Delhi District Court
Sita Ram And Company Private Ltd vs Mr Abdul Rahman Badyari on 18 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-04
DISTRICT WEST : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 477/2021
CNR No. DLWT-01-007471-2021
In Re:-
Sita Ram & Company Private Limited
(Through Authorised Representative/
Director Mr. Sudhir Singhal)
73/9/2 and 10/2 Assam Timber Market
Swarn Park, Mundka, Nangloi
Delhi ...................... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Mr. Abdul Rahman Badyari
Prop/Owner
M/s Badyari Timber Traders
Barthana Qamarwari
Srinagar 190017 ................... Defendant
Date of Institution of the suit : 09.10.2021
Date of reserving judgement : 30.03.2026
Date of Judgement : 18.04.2026
COMMERCIAL SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF
SUM OF RS. 40,84,758/- (RUPEES FORTY LAC
EIGHTY FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN
HUNDRED FIFTY EIGHT ONLY) ALONG
WITH PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE
INTEREST
Appearance:
Sh. Rakesh Jaiswal, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Sh. S. K. Sangwan, Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
CS(Comm) No. 477/2021 Sita Ram & Company Private Limited vs. Abdul Rahman Badyari DoJ 18.04.2026 Page No. 23 of 23
JUDGEMENT
1. This judgement shall dispose of the suit for recovery of money filed by the plaintiff under Commercial Courts Act, against the defendant.
Case of the Plaintiff
2. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of trading, importing, selling and supplying timber and allied goods. It is stated to be one of the reputed manufacturers and suppliers in the industry. The present suit has been instituted through its authorized signatory, Mr. Sudhir Singhal, duly empowered by board resolution.
3. The defendant, Mr. Abdul Rehman Badyari, claiming to be proprietor of M/s Badyari Timber Traders, approached the plaintiff at its Delhi office with the intention of purchasing timber and allied goods. On the assurance of timely payment, the plaintiff agreed to supply goods to the defendant on credit. Pursuant thereto, the plaintiff supplied timber and Spruce Wall Panels under three invoices, namely Invoice No. 1876 dated 07.03.2018 for Rs. 10,08,308/-, Invoice No. 1924 dated 27.03.2018 for Rs. 9,87,639/-, and Invoice No. 1929 dated 28.03.2018 for Rs.11,98,845/-. The agreed credit period was fifteen days from the date of invoice.
4. The defendant made part payments in piecemeal, the last being Rs. 6,50,000/- on 19.04.2018, but failed to clear the outstanding dues. After giving credit for payments received, a principal sum CS(Comm) No. 477/2021 Sita Ram & Company Private Limited vs. Abdul Rahman Badyari DoJ 18.04.2026 Page No. 23 of 23 of Rs. 26,01,757/- remained due and payable. Despite repeated reminders and issuance of a legal notice dated 17.05.2019, the defendant did not discharge the liability. The plaintiff maintains its statement of account reflecting the said debit balance.
5. The plaintiff claims that the defendant is liable to pay the principal sum of Rs. 26,01,757/- together with interest at the agreed rate of 18% per annum from May 2018 till June 2021, amounting to Rs.14,83,001/-. Thus, the total claim raised is Rs. 40,84,758/-. The plaintiff asserts that the cause of action arose at Delhi where the orders were placed, invoices prepared, and payments were to be credited, and that the invoices themselves stipulate Delhi jurisdiction. The suit is filed as a commercial suit under the Commercial Courts Act, within limitation, and the plaintiff prays for a decree for the aforesaid amount along with pendent lite and future interest, costs of the suit.
Case of the Defendant
6. The defendant has raised several preliminary objections to the maintainability of the suit. It is contended that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC as all business transactions between the parties were conducted at Gandhidham, Gujarat, from where the plaintiff carries on business and from where the goods were dispatched, and at Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, where the defendant resides and carries on business and where the goods were delivered. The orders were placed at the plaintiff's office at Gandhidham, the goods were transported from Gujarat through road transport, and delivery was effected CS(Comm) No. 477/2021 Sita Ram & Company Private Limited vs. Abdul Rahman Badyari DoJ 18.04.2026 Page No. 23 of 23 at Srinagar, as reflected from the invoices, e-way bills, and transport documents relied upon by the plaintiff itself.
