a mortgage or a statutory charge on immovable property. Citing Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (2012), the Defendant contends that relief cannot be granted on grounds outside the pleadings. Furthermore, the Defendant asserts that the judicial precedents cited by the Plaintiff (K. Shanmugam and P. Muthusamy) are inapplicable as there was no formal "Agreement to Sell" between the Plaintiff and the actual owners of the Sonipat property.
31) The applicability of Article 62 hinges on whether the transaction qualifies as a "statutory charge." Under Section 55(6)(b), a purchaser is entitled to a charge on the property for the amount of any purchase money properly paid in anticipation of the delivery. There is force in the arguments of the Defendant that the original and amended plaints describe a simple suit for money recovery, making no mention of a mortgage or a statutory charge on immovable property and that there was no formal "Agreement to Sell". Thus Art. 62 is not applicable in the present case.
32) However, even if Article 62 is not applicable, it must be examined as to what is the effect of the following two dates on the extension of the Limitation Period:
a) 08.06.2017, when the Defendant made a partial refund of Rs.1,50,000/-;
balance remains Rs.22 Lakhs.
b) 21.03.2022, when the Legal Notice was issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.
33) As far as the date 08.06.2022 is concerned, the said payment is reflected in bank statements and was expressly admitted by the Defendant during cross- examination on 23.07.2025. Under Sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, an acknowledgment of liability or a part-payment of a debt made before the Digitally signed by Veena Veena rani rani Date:
2026.04.28 CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar 15:37:35 +0530 20 expiration of the prescribed period triggers a fresh period of limitation. The Plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of the exclusion of the limitation period as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, (2022) 3 SCC 117. By virtue of the directions issued in the said suo motu proceedings, the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 stands excluded for the purposes of calculating limitation for any suit or proceeding. The additional 90 days 'grace period' w.e.f 01.03.2022 was also provided in the above-said judgment. Therefore the closing date was 90-days w.e.f. 01.03.2022 which was 30.05.2022. However, the present suit was filed on 19.07.2022 which is beyond the closing date. Thus the ISSUE No.1 is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff-herein and against the defendant-herein.
34) ISSUE No.2 : Whether this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties as alleged by defendant in para no.2 of the preliminary objections of the written statement? OPD.
35) Regarding the challenge to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the Plaintiff, contends in its Written Arguments as follows:
a) that this Court is fully vest with territorial jurisdiction by virtue of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the material parts of the transaction--
specifically the contractual negotiations, the initiation of bank transfers, and the situs of the bank debits--all transpired within the territorial limits of Delhi, thereby establishing the requisite legal nexus;
b) DW-1 during cross-examination conceded that frequent meetings between the parties were held at the Plaintiff's office in East of Kailash, New Delhi.
c) the Defendant admitted that demand drafts were prepared at Axis Bank, East of Veena rani Digitally signed by Veena rani CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar Date: 2026.04.28 15:37:47 +0530 21 Kailash, following the transfer of funds.
36) The Defendant failed to lead any evidence connecting the Plaintiff to the Patna property. Conversely, the Plaintiff highlights the Defendant's own admission regarding the handing over of original title deeds for the Rai (Sonipat) property, which confirms the transaction's subject matter.
37) The Plaintiff concludes that since substantial and material parts of the cause of action originated in Delhi, the Defendant's objection regarding jurisdiction is untenable and ought to be overruled.
38) In the present case, the evidence on record, particularly the admissions made by DW-1 during cross-examination on 23.07.2025, significantly tilts the scale in favor of the Plaintiff. The Defendant's witness admitted that multiple meetings and negotiations regarding the transaction took place at the Plaintiff's office located in East of Kailash, New Delhi. Furthermore, it was admitted that the financial transactions--specifically the preparation of demand drafts--were executed at Axis Bank, East of Kailash. Since these administrative and financial acts are integral to the formation and performance of the transaction, they constitute a material "part of the cause of action" arising within the jurisdiction of this Court.
