Delhi District Court
Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd vs Industrial Power Control on 16 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANURADHA SHUKLA:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02,
SOUTH, SAKET, DELHI
CS (COMM) 716/2022
1.Servotech Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Having its registered office at
252-A, 1st Floor, Vijay Tower,
Shahpur Jat, New Delhi-110049.
....Plaintiff
Versus
1.Industrial Power Control
(Through Its Prop. Mr. Onkar Singh)
Head Office & Works
F-261, Industrial Area Phase-8 B,
Mohali, Punjab-160059.
Also at:
Branch & marketing Office,
S-214, 2nd Floor, Vardhman Star Citi Mall,
Sector-7, Dwarka Phase-1, New Delhi-110075.
....Defendant
Date of filing of the suit : 20.12.2022
Date of reserving judgment : 30.03.2026
Date of judgment : 16.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The is a suit for recovery of Rs.14,93,105/- alongwith interest filed by plaintiff against the defendant.
CS(COMM) 716/2022 Page 1 of 23 M/s.Servotech Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.Industrial Power Control
2. In brief, as per plaint, plaintiff is a company incorporated under the provisions of The Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is inter-alia engaged in the business for the supply and installation of electrical equipments etc. and further to carry out the work of electrical filtrations. It is stated that Mr. K.K.Sharma, General Manager (Finance) of plaintiff company is duly authorised to sign, file, verify and institute the present suit vide resolution dt.03.10.2020 passed in meeting of board of directors.
3. It is stated that defendant is a proprietorship firm and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supply of electrical panels, transformers etc. of different description and specifications. It has been impleaded through its proprietor Mr.Onkar Singh. The judgment practically shall be against Mr.Onkar Singh, the proprietor.
4. It is stated that in furtherance of business activity, plaintiff placed the purchase orders no.SEPL/NMIMS/01/18- 19/595 dt.02.01.2019 and SEPL/NMIMS/01-18-19/503 dt.03.01.2019 for purchase of electrical panels and transformers respectively. The aforesaid goods were supposed to be supplied at the site of NMIMS Plot No.5, Education City, Saranpur Opposite Botanical Garden, Chandigarh-160014 belonging to M/s.Shri Vile Parle Kelavani Mandal. It is stated that plaintiff was awarded work order dt.16.10.2018 to carry out the electrical work at the site namely Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies at Chandigarh by M/s. Shri Vile Parle Kelavani CS(COMM) 716/2022 Page 2 of 23 M/s.Servotech Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.Industrial Power Control Mandal. The aforesaid materials purchased by plaintiff were required to be used at the said site.
5. It is stated that plaintiff made advance payment against the purchase of aforesaid goods and defendant further demanded the part consideration of the aforesaid goods and plaintiff made the payment of Rs.10,50,000/- to the defendant.
6. It is further stated that during the execution of work at the aforesaid site, defendant had directly entered into the transactions with M/s.Shri Vile Parle Kelavani Mandal illegally. M/s.Shri Vile Parle Kelavani Mandal had confirmed that they procured electrical panels and transformers directly from the defendant.
7. It is stated that plaintiff vide letter dt.22.02.2021 requested to reimburse Rs.14,93,105/- as M/s.Shri Vile Parle Kelavani Mandal was paying full amount to the defendant against the supply of electrical panels and transformers.
8. It is further averred that after getting no response from defendant, plaintiff company sent a legal notice dt.03.02.2022 to defendant thereby demanding the outstanding amount but the defendant failed to either comply or reply to the said notice.
9. It is stated that as per statement of account maintained by plaintiff company, there is an outstanding amount of CS(COMM) 716/2022 Page 3 of 23 M/s.Servotech Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.Industrial Power Control Rs.14,93,105/-, which the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff company. It is stated that defendant is further liable to pay interest from the date of filing of suit till its realization as the defendant withheld the hard earned money of the plaintiff company illegally.