7. It has been further contended that the suit is barred by limitation, as the alleged dues pertain to March 2018 whereas the suit was filed in October 2021, beyond the prescribed three-year period. The defendant also submits that the plaint discloses no cause of action, that the requisite ad valorem court fee has not been paid, and that the suit as framed is not maintainable in law, hence sought return and rejection of the plaintiff under Order VII CPC.
8. On merits, the defendant denies the allegations of non-payment and asserts that all transactions were conducted at the plaintiff's office in Gandhi Dham, Gujarat, from where goods were dispatched to Srinagar. It is alleged that the timber supplied was repeatedly of inferior and defective quality, contrary to the assurances given by the plaintiff. The defendant states that despite defective supplies, he made full payments as per the plaintiff's request to adjust the material and to pay in installments. According to the ledger account for the period 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018, the total outstanding was Rs. 46,01,757/-, out of which Rs. 20 lakhs was paid through RTGS in April 2018 and the balance Rs. 26,01,757/- was paid in cash between May and November 2018, duly acknowledged by the plaintiff vide receipt dated 26.11.2018. The defendant therefore submits that no amount remained due at the time of filing of the suit, and the claim for interest at 18% per annum is wholly baseless. Defendant denies receipt of any legal notice dt.
CS(Comm) No. 477/2021 Sita Ram & Company Private Limited vs. Abdul Rahman Badyari DoJ 18.04.2026 Page No. 23 of 23 17.05.2019. It is further alleged that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts and concocted a false story to extort money despite having received full payment. The defendant accordingly prays for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.
Replication
9. Plaintiff in its replication denied the contents of the WS though admitted that goods were supplied from the Gandhidham, Gujrat. While reiterating the contents of the plaint, plaintiff denied that the goods supplied were of inferior/defective quality or that it receipt any cash payment from defendant and termed the receipt dt 26.11.2018 as forged and fabricated.
Issues
10. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed on 21.02.2023:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitle to recovery of Rs.
40,84,758/- along with interest from the defendant as alleged? OPP
2. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? OPD
3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
4. Whether there is no cause of action in favour of plaintiff? OPD
5. Whether the suit is not properly valued in regard to court fees and jurisdiction ? OPD
6. Relief CS(Comm) No. 477/2021 Sita Ram & Company Private Limited vs. Abdul Rahman Badyari DoJ 18.04.2026 Page No. 23 of 23 Evidence
11. In order to prove its case the plaintiff examined two witnesses i.e. its AR and an official from State GST Department. PW1 Sh. Sanjay Kumar Mangla, the current AR of the plaintiff company filed his affidavit Ex PW1/A wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaintiff and relevant part of the replication and relied upon following documents:-
Sl. No. Documents Exhibits
1. Evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A
2. Copy of Board Resolution dated in favour of Sh. Ex.PW1/1 Sudhir Kumar (OSR)
3. Certified copy of the board Ex.PW1/1A resolution/authorization dated 19.09.2023 (OSR)
4. Three invoices in question by which plaintiff Ex.PW1/2 to lastly sold/supplied its goods to defendant Ex. PW1/4
5. Three Form-402 issued/generated online by Ex.PW1/5 to GST department in respect of above three Ex.PW1/7 invoices in question
6. Two E -way bills issued/generated online by Ex.PW1/8 & GST department Ex.PW1/9
7. True copy of transport receipts/consignment Ex.PW1/10 notes issued by Mahavir Freight Carrier
8. Electronic Record Certificate Ex.PW1/11
9. Statement of account till 09.07.2021 Ex.PW1/12
10. Office copy of notice dated 17.05.2019 & Ex.PW1/13 & original speed post receipt along with internet Ex. PW1/14 generated tracking report PW1 was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
CS(Comm) No. 477/2021 Sita Ram & Company Private Limited vs. Abdul Rahman Badyari DoJ 18.04.2026 Page No. 23 of 23
12. PW2 Sh. Paras Gojiya, Salex Tax Officer(5) from the State GST Department produced the following summoned record:-
Sl. No. Documents Exhibits
1. Computerized copies of GSTR 1 of plaintiff for Ex.PW2/1 the monthof March 2018, GSTR 2 A of defendant (colly) for year 2017-2018, GSTR 9 of defendant for year 2017-2018
2. Certificate under Section 63 of BSA, 2023 Ex.PW2/2 He was duly cross examined whereafter the plaintiff closed its evidence.