39) The Defendant's argument that the location of the property (Patna or Sonipat) should dictate jurisdiction is legally fragile in the context of a suit for the recovery of money. While the property may be the subject of the underlying deal, the present suit seeks the restitution of funds. Therefore, the situs of the property becomes secondary to the situs of the contract and the movement of funds. Given that the negotiations were held in Delhi and the payments originated from a bank in Delhi, the local nexus is sufficiently established. Consequently, the Defendant has failed to discharge the burden of proving that this Court lacks jurisdiction. Digitally signed by Veena Veena rani Date:
rani 2026.04.28 CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar 15:37:57 +0530 22
40) It is a settled law that the part of cause of action arises where money is expressly or impliedly payable under a contract. Furthermore it is a well established principle of law that where, under a contract no place of payment is specified, the debtor must seek his creditor and therefore a suit for recovery is maintainable at the place where the creditor resides or works for gain, because a part of the cause of action arises at that place also with the contemplation of section 20 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. As per L.N. Gupta vs Tara Mani [AIR 1984 DELHI 49, 24(1983)DLT184, 1983(5)DRJ190] :
(8) The position of law could not have been stated more categorically than it was done in S.P. Consolidated Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and another, . The learned Judge said : "The English Common Law Rule that 'a debtor must seek the creditor' is universal in its application, since it is founded on justice and equity. It is surely not a technical rule of English law, wrongly made applicable to India. It is a beneficient rule, inflexible and is of universal application. The rule cannot be said to be nothing more than a presumption rebuttable by contrary evidence. When there is evidence to indicate the place where the parties to a contract intended that the debt was payable, then the court will hold that such place of payment has been indicated in the contract itself, though not expressly but by implication. The occasion for applying the rule, as a rule of justice, equity and good conscience, would arise only when the court finds that no place of payment is expressly stated in the contract nor is it possible to find such place of payment indicated in the contract by necessary implication, on the relevant evidence on record."
41) In light of the above-said discussion and the case laws, it is evident that the "bundle of facts" constituting the cause of action is deeply rooted within the territorial limits of this Court. The categorical admissions of DW-1 regarding the conduct of negotiations at the Plaintiff's East of Kailash office, coupled with the Digitally signed by Veena Veena rani Date:
rani 2026.04.28
15:38:09 CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar
+0530
23
admitted execution of financial transactions and preparation of demand drafts at Axis Bank, East of Kailash, provide an inseparable legal nexus to Delhi. As the present suit pertains to the recovery of funds rather than the determination of rights in immovable property, the place of the contract and the movement of funds take precedence over the physical location of the property. Consequently, since a substantial and material part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, this Court holds that it possesses valid territorial jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the CPC. The Defendant's objection is, therefore, not legally untenable. Thus this ISSUE No.2 is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
42) ISSUE No.3: Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- as prayed for? OPP.
The Plaintiff asserts a categorical entitlement to the recovery of the prayed amount based on the proven transfer of funds, the Defendant's admission of receipt, and the absence of any lawful justification for the retention of said monies.
43) Regarding the Plaintiff's entitlement to recover the sum of Rs.22,00,000/-, the contentions of the Plaintiff, as per the Written Submissions, are summarized as follows:
i) that the Plaintiff transferred an aggregate sum of Rs.23,50,000/- through documented bank transfers dated 07.10.2015, 17.10.2015, and 13.11.2015.
These transactions are supported by certified copies of Axis Bank statements, which remain unrebutted.
ii) the Defendant's part-payment of Rs.1,50,000/- on 08.06.2017--a fact admitted by DW-1 in cross-examination--is acknowledgment of the Veena underlying debt and corroboration of the receipt of the initial payments. rani Digitally signed by Veena rani Date: 2026.04.28 CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar 15:38:16 +0530 24
iii) the Plaintiff argues that no documentary evidence was produced to support property transactions in Patna,
iv) the Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's failure to specifically deny the receipt of funds, coupled with the admissions made during cross- examination, amounts to a deemed admission of the liability.