10.Defendant filed written statement. It is stated that the plaintiff had placed orders on 02.01.2019 and 03.01.2019 for purchase of electrical panels and transformers. The parties had agreed for a timeline for payments. The electrical panel was to be delivered in 7-9 weeks. The complete advance was not paid for 20 months. The plaintiff was to give 10% advance out of Rs.82,7,000/-; 5% against submission of drawings; 5% against approval of drawings amounting to a total of Rs.14 lakhs. The plaintiff, however, gave advance of Rs.7 lakhs only. The advance for electrical panel switch gear was Rs.6,50,000/-. The plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.3 lakhs through a cheque and made RTGS payment of Rs.3,50,000/- on 21.09.2019. It is stated that even after 8 months an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- was pending towards advance. The drawings were submitted for approval on 07.02.2019 and final approval was given on 30.07.2019. It is stated that out of 42 only 11 panels were approved and 10 were dispatched to plaintiff while others were put on hold as approval for drawings was pending. It is stated that electrical panel worth Rs.5,35,095/- was supplied on 31.10.2020 after receipt of payment of Rs.10,50,000/- on 27.10.2010.
CS(COMM) 716/2022 Page 4 of 23 M/s.Servotech Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.Industrial Power Control Regarding transformers it is stated that purchase order was placed on 03.01.2019 for Rs.38,72,760/-, 5% advance of Rs.1,64,100/- was to be paid alongwith order; 5% on drawing approvals and 90% alongwith GST with proforma invoice. The plaintiff, however, gave a cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- on 03.01.2019 and another cheque of Rs.1,78,200/- on same date which were honoured on 11.02.2019. The drawings were approved on 20.02.2019 but the plaintiff did not take any steps as the site was not ready for delivery of transformer.
11.It is stated that an amount of Rs.6,30,000/- was given to vendor Voltamp for supply of transformer, which was ready for dispatch and further manufacturing could not take place due to delay in further payment on part of the plaintiff. It is stated that defendant had given a sum of Rs.6,30,000/-to Voltamp; Rs.3,31,870/- to Namita Electro Traders; Rs.5 lakhs to Goodwill Elektro Controls and Rs.10 lakhs for bus bar and sheet metals. The defendant denied the averment of plaint that he had entered into a direct contract with M/s.Shri Vile Parle Kelavani Mandal illegally and that had made a direct transaction, taken payment from the said party.
12.Following issues were framed for trial by the court on 26.09.2023:-
1. Whether the authorisation in favour of AR of plaintiff is not executed as per law? (OPD) CS(COMM) 716/2022 Page 5 of 23 M/s.Servotech Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.Industrial Power Control
2. Whether there was any delay on part of plaintiff because of which the contract could not be executed, as alleged by the defendant? (OPD)
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable as no notice for termination of contract was served by plaintiff upon the defendant? (OPP)
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.14,93,105/-?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest, if any, if so, at what rate and which period? (OPP)
6. Whether plaintiff is entitled for costs of the suit?
(OPP)
7. Relief.
13. Plaintiff examined Sh.K.K.Sharma as PW-1, who tendered his evidence affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. He also tendered Ex.PW1/1 copy of board resolution dt. 03.10.2020 (OSR); Ex.PW1/2 copy of incorporation certificate (OSR); Ex.PW1/3 (colly.) copies of purchase orders no. SEPL/NMIMS/0118-19/595 dt.02.01.2019 & SEPL/NMIMS/01/18-19/503 dt.03.01.2019 (OSR); Ex.PW1/4 copy of letter dt. 22.02.2021; Ex.PW1/5 is copy of ledger account (OSR); Ex.PW1/6 (colly.) copy of e-mails; Ex.PW1/7 (colly.) office copy of legal notice and postal receipts; Ex.PW1/8 (colly.) copy of e-mails dt. 08.08.2023 alongwith supporting affidavit u/s.65-B of Indian Evidence Act and Ex.PW1/B is certificate u/s. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act with respect to e-mails Ex.PW1/6.
CS(COMM) 716/2022 Page 6 of 23 M/s.Servotech Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.Industrial Power Control
14. Defendant examined Sh.Sandeep Singh Lalotra as DW-1, who tendered his evidence affidavit as Ex.DW1/A. He relied upon true copy of five cheques received from plaintiff as Mark A (colly.); Copy of invoice dt.31.10.2020 as Ex.DW1/2; copy of four purchase orders and ledger w.e.f 01.04.2018 to March 2021 as Ex.DW1/3 (colly.)