13. In support of his case, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and filed his affidavit Ex DW1/A wherein he reiterated his stand in the written statement and relied upon following documents:-
Sl. No. Documents Exhibits
1. Evidence affidavit Ex.DW1/A
2. Acknowledgment of payment receipt dated Ex.DW1/2
26.11.2018
He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
14. Defendant also examined one Sh. Sarthak Singhal, erstwhile employee of the plaintiff company and the grandson of Sh. Sita Ram Singhal, the director of the plaintiff company as DW-2. He was examined by the defendant to prove defendant's stand that dues of the plaintiff were cleared by cash payments from May, 2018 to Nov, 2018 after which the plaintiff had issued receipt Ex. DW1/2 under the signature of Sh. Sita Ram Singhal, the Director CS(Comm) No. 477/2021 Sita Ram & Company Private Limited vs. Abdul Rahman Badyari DoJ 18.04.2026 Page No. 23 of 23 of the plaintiff company. He was duly was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendant closed his evidence.
Contention, Analysis and Findings
15. Having heard rival submission of the Ld. Counsel for the parties, judicial file perused. Pleadings, documents, testimonies, other material on record and legal and factual submissions of the parties taken into consideration. Issue wise findings are recorded hereinafter.
ISSUE No. 2: -Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? OPD
16. This issue is taken up first. The onus to prove this issue lies upon the defendant. It is contended on behalf of the defendant that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction, as all business transactions between the parties were conducted at Gandhidham, Gujarat, where the plaintiff carries on business and from where the goods were dispatched, and at Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, where the defendant resides, carries on business, and where the goods were delivered. According to the defendant, the orders were placed at the plaintiff's office at Gandhidham, Gujarat; the goods were transported from Gandhidham through road transport and delivered at Srinagar, as reflected in invoices Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/4, e-way bills Ex. PW1/5 to Ex. PW1/7, and transport documents Ex. PW1/10 and Ex. PW1/11 relied upon by the plaintiff itself. It is therefore contended that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction.
CS(Comm) No. 477/2021 Sita Ram & Company Private Limited vs. Abdul Rahman Badyari DoJ 18.04.2026 Page No. 23 of 23
17. The plaintiff has not disputed that the goods were dispatched from Gandhidham, Gujarat, and delivered at Srinagar. However, it contends that the defendant approached the plaintiff at its office at Mundka, where the order was placed, and that payments were made in the plaintiff's bank account in Delhi. On this basis, the plaintiff submits that part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, under Section 20(c) of the CPC, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit.
18. Although the onus to prove this issue lies upon the defendant, yet it is the primary duty of the plaintiff to establish first that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The plaintiff, in its plaint, pleaded that the defendant approached its office at Mundka, whereas in the replication it stated that the order was placed telephonically at the Mundka office. PW1, in his examination-in-chief, supported the version set out in the plaint but deviated in cross examination stating that defendant has physically visited the plaintiff's office at Delhi. In his cross examination, PW1 further admitted that there is no documentary evidence of such visits or orders and that the orders were placed orally. The plaintiff has also not examined the person who allegedly received the order at Delhi, whether orally or telephonically.
