Delhi District Court
M/S Professional Impex Pvt. Ltd vs Shirdi Industries Ltd on 2 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA :
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-06
TIS HAZARI COURTS, WEST: DELHI
CS (COMM) No. 360/2024
CNR No. DLWT010030582024
02.09.2025
M/s. Professional Impex Pvt. Ltd.
having its registered office at
First Floor, Harbans Bhawan-I,
DDA Business Complex,
Nagal Raya, New Delhi-110046.
.....Plaintiff
Vs.
M/s. Shirdi Industries Ltd. (Now known
as M/s. Shirdi Panel Industries Ltd.)
Through Managing Director/Director
Shri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal
A Wing, 2nd Floor, Mhatre Pen Building,
Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West,
Mumbai-400028
Also:
Plot No. 94/7, Block 2, WHS
Kirti Nagar, West Delhi
New Delhi-110015
And
Plot No. 1, Sector-9, II E Pant Nagar,
District-Udhamsingh Nagar,
Uttarakhand-263153.
....Defendant.
Date of filing : 08.04.2024
Date of arguments : 02.09.2025
Date of judgment : 02.09.2025
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 16,04,950/- ALONGWITH
INTEREST.
JUDGMENT:
CS (Comm.) No. 360/2024 -1-
1. Vide this judgment, I am deciding the suit for recovery of Rs. 16,04,950/- along with interest filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. In the plaint, it is mentioned that the plaintiff is a private limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 1st Floor, Harbans Bhawan-I, DDA Business Complex, Nangal Raya, new Delhi-110046. Shri Bibek Kumar Jha is the Authorized Representative of the plaintiff duly authorized vide Resolution dated 20.07.2022 to sign, verify and fie the present suit. The plaintiff is an approved Custom House Clearing agent based in New Delhi and known for its best services at the concerned ports. It provides prompt and efficient clearing services to its clients and also arranging transportation and delivery of imported goods to their destinations as desired by the clients in Delhi/NCR. The clearing services include providing services at the Port required for clearance of imported goods. It is mentioned that defendant used to import goods/materials from overseas and approached the plaintiff for getting its imported goods/materials from customs and agreed to pay the fee and other charges to the plaintiff as per its bills/invoices. It is mentioned that the defendant kept on availing the services of the plaintiff