15. Another witness examined by defendant is DW-2 Sh.Onkar Singh, who tendered his evidence affidavit. He relied upon emails from year 2019 to 2023 exchanged between plaintiff and defendant alongwith supporting affidavit u/s.65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.DW2/1 (colly.)
16.Arguments heard from both the parties. Record perused.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS:-
17.Issue No.1:- Whether the authorization in favour of AR of plaintiff is not executed as per law? (OPD)
18.The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant. The defendant in cross-examination put questions to the witness regarding board resolution filed alongwith plaint. The witness stated that company had two directors, out of which Mr. Arunava Das was Managing Director. Meetings for approval of minutes was held on 03.10.2020 and the board resolution was signed by Mr. Arunava Das. He stated that there is a typographical error due to which word CS(COMM) 716/2022 Page 7 of 23 M/s.Servotech Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.Industrial Power Control Managing Director has not been written on Board Resolution. No suggestion has been given to the witness challenging any of his statements. No questions were put regarding any other documents required to be filed. The defendant as such did not challenge the statement of plaintiff that the board's resolution was passed in a meeting and was signed by Managing Director. Plaintiff is relying upon the extracts of the minutes of meeting of board of directors, which is Ex.PW1/1, vide which PW-1 was authorised in a board's meeting. The issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
19.Issue No.3:- Whether the suit is not maintainable as no notice for termination of contract was served by plaintiff upon the defendant?
20.It is the claim of defendant that no notice for termination of contract was served and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. The defendant has not been able to point out from record as to which document mandated issuance of notice of termination. PW-1 was asked if there was any termination notice given by NMIMS to which witness stated that no such notice was received by the plaintiff. He also stated that they had completed the work till April, 2021 at the site and the work was stopped thereafter. The cause of action of plaintiff in my opinion will not be dependent on whether any notice was given to the defendant or not since such a notice was not a mandate of CS(COMM) 716/2022 Page 8 of 23 M/s.Servotech Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.Industrial Power Control the contract either between plaintiff and NMIMS or between plaintiff and defendant.
21.On being asked if the defendant was informed that the plaintiff had stopped its work at NMIMS Chandigarh witness stated that there was no occasion to do so because defendant was only supplier of product meaning thereby that there was no agreement with the defendant which was to be called off.
22.Case of the plaintiff is that it had placed orders with defendant which he did not supply and that of defendant is that plaintiff did not pay the money and therefore, the material was not supplied. It appears that somewhere in between the work had to be stopped by the plaintiff at the site. The defendant has not been able to show as to how the termination notice, if any, would have changed the claim of the plaintiff which is based on purchase order and advance paid. The issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
23.Issue No.2:-Whether there was any delay on part of plaintiff because of which the contract could not be executed, as alleged by the defendant? (OPD) And Issue No.4:-Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.14,93,105/-?
CS(COMM) 716/2022 Page 9 of 23 M/s.Servotech Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.Industrial Power Control
24.Issue no.2 is defence of defendant for why he is not liable to pay the suit amount. The two issues no.2 & 4, therefore, shall be decided together.
25.It is the case of defendant that the contract was a time bound contract, payments were to be made in a time bound manner, however, the plaintiff did not carry out the terms of contract thus causing huge loss to the defendant. What the plaintiff is saying is that the defendant had changed the payment terms after four months, which derailed the execution of contract.
A perusal of the purchase order would show that date of supply of material was to be 7-9 weeks from the date of receipt of drawings approval. The defendant thus has made an incomplete statement amounting to incorrect and misleading statement in the written statement that contract was to be executed in 7-9 weeks.