19. DW1 in his examination-in-chief reiterated his stand that the order was placed telephonically at the plaintiff's office at Gandhidham, Gujarat. He also deposed that he visited Delhi only CS(Comm) No. 477/2021 Sita Ram & Company Private Limited vs. Abdul Rahman Badyari DoJ 18.04.2026 Page No. 23 of 23 first time in this case and thus he claimed that he never visited the Delhi prior to his deposition. He was not cross-examined on these aspect of his testimony, nor was any contrary suggestion put to him.
20. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the defendant made admitted payments through bank transactions in the plaintiff's bank account maintained at Delhi. Ld. Counsel for the defendant, however, argued that the plaintiff had not led any evidence to establish that such payments were made in the bank account located in Delhi.
21. There is no evidence on record to show that the plaintiff's bank account, in which the admitted payments were made, was located in Delhi. At the same time, the defendant has also not led evidence to establish that the said account was not in Delhi. Be that as it may, the bank account mentioned in invoices Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/5 bears Account No. 0216xxxxxxxx84 with IFSC Code HDFC0000216. A website search shows that the said IFSC code pertains to the Gandhidham, Gujarat branch of HDFC Bank. The Court can take judicial notice of particulars available on the official website of the bank. There is nothing on record to suggest that the defendant made admitted payments into any different bank account of the plaintiff. In this circumstance, it can reasonably be inferred that the payments were made by the defendant in the plaintiff's bank account at Gandhidham.
22. The facts that the goods were supplied from Gandhidham, Gujarat; that goods were delivered at Srinagar; that admitted CS(Comm) No. 477/2021 Sita Ram & Company Private Limited vs. Abdul Rahman Badyari DoJ 18.04.2026 Page No. 23 of 23 payments were made in the plaintiff's bank account at Gandhidham, coupled with the plaintiff's failure to examine the person who allegedly received the order telephonically at Delhi and its failure to cross-examine DW1 on his specific testimony that the order was placed telephonically at Gandhidham and PW1 changing plaintiff's stand of telephonic order to order by physical visit, show that the plaintiff has failed to establish that any part of the cause of action arose within Delhi.
23. The contention that the invoices contained the clause "subject to Delhi jurisdiction" does not assist the plaintiff, as such a clause would operate only if part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi. It is settled law that parties cannot confer jurisdiction upon a court which otherwise has none merely by agreement. The plaintiff has thus failed to prima facie establish that any part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and consequently failed to shift the burden onto the defendant to prove that no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. In any event, the evidence and material on record, on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, establish that the cause of action arose at Gandhidham and Srinagar, and that no part of it arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
24. In view of the above discussion and reasoning, Issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE No.1:- Whether the plaintiff is entitle to recovery of Rs. 40,84,758/- along with interest from the defendant as alleged? OPP CS(Comm) No. 477/2021 Sita Ram & Company Private Limited vs. Abdul Rahman Badyari DoJ 18.04.2026 Page No. 23 of 23 ISSUE No.4:- Whether there is no cause of action in favour of plaintiff? OPD
25. Although in view of findings on issue No.2 this court lack jurisdiction to decide the case on merits but Order 14 Rule 2 CPC mandates this court to render findings on all issues as the issue relating to jurisdiction was not pure question law. Reliance may be had to Supreme Court's ruling in Sathyanath v. Sarojamani. (bearing Civil Appeal No. 3680 of 2022 decided on 06.05.2022) wherein it was held that even an issue relating to jurisdiction cannot be tried as a preliminary issue if it is a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence. In such cases, the court must decide the issue along with all other issues. Further, under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC (post-amendment), the court is required to record findings on all issues and pronounce judgment comprehensively, even if the issue of jurisdiction is ultimately decided against it.