v) The Plaintiff also asserts that the Board Resolution dated 15.09.2015, which authorized the transactions, was validly placed on record in connected criminal proceedings and subsequently filed before this Court. It is argued that a third-party recipient who has accepted and utilized funds cannot avoid liability by citing internal corporate formalities, especially when the Defendant's own conduct and admissions constitute an independent acknowledgment of the transaction. Further, the Plaintiff refutes the Defendant's attempt to link the payments to a property in Patna. The Plaintiff highlights that while the Defendant repeatedly invoked this narrative, he failed to produce any supporting documentation, such as a Will, probate, or relinquishment deed. Conversely, the Plaintiff notes that the Defendant's own testimony corroborated the Rai (Sonipat) property dealings, including his admission of handing over allotment documents and his subsequent role in Anant Rubber Pvt. Ltd. The Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant has failed to discharge the burden of proving a lawful disposition of the funds, and his failure to produce material documents warrants an adverse inference against him. The Plaintiff concludes that the Veena cumulative effect of the certified bank records, the Defendant's categorical rani admissions during cross-examination, and the clear evidence of a partial Digitally signed by Veena rani refund of Rs.1,50,000/- leaves the Plaintiff's case fully proved and the Date: 2026.04.28 15:38:24 +0530 Defendant's objections legally untenable.
vi) In conclusion, the Plaintiff submits that having established the remittance of CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar 25 Rs.23,50,000/- and acknowledging the refund of only Rs.1,50,000/-, a net principal balance of Rs.22,00,000/- remains outstanding.
44) Per contra the defendant asserts in its Written Submissions that the Plaintiff has grossly abused the judicial process by approaching this Court with "unclean hands" and manufacturing evidence to mislead the proceedings. It is contended that the Board Resolution dated 15.09.2015 is a fabricated, back-dated document created as an afterthought to establish the Plaintiff's authority and justify the transaction details. The Defendant highlights that this resolution was not filed with the original plaint and that the Plaintiff's explanation--that it was prepared in a "single copy"--violates the mandatory record-keeping provisions of Section 118 of the Companies Act, 2013. Relying on Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. (2013), the Defendant argues that such deceptive conduct disentitles the Plaintiff to any relief.
45) In the Written Submissions the defendant asserts the following :
i) that the Plaintiff has presented an "imaginary story" regarding the Sonipat property. While the Plaintiff claims the funds were an advance for land in Rai, Sonipat, the Defendant asserts that the parties--who were both directors in a real estate firm--intended to purchase a property in Patna belonging to a relative, Mrs. Leshma Dutt, for joint development. This contention is supported by bank records and the testimony of DW-2 (Axis Bank official), which prove that the Rs.20,00,000/- transferred to the Veena Defendant's account on 13.11.2015 was immediately utilized to prepare a rani Demand Draft in favor of Leshma Dutt in the presence of the Plaintiff's Digitally signed by Veena rani Director. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's failure to disclose this Date: 2026.04.28 15:38:32 +0530 Patna-centric transaction constitutes a material suppression of truth.
ii) That the Plaintiff is not entitled to recovery because the funds were CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar 26 advanced for a transaction involving a third party (Leshma Dutt) and not for the Sonipat property as alleged. Additionally, the Plaintiff's own witness (PW-1) admitted during cross-examination that the Sonipat land was owned by M/s Krishna Industries (later Anant Rubber Pvt. Ltd.), yet the Plaintiff never entered into a contract with these entities.
iii) The Defendant argues that since the Defendant was merely described as a "Property Dealer" and not the owner, no statutory charge could have been created against him, rendering the Plaintiff's claim for recovery and interest legally unsustainable.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DW-1:
46) As far as the liability of the Defendant towards the plaintiff is concerned the cross-examination of the defendant reveals the following relevant factual aspects of the suit
i) The defendant relies on an Agreement to Sell dated 01.12.2015 (Mark B) to prove the Patna property deal. However, under cross-examination, DW-1 admitted that this document does not bear the signature of the plaintiff.
ii) When questioned about the ownership of the Patna property, DW-1 mentioned a Will, a Probate Order, and Relinquishment Deeds. He admitted these were not filed on the judicial record.