26.It is the contention of defendant that the plaintiff did not pay the money in time and hence needful could not be done. Plaintiff on the other hand claims that the defendant unilaterally changed the terms of payment causing derailment in the agreed schedule of payment. PW-1 stated in his cross-examination that project at NMIMS could not be completed because of change in payment terms by defendant. A suggestion was given to PW-1 that the terms and conditions of purchase order were still valid and not changed. In support of his case regarding delay in payment, Ld. Counsel for the defendant asked from PW-1 CS(COMM) 716/2022 Page 10 of 23 M/s.Servotech Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.Industrial Power Control the terms of payment. PW-1 stated that as per purchase order 10% advance was to be made alongwith order; 5% on submission of drawings; 5% on approval of drawings; less token advance, balance in 60 days LC before dispatch but after inspection and dispatch clearance.
27.As against the case set up in cross by Ld. Counsel for defendant that the terms of purchase order were still existing- DW-1 in his cross examination admitted that he had changed the terms of Purchase Order. He stated that since there was a penalty clause in purchase order they had got the terms changed since the delay was on part of plaintiff. Relevantly, there was no penalty clause to be made applicable unless the drawings were supplied and approved. The defendant thus was to supply the drawings, which were to be approved and then the time of 7-9 weeks was to set rolling. 7-9 weeks were to be computed from the date of supply of approved drawings and if these drawings were not supplied due to delay on part of plaintiff or NMIMS no limitation for execution of contract was to begin. The defendant apparently was supposed to supply drawings and wait for the approval of drawings and start working after that and to finish the work in 7-9 weeks thereafter. If the defendant felt that the plaintiff or NMIMS was taking too long in approving the drawings and that he was suffering as the price of the goods in market were increasing, he had the option of walking out of the contract.
CS(COMM) 716/2022 Page 11 of 23 M/s.Servotech Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.Industrial Power Control
28.There is no time limit given in purchase order for approval of drawings. PW-1 in this regard admitted in his cross- examination that manufacturing of electrical panels and transformers was not possible without approval of drawings. Nonetheless, he stated that approval for drawings was to be given by the client and thereafter by the plaintiff. The defendant thus has not been able to prove that there was a time limit set for approval of drawings after supply of drawings.
29.Emails exchanged: On 15.06.2019 defendant wrote that they had not received all panel approved drawings & switch gear was ready for dispatch. It says that defendant had not received advance and that they will not take any panel in production till advance and all panel drawings were approved. No work thus had begun till June 2019. The plaintiff wrote on 24.06.2019, a reference was made to the meeting with Sandeep Lalotra, and it was asked how fast 12 panels could be delivered if balance advance was paid. On 12 July 2019 Sandeep Lalotra wrote that advance was not paid and they were getting calls from dealers for picking up material from Seimens and transformer. It is stated that all the Siemens switchgears will be billed to Servotech. Same day plaintiff wrote: Send the panel drawings after incorporating the comments immediately. And that they were ready with the advance. On 16 th July defendant sent some invoice which is not part of email. On 17.07.2019 plaintiff's representative wrote to defendant to forward drawings of panels after incorporating comments.
CS(COMM) 716/2022 Page 12 of 23 M/s.Servotech Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.Industrial Power Control It is not stated by anyone as to when the drawings of panels were forwarded by the defendant. Defendant says in written statement that final approval of 11 panels was given on 30.07.2019. 7-9 weeks for 11 panels was thus to be computed from 30.07.2019. The defendant further writes that he had supplied 10 out of 11 panels on 31.10.2020 more than an year later. The defendant thus did not supply the panels within 7-9 weeks of receiving the approved drawings and was not penalized for it. The statement of DW-1 that he changed the terms of payment because of penalty clause is, therefore, without any basis.
30.Defendant thereafter relies upon e-mails of November 2019 Ex.DW2/1. In the initial mails Voltamp is asking defendant to pay the advance of Rs.12,85,000/-. Defendant writes on 13.11.2019 to plaintiff that the transformer will go in manufacturing only when balance advance was paid. In the same mail it is written that the ..
"transformer was ready as per deliver (sic) asked by you and it was delayed at your part after repeated reminders."