26. Thus even though this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction, findings on merits are being recorded for the convenience of the Appellate court so as to avoid remand if it did not agree with findings on issue No.1 rendered by this court in accordance with direction in Sathyanath (supra). However, it is made clear that findings of this court on subsequent issues would not bind the parties or the court to which present plaint is presented accepting the findings on issue No.1 and would not operate as res- judicata.
CS(Comm) No. 477/2021 Sita Ram & Company Private Limited vs. Abdul Rahman Badyari DoJ 18.04.2026 Page No. 23 of 23
27. Issue No.1 and Issue No.4 are taken up together as both are inter-
linked. The defendant has taken the stand that he has already cleared the entire outstanding amount and, therefore, no cause of action survives in favour of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the plaintiff claims that a substantial amount still remains unpaid and, therefore, it is entitled to recovery. Thus, determination of the issue as to whether the defendant has discharged the outstanding liability would directly decide whether the plaintiff has a cause of action and is entitled to recovery.
28. In the present suit, the plaintiff has claimed recovery of the unpaid amount arising out of three invoices Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/4 dated 07.03.2018, 27.03.2018 and 28.03.2018 respectively. The defendant has not disputed that goods were supplied under all the three invoices. Though the defendant has taken a plea that the goods supplied were of inferior quality, the said plea loses significance in the present context, as the defendant is not claiming any damages, concession, return of goods or refund. Rather, the defendant's categorical stand is that despite alleged inferior quality, he had paid the entire amount due. Therefore, the controversy is confined to the question whether or not the defendant had paid the balance outstanding amount.
29. It is not in dispute that out of the total value of the goods supplied through the aforesaid invoices, the defendant paid Rs.20,00,000/- through two bank transfers. The defendant claims that the remaining amount of Rs. 26,01,757/- was paid in cash CS(Comm) No. 477/2021 Sita Ram & Company Private Limited vs. Abdul Rahman Badyari DoJ 18.04.2026 Page No. 23 of 23 between May 2018 and November 2018. Since such payments are alleged to have been made in cash and outside normal banking channels, a heavy onus lies upon the defendant to prove such payments by cogent and reliable evidence.
30. In order to discharge this onus, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and also examined DW2 Sarthak Singhal. In his examination-in-chief, DW1 deposed that there were regular business dealings between the parties and that pursuant to telephonic orders dated 07.03.2018, 27.03.2018 and 28.03.2018, the plaintiff supplied inferior quality material. He further deposed that despite repeated complaints, inferior goods continued to be supplied, due to which he discontinued further dealings. However, he categorically stated that notwithstanding the alleged inferior quality, he cleared all outstanding dues. According to him, as per ledger account for the period 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018, a sum of Rs.46,01,757/- was payable, out of which Rs. 20,00,000/- was paid through RTGS in April 2018 and the remaining Rs. 26,01,757/- was paid in cash between April and November 2018. He further deposed that the said payments were acknowledged by the plaintiff company, and acknowledgment receipt dated 26.11.2018 Ex. DW1/2 was issued in confirmation thereof.
31. However, during cross-examination, DW1 made material admissions which weaken his version. He admitted that all invoices raised by the plaintiff were true and correct and that most payments were made through bank transfers. He admitted CS(Comm) No. 477/2021 Sita Ram & Company Private Limited vs. Abdul Rahman Badyari DoJ 18.04.2026 Page No. 23 of 23 that approximately Rs.26 lakhs was payable to the plaintiff, though he volunteered that defective goods worth Rs.30 lakhs were supplied. Significantly, he admitted that except for the alleged last payment of Rs.1,51,700/-, no receipts were obtained for earlier alleged cash payments and that such payments were made on oral trust. He further admitted that there was no written authorization permitting payment in cash to Sarthak Singhal and that instructions were allegedly given telephonically. He also admitted that he did not maintain books of accounts and although he claimed to have filed income tax returns, the same were not produced. These admissions render the alleged cash payments unsupported by contemporaneous documentary evidence and resting solely on oral assertions.