iii) A critical point of the cross-examination involved the defendant's handling of the Sonipat property documents. DW-1 admitted to handing over the Veena original file of the Sonipat property to the plaintiff. He claimed he gave rani them to the plaintiff for "consultation" and "advice" because the transfer Digitally signed from Krishna Industries to Anant Rubber was "complicated." This is highly by Veena rani Date:
2026.04.28 unusual in a commercial context. It is rare for a a person to hand over 15:38:41 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar 27 original property titles of his company to a third party merely for "advice" without a financial transaction. This lends significant weight to the plaintiff's version that the documents were handed over as security or part- performance of a deal for the Sonipat plot.
iv) DW-1 admitted to returning ₹1.5 Lakhs to the plaintiff in 2017. He claimed this was a partial refund because the plaintiff backed out of the Patna deal, and he promised to pay the rest after selling the property. The act of returning money is an acknowledgment of debt or a liability to repay. Since there is no written "Joint Venture Agreement" for Patna, this payment is more easily interpreted by a Court as a partial refund of the advance paid by the plaintiff, regardless of which property it was for.
47) The Defendant's liability is primarily established through the categorical admission of receipt of funds from the Plaintiff's company account. During cross-
examination, DW-1 admitted that payments were "instantly transferred by the Plaintiff" to his account at Axis Bank, East of Kailash. Crucially, when questioned about the lack of a board resolution, the Defendant did not deny receiving the money but instead justified it by stating, "I took money from the Plaintiff for the Patna property for development." This admission shifts the burden of proof to the Defendant under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the fact of receiving a substantial sum of money is within his personal knowledge. Having admitted the receipt, the Defendant is legally obligated to prove either that the money was a gift (which is not his case) or that it was applied toward a documented and lawful purpose, which he has failed to do.
48) The Defendant's primary defense--that the funds were for a joint venture regarding a property in Patna belonging to one Leshma Dutt--collapses under judicial scrutiny due to a total lack of documentary corroboration. DW-1 admitted that Leshma Dutt does not know the Plaintiff and that the Agreement to Sell Digitally signed by Veena Veena rani Date:
rani 2026.04.28
15:38:50
CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar +0530 28 (Mark B) does not bear the Plaintiff's signature. Furthermore, the Defendant admitted to not filing the Will, Probate Order, or Relinquishment Deeds necessary to prove Leshma Dutt's clear title or the legitimacy of the alleged transaction. In a commercial suit, oral testimony that contradicts the absence of signed written instruments carries little evidentiary weight. The "Patna narrative" appears to be a trick to divert attention from the documented payments, and the failure to produce these vital documents warrants an adverse inference against the Defendant.
49) The Plaintiff has successfully established a nexus between the payments and the Rai (Sonipat) property. DW-1 admitted in cross-examination: "Yes... I handed over documents [related to the property at Rai Sonipat] to the Plaintiff." While the Defendant attempted to explain this as seeking "advice," the simultaneous transfer of funds and handing over of original title-related documents strongly supports the Plaintiff's version of a property-linked advance. Additionally, the Defendant admitted he did not disclose the re-allotment of the Rai property to M/s Anant Rubber Pvt. Ltd. (where he is a Director) in his Written Statement. This suppression of his direct interest in the property for which documents were handed over suggests a lack of bona fides and reinforces the Plaintiff's claim that the money was an advance for the Sonipat transaction which failed to materialize.
50) The most relevant evidence of the Defendant's subsisting liability is his admitted refund of Rs.1.5 Lakhs in 2017. When asked why he returned this amount, DW-1 stated that after he arranged the rest of the money from relatives, "the Plaintiff asked for his share, and in response I returned 1.5 lakhs to the Plaintiff, and I also assured the Plaintiff to return his money when the property will be sold off." This statement constitutes a clear acknowledgment of a debt. By promising to return the balance "when the property is sold," the Defendant has admitted that he is currently holding the Plaintiff's funds without a completed transaction to justify their retention.
Digitally signed by Veena Veena rani Date:
rani 2026.04.28
15:38:58
+0530 CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar
29
51) The Plaintiff has proved the transfer of funds through unrebutted bank records.