Only one of these statement could be correct either the transformer could have been ready as per delivery asked or it were to go into manufacturing after the advance was paid. Till this date as it appears from the mail the defendant had paid Rs.3,30,000/- to Voltamp out of the money received from plaintiff. The plaintiff had paid a total advance of Rs.9,78,200/ by this date. Thereafter, the mail is of 18.03.2020 when the plaintiff wrote to defendant that their client was ready for delivery and that the CS(COMM) 716/2022 Page 13 of 23 M/s.Servotech Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.Industrial Power Control delivery could not be taken earlier as the site was not ready. This part of the evidence needs to be read with cross examination of PW-1, where he said that Rs.9,78,200/- was paid as advance upto 21.09.2019 and that an advance of Rs.10 lakhs was paid after meeting Sandeep Lalotra of defendant in October, 2020 and that Mr. Lalotra had assured that after getting Rs.10 lakhs he will pay this amount to Voltamp and dispatch the transformer but they paid only Rs.3 lakhs to Voltamp. No suggestion was given to the witness that his statement regarding meeting and payment to be made to Voltamp was incorrect. The transformer admittedly was not sent at the site.
31.As claimed by plaintiff defendant's insistence for payment on changed terms which were not agreed originally between the parties, was contributory cause for delay. In any case the defendant has not been able to show that time was essence of contract. In fact the mails of plaintiff and evidence of PW-1 would show that the delay was at the end of NMIMS from whom the approved drawings were to be received and also because the site was not ready.
32.The plaintiff has placed reliance upon the purchase order, which is an admitted document between the parties. The plaintiff claims that it paid an advance to the defendant and that defendant is liable to refund an amount of Rs.14,93,105/- to the plaintiff.
CS(COMM) 716/2022 Page 14 of 23 M/s.Servotech Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.Industrial Power Control
33.It is an admitted case of the parties that certain amounts were paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. Plaintiff did not give details of these payments in the plaint but has filed a copy of ledger Ex.PW1/5 to show the payments made. As per this document giving the details of Bank and account number, an amount of Rs.20,28,200/- was paid by plaintiff and Rs.5,35,095/- spent on purchase leaving a balance of Rs.14,93,105/-. The defendant specifically denied the document in affidavit of admission denial stating that it was incorrect without disputing the bank account to which the amounts were credited. DW-2 admitted in his cross- examination that he had received a sum of Rs.20,28,200/- from the plaintiff. The defendant also admitted that he supplied electrical panels of Rs.5,35,095/- which is so stated in the WS end of para 6. What was then defendant denying in ledger in affidavit of admission and denial and how was it incorrect? Commercial Courts Act puts a burden on the parties to make all truthful disclosures. Stating on affidavit that the document was incorrect while admitting all the entries of it amounts to making a false statement on oath.
34.The admitted facts thus are that the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.20,28,200/- to the defendant and the defendant supplied material worth Rs.5,35,095/- to the plaintiff. The defendant thus had an amount of Rs.14,93,105/- of plaintiff.
CS(COMM) 716/2022 Page 15 of 23 M/s.Servotech Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.Industrial Power Control
35.The defence of defendant is that he had paid money to others to purchase the goods and hence cannot be asked to return the same. He in this regard is placing reliance upon purchase orders and ledgers. Defendant says that he paid Rs.6,30,000/- to Voltamp; Rs.3,31,870/- to Namita Electro Traders; Rs.5,00,000/- to Goodwill Elektro Controls for switch gears and Rs.10,00,000/- for Bus Bar & Sheet metal. It is the case of defendant that he paid Rs.5,00,000/- to Goodwill Elektro. Purchase Order of Goodwill Elektro (purchase order dated 06.03.2019, Ex DW1/3) is of Rs.40,70,000/-. The purchase order of Namita Electro traders is of Rs.39,16,225/- to whom the defendant says it paid Rs.3,31,870/-.