32. To support his case, the defendant examined DW2 Sarthak Singhal, who in his examination-in-chief supported the defendant's version and identified his signatures and those of Sita Ram Singhal on receipt Ex. DW1/2. He deposed that he had worked with the plaintiff company from 2017 till March 2018 and used to look after sales and recovery. He further deposed that payments were made partly in cash and that the entire account had been settled prior to filing of the suit and acknowledged through Ex. DW1/2.
33. However, during cross-examination, DW2 admitted that disputes had arisen between his family and other directors of the plaintiff company around April-May 2018 and that litigations were pending between them. He further admitted that he had no CS(Comm) No. 477/2021 Sita Ram & Company Private Limited vs. Abdul Rahman Badyari DoJ 18.04.2026 Page No. 23 of 23 appointment letter, board resolution, power of attorney or any written authorization empowering him to collect payments on behalf of the plaintiff company. He also admitted that receipt Ex. DW1/2 does not bear signatures of any independent witness, does not contain dispatch details and no email or written communication was generated regarding issuance of the receipt. He further admitted that he could not recollect in whose presence the signatures of Sita Ram Singhal were obtained. Importantly, he admitted that although he allegedly collected cash on multiple occasions, no receipts were issued and he merely signed in defendant's diary (said diary was never produced by the defendant). He also admitted that he was unaware whether alleged payments were reflected in plaintiff's books of account.
34. The testimony of DW2 thus does not inspire confidence. Though he identified signatures of Sita Ram Singhal, he did not depose that the receipt was signed in his presence. He also did not depose as to how and where the receipt was issued and delivered to the defendant. The defendant himself claimed that he had never visited Delhi prior to court proceedings and DW2 did not state that Sita Ram Singhal visited Srinagar nor did he depose that he delivered the same to defendant. Further, DW2 admitted that he worked with the plaintiff company only till March 2018, whereas the alleged cash payments are stated to have been made from May 2018 to November 2018, hence apparently he did not have authority to collect cash on behalf of the plaintiff company. He also did not depose as to whom he handed over the alleged cash or whether necessary entries were made in the company records.
CS(Comm) No. 477/2021 Sita Ram & Company Private Limited vs. Abdul Rahman Badyari DoJ 18.04.2026 Page No. 23 of 23 Thus, the alleged receipt remains unsupported by any books of account, bank record or independent corroboration.
35. Moreover, both DW1 and DW2 admitted that earlier alleged cash payments were made without issuance of receipts. Such conduct appears improbable in ordinary course of commercial dealings involving substantial amounts running into lakhs of rupees. The absence of any contemporaneous documentary evidence renders the defence doubtful.
36. The plaintiff, on the other hand, has categorically denied receipt of any cash payment and has specifically pleaded that receipt dated 26.11.2018 is forged and fabricated. The plaintiff has also denied that the signatures appearing on the receipt are that of Sita Ram Singhal and has asserted that no amount beyond Rs.20,00,000/- was received.
37. It is also significant that the defendant did not produce his books of account or any financial record to substantiate alleged cash payments. When a party claims to have made substantial payments in cash, production of books of account, ledger entries or income tax records would be natural evidence. The absence of such evidence further weakens the defendant's case.
38. The defendant has contended that the plaintiff did not examine Sita Ram Singhal to disprove the receipt and therefore adverse inference should be drawn against the plaintiff. However, this contention is without merit. The burden to prove execution and genuineness of receipt Ex. DW1/2 lies upon the defendant, as he CS(Comm) No. 477/2021 Sita Ram & Company Private Limited vs. Abdul Rahman Badyari DoJ 18.04.2026 Page No. 23 of 23 relies upon the document and asserts a positive defence of payment. Once the plaintiff has disputed the authenticity of the receipt, the defendant was required to prove the same by cogent evidence including how and where it was executed.