The Defendant has admitted receipt of the money, admitted to returning a small portion, and admitted to promising a refund of the balance. The Defendant's failure to produce any signed agreement involving the Plaintiff for the Patna property, coupled with his admission of handing over Rai property documents, renders his defense untenable. Accordingly, the Defendant is legally liable to restore the remaining suit amount to the Plaintiff under the principles of restitution and Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, as the Defendant has enjoyed the benefit of the Plaintiff's money without the intended consideration being delivered.
52) It is a settled principle of law that once the receipt of money is admitted, the burden shifts heavily onto the recipient to prove the lawful discharge or the specific purpose for which the money was utilized. Regarding the Defendant's challenge to the Board Resolution dated 15.09.2015, this Court finds that internal corporate formalities cannot be used as a shield by a third party to retain funds obtained through admitted bank transfers.
53) In view of the unrebutted bank records, the categorical admissions of DW-1 regarding the receipt of funds, and the admitted partial refund of Rs.1,50,000/-, the Plaintiff has successfully proved its entitlement to the recovery of the balance amount. The Defendant has failed to prove any lawful justification for the retention of the remaining Rs.22,00,000/-. Accordingly, Issue No. 3 is decided in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant. The Plaintiff is held entitled to recover the sum of Rs.22,00,000/- from the Defendant.
54) ISSUE No.4 : Whether plaintiff is entitled for pendente lite and future interest, if so, at what rate? OPP.
Veena rani Regarding the determination of the Plaintiff's entitlement to pendente lite and Digitally signed by Veena rani Date: 2026.04.28 CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar 15:39:07 +0530 30 future interest, as per the Written Submissions, the Plaintiff asserts a statutory entitlement to interest under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which confers discretionary power upon the Court to award interest from the date of the institution of the suit until the date of the decree, and further from the date of the decree until the actual realization of the principal sum. It is the Plaintiff's submission that the award of interest serves both a compensatory and equitable purpose, ensuring that a successful litigant is adequately indemnified for the loss of the time value of money, particularly where funds have been wrongfully withheld.
55) The Plaintiff highlights in the Written Submissions that the Defendant has remained in possession of a substantial sum of Rs.22,00,000/- since the year 2015 without lawful justification. Despite the issuance of a formal legal notice in March 2022 and the subsequent initiation of these proceedings, the Defendant has failed to effectuate repayment. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's conduct-- including the acknowledgment of part-payment followed by inconsistent defenses and the suppression of material documents--further underscores the inequity of the situation. Relying on the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra (2002), the Plaintiff contends that interest must be awarded at a rate that balances the equities between the parties.
56) The plaintiff further contends that given the commercial nature of the underlying transaction and the protracted period for which the funds have been withheld, the Plaintiff submits that a higher rate of interest is warranted. It is argued that Courts in Delhi routinely award substantial interest in commercial disputes of this nature. Consequently, the Plaintiff prays for the grant of pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the principal sum adjudged, asserting that such a rate is just, fair, and consistent with prevailing judicial standards.
Digitally signed by Veena Veena rani Date:
rani 2026.04.28
15:39:16 CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar
+0530
31
Thus this issue no. 4 is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and rate of interest 18% is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff from the date of filing of the suit and till the realization of the decreetal amount.
57) ISSUE No.5 : Relief.
Since the ISSUE No.1 regarding the Limitation Period of the Suit is decided against the plaintiff, the plaintiff-herein is not entitled to the decree. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed on the ground of limitation. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications stand disposed of. File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by Veena Veena rani Date:
rani 2026.04.28
15:39:24
Announced in the open court +0530
Dated: 28-04-2026 (VEENA RANI)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-08, South-East District, Saket Courts,New Delhi CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar 32 IN THE COURT OF MRS. VEENA RANI, DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-8, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar 28-04-2026 Present: Mr. Aditya Saurabh ,ld. counsel for the plaintiff through VC.
Mr. Ravikesh K. Sinha, ld. counsel for the defendant Vide my separate judgment, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed on the ground of limitation. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in the open court
Veena Veena rani
Date:
Dated: 28-04-2026
rani 2026.04.28
15:39:31
+0530
(VEENA RANI)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-08, South-East District, Saket Courts,New Delhi CS (COMM.) No.620/2022, Raunak Vatika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Kumar