The defendant has not placed any document on record to show that goods worth Rs.5,00,000/- were supplied by Goodwill Elektro or the defendant had paid any money to them. Similar is the situation of other relied purchase orders. There is no document on record to show that goods worth Rs.3,31,870/ were supplied to defendant or any proof of payment made to Namita Electro traders. There is no proof of payment of Rs.10,00,000/- for Bus Bar & Sheet Metal as well. This being the defence of defendant onus to prove the same was on the defendant. In support of his claim for money paid the defendant has placed reliance not on the proof of payment but upon the purchase orders placed by it with M/s.Namita Electro Traders (page no 45 of WS) payment term is 60 days against PDC; Goodwill Elektro Controls (page 55 Ex.DW1/3) payment term is 60 days against PDC. Freight included and one M/s.OM CS(COMM) 716/2022 Page 16 of 23 M/s.Servotech Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.Industrial Power Control Metal Balongi (page 73 of WS) payment term after material received; M/s Ramit Steel (page 75 of WS) payment term advance; M/s.Sanjay Steels (page 77 of WS) after material receive (PDC 35 days).
These purchase order merely prove that they were printed. There in no receipt/seal/signature or any communication of/by/with respective sellers. There is no invoice raised by these sellers. There is no proof of payment made or receipt issued for the money paid. The defendant is relying upon one ledger of Namita Electro. What the defendant has filed in the name of ledgers is printouts mentioning only single incomplete entry. There is no bank account details of the payer or the receivers. Notably the defendant denied the ledger of plaintiff with all the details mentioned in it but wants that his ledger with no particulars mentioned in it be relied by court.
36.A specific question was put to DW-1 as to whether any document was placed on record to show that order for material placed were canceled or amounts forfeited by such firms. The defendant in answer referred only to Voltamp, which is discussed separately. Thus the defendant did not prove payments made to these dealers, it could not prove cancellation of orders on account of non completion of contract and forfeiture of money by these dealers. In absence of any document mere statements in emails that the dealers were putting pressure and that defendant will bill plaintiff for the switch gears would not substitute the need of proof of the payment having actually been made CS(COMM) 716/2022 Page 17 of 23 M/s.Servotech Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.Industrial Power Control by the defendant to the dealers of switchgears and other material.
37.Regarding the Voltamp the defendant claimed that it had paid Rs.6,30,000/- to VOLTAMP Transformers. There are emails of Voltamp Ex.DW2/1 admitting payment of advance of Rs.3,00,000/- and asking for the balance payment.
38.The case of the plaintiff is that Voltamp had adjusted the advance paid by the defendant. Plaintiff in this regard placed reliance on email communication sent by Voltamp in reply to the email written by the plaintiff, Ex.PW1/8. This mail was written after defendant took the defence of advance paid by it to Voltamp and hence was taken on record as a "subsequent to suit" document. The plaintiff wrote to Voltamp asking for the advance paid by defendant IPC. The mail is replied saying that there was no advance of M/s.IPC pending with them. It further says that whatever advances were received the same were adjusted in subsequent billings. This mail Ex.PW1/8 was tendered in the evidence of PW-1. Strangely no question, whatsoever, was put to PW-1 in his cross-examination on this mail.
39.It was argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that there was no proof of who at Voltamp wrote this mail. Such were the questions to be asked in cross-examination but were not asked leading to the proof of document with no challenge.
CS(COMM) 716/2022 Page 18 of 23 M/s.Servotech Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.Industrial Power Control It will be seen hereunder that there are admissions of adjustments made by Voltamp. It is settled law that if the witness is not cross-examined on any point specifically pleaded and stated on oath, that fact shall be deemed to have been accepted. The defendant therefore, cannot dispute the email of Voltamp having not challenged the same in the cross-examination. (Reliance placed upon the judgments in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Rashid M.H. Jung, RFA no. 794/2017 decided on 18.09.2017 & Vijay Sarohi Vs. Sushil Sharma, RSA no. 127/2013 decided on 05.03.2014).