39. Mere non-examination of Sita Ram Singhal by the plaintiff does not establish genuineness of the receipt nor discharge the defendant's burden. The defendant cannot succeed on the basis of alleged weakness in the plaintiff's case when he asserts a positive defence of payment. In the absence of independent corroboration, proof of delivery of cash, proof of authorization, supporting records or examination of the alleged signatory, the receipt dated 26.11.2018 remains surrounded by doubtful circumstances.
40. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the testimony of DW1 and DW2 remains uncorroborated and insufficient to establish, on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, that the defendant paid the balance amount in cash or that receipt dated 26.11.2018 Ex. DW1/2 was genuinely issued by the plaintiff. The defendant has thus failed to discharge the onus of proving full payment.
41. Consequently, it is held that the defendant has failed to prove that the entire outstanding amount under invoices Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/4 was paid. The plaintiff, therefore, has established that the outstanding amount remained unpaid, giving rise to a valid cause of action in its favour and thus plaintiff is entitled to the principal outstanding sum of R. 26,01,757/-.
CS(Comm) No. 477/2021 Sita Ram & Company Private Limited vs. Abdul Rahman Badyari DoJ 18.04.2026 Page No. 23 of 23
42. Plaintiff has claimed interest of Rs.14,83,001/- for the pre-suit period calculating the same at the rate of 18% p.a. from May, 2018 till 30th June, 2021. However nothing has been brought on record that parties specifically agreed for payment of interest on delayed payment at any particular rate. From the pleading of the plaintiff itself is cleared that defendant was making payment on account and not bill wise. Such agreed arrangement of payment does not contemplate of payment of interest on outstanding after expiry of a particular period. But this arrangement gets stopped when frequent flow of payment from the debtor/buyer stops. From the ledger account of the plaintiff it is clear that plaintiff has never charged interest on the invoices which partly remained unpaid due to on account payment by the defendant. This shows that even plaintiff had not acted on the alleged agreed printed term on the invoice that delayed payment would invite interest @ 18% per annum. Hence, plaintiff cannot charge interest @18% p.a. on the outstanding amount
43. Nevertheless, since the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant was admittedly commercial and any holding of amount adversely affect the party whose money has been held up, hence plaintiff is certainly entitled to interest to compensate for the loss which it suffered due to non-availability of fund.
44. In Central Bank of India v. Ravindra (2002) 1 SCC 367, the Supreme Court held interest must be reasonable. In the case of Cimmco Limited Versus Pramod Krishna Agrawal 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7289, it is held as follows:
CS(Comm) No. 477/2021 Sita Ram & Company Private Limited vs. Abdul Rahman Badyari DoJ 18.04.2026 Page No. 23 of 23 "3..........Hon'ble Supreme Court has now mandated that lower rates of interest be granted and therefore the pre-suit and also the pendente lite and future interest is liable to be reduced by this Court. Reliance is placed upon the judgments in the cases of Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, (2005) 6 SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v.
Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G. Harischandra, (2007) 2 SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan v. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC)."
45. In view thereof since it is commercial transaction plaintiff is entitled to charge simple interest @ 9% per annum on the outstanding from 01.04.2018 (i.e. from the start of new accounting year) till whole amount is realised.
46. In view of above discussion and reasoning, issue No.1 and 4 both are entitled to be decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.3: -Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
47. The onus to prove this issue lies upon the defendant. In the present suit, the plaintiff seeks recovery of the outstanding amount for goods supplied under invoices Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/4 dated 07.03.2018, 27.03.2018, and 28.03.2018 respectively. The present suit was filed on 06.10.2021.
CS(Comm) No. 477/2021 Sita Ram & Company Private Limited vs. Abdul Rahman Badyari DoJ 18.04.2026 Page No. 23 of 23
48. There is no dispute that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, In Suo Mot Writ Petition (Civil) bearing No. 3/2020 had suspended the running of the limitation period with effect from 15.03.2020 due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 would stand excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation.