40.DW-1 when asked about forfeiture of money against the purchase orders placed by defendant stated that Voltamp Transformers Ltd. had issued a credit note, however, he admitted that the credit note had not been placed on record. He denied the suggestion that Voltamp had returned the money to the defendant. In answer to the question that M/s.Voltamp had confirmed to the plaintiff that they had adjusted the amount paid by defendant in subsequent billings of the defendant firm, the witness stated that Voltamp had prepared a debit note of Rs.4,48,000/- and adjusted the amount of Rs.1,18,000/-. They sent SF breakers which were of no use to defendant and deducted Rs.1 lakhs even while sending the said goods. This would be Rs.6,66,000/- plus cost of SF breakers. Witness stated that debit note was issued after filing of WS and is not on record. The defendant had the recourse of filing the document on "as and when obtained CS(COMM) 716/2022 Page 19 of 23 M/s.Servotech Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.Industrial Power Control basis" under Order 11. He could have shown documents to PW-1 in his cross when he tendered the mail of Voltamp stating that no advance was lying with Voltamp; or could have tendered the same in his evidence giving the details. No such thing was done. Even admitting what defendant has claimed as correct, though there is no proof of it the defendant had got Rs.1,18,000/- adjusted and it was supplied SF6 breakers. The defendant did not disclose these facts at relevant stage and did not offer SF6 breakers to plaintiff at appropriate stage. Relevantly DW-2 was cross examined on17.08.2024 when the question regarding these documents not being on record were put to him. Despite knowing the relevance of the documents DW-1 who was cross-examined later, on 26.09.2025, did not bring the documents. It is settled law that mere statement of a party cannot be substituted for evidence. The one who says something also has the onus of proving it by producing evidence in support of such plea. (Reliance placed on the judgments in Manager Reserve Bank of India, Banglore Vs S. Mani, (2005) 5 SCC 100 & Essen Deinki Vs Rajiv Kumar, (2002) 8 SCC 400).
41.The plaintiff thus has proved that advance paid by the defendant was returned/adjusted; the defendant failed to prove that the return/adjustment was not fair. He failed to show what amount did it actually loose to Voltamp. He has also failed to prove that he paid any money to any dealers on any other account.
CS(COMM) 716/2022 Page 20 of 23 M/s.Servotech Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.Industrial Power Control
42.The defendant took a plea that there was delay on part of plaintiff but failed to prove as to what did the defendant loose on account of this delay. There was admittedly no agreement between the parties for forfeiture of advance. The defendant has not claimed any damages that it might have suffered on account of any delay caused by the plaintiff. He has not come clear on material purchased by him and the money paid for it, if any, by him. Had the defendant made truthful disclosures he could have proved a case for set off on account of payments made or damages suffered. The defendant, however, has not been able to prove its case for retention of advance money given by the plaintiff. These issues are decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
43.Issue No.5:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest, if any, if so, at what rate and which period? (OPP) And Issue no.6:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for costs of the suit?
44.As per Section 34 CPC, wherein and in so far as a decree is for payment of money, the court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of suit to the date of decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the CS(COMM) 716/2022 Page 21 of 23 M/s.Servotech Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.Industrial Power Control institution of the suit with further interest at such rate not exceeding 6% p.a as Court deems reasonable on such principal sum from the date of decree to the date of payment or to such earlier date as the Court deems thinks. As per proviso to sec 34 CPC, where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent, per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalized banks in relation to commercial transactions.
45. The plaintiff is seeking interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of suit till its realization. The plaintiff has not stated in the suit as to how this rate of interest was arrived at.
46. This is a commercial suit. Having regard to the lending rate of the bank in the commercial transaction, this Court is of the view that, grant of interest @ 9% per annum pendente-lite and future would serve the ends of restitutive justice therefore, plaintiff is held entitled to the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of present suit till the realization of the entire amount.
47.A lump sum cost of Rs.10,000/- is awarded in favour of plaintiff in addition to the Court fee paid by it.
CS(COMM) 716/2022 Page 22 of 23 M/s.Servotech Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.Industrial Power Control
48. Relief :- In the result, in view of the aforenoted finding, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant in the sum of Rs.14,93,105/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of suit till its realization. Costs of the suit is also awarded in favour of plaintiff. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
(Anuradha Shukla) District Judge(Commercial Court)-02 South, Saket, Delhi.
Announced in open court Digitally signed
by anuradha
shukla
on 16.04.2026 anuradha Date:
(digitally signed and shukla 2026.04.17
uploaded on 17.04.2026) 12:23:08
+0530
CS(COMM) 716/2022 Page 23 of 23 M/s.Servotech Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.Industrial Power Control