49. Thus, even if the cause of action in respect of invoice dated 07.03.2018 (Ex. PW1/2) is taken to have arisen on 07.03.2018 itself, the limitation period stood suspended on 15.03.2020. The present suit was filed on 06.10.2021, i.e., during the period when the limitation stood excluded. Accordingly, the suit in respect of the oldest invoice in dispute cannot be said to be barred by limitation. Consequently, the claims arising from invoices dated 27.03.2018 and 28.03.2018 are also within the period of limitation.
50. In view of the above discussion and reasoning, Issue No. 3 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE No.5:- Whether the suit is not properly valued in regard to court fees and jurisdiction ? OPD
51. Onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit for recovery of the outstanding amount arising out of three invoices along with interest on the unpaid amount. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has claimed Rs. 4,15,273/- against Invoice No. I-876 dated 07.03.2018, Rs. 9,87,639/- against Invoice No. I-924 dated 27.03.2018 and Rs. CS(Comm) No. 477/2021 Sita Ram & Company Private Limited vs. Abdul Rahman Badyari DoJ 18.04.2026 Page No. 23 of 23 11,98,845/- against Invoice No. I-929 dated 28.03.2018. In addition thereto, the plaintiff has also claimed interest amounting to Rs. 14,83,001/- calculated @ 18% per annum from May 2018 till 30.06.2021. Thus, the total amount claimed by the plaintiff comes to Rs. 40,84,758/- and the suit has been valued accordingly for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction.
52. The contention of the defendant that plaintiff was required to value each relief separately and pay separate court fees thereon does not merit acceptance. The plaintiff has not sought separate and independent reliefs in respect of each invoice. Rather, the plaintiff has sought a single relief of recovery of a consolidated amount arising out of a series of commercial transactions between the parties. The claim of interest is also consequential and ancillary to the principal amount claimed. Therefore, the principal claim and interest together constitute one composite relief of recovery of money.
53. It is well settled that in a suit for recovery of money arising out of multiple transactions between the same parties, the plaintiff is entitled to cumulatively value the suit for the total amount claimed. The fact that the total amount is comprised of different invoices does not make them separate causes requiring independent valuation for the purpose of court fees. The plaintiff has valued the suit on the total amount claimed and has paid court fees accordingly. Nothing has been brought on record by the defendant to show that the court fees paid is deficient or that the valuation adopted by the plaintiff is contrary to law.
CS(Comm) No. 477/2021 Sita Ram & Company Private Limited vs. Abdul Rahman Badyari DoJ 18.04.2026 Page No. 23 of 23
54. It is also pertinent to note that the defendant has not led any cogent evidence to establish how the valuation made by the plaintiff is incorrect or what additional court fees was required to be paid. Mere assertion that separate court fees ought to have been paid on each invoice, without any legal basis or supporting material, is not sufficient to discharge the onus placed upon the defendant.
55. In view of the above discussion, issue No.5 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
Relief
56. In view of findings recorded on issue No.2 whereby it has been held that this court lacks territorial jurisdiction, the plaint is hereby returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for being presented before the court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law and subject to law of limitation as shall be applicable. Certified copy of plaint and documents be retained on record before handing over the plaint and original documents.
57. It is once again made clear that findings on other issues have been recorded tentatively only to avoid remand and shall not bind the parties or the court to which present plaint is presented again and shall not operate as res-judicata, if plaintiff accepts or appellate court upholds finding on issue No.2.
CS(Comm) No. 477/2021 Sita Ram & Company Private Limited vs. Abdul Rahman Badyari DoJ 18.04.2026 Page No. 23 of 23
58. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by HARISHHARISH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.04.18 16:19:41 +0530 (Harish Kumar) District Judge (Commercial)-04 Announced in the open court District West, Tis Hazari Courts (Judgment contains 23 pages) Delhi/18.04.2026 CS(Comm) No. 477/2021 Sita Ram & Company Private Limited vs. Abdul Rahman Badyari DoJ 18.04.2026 Page No. 23 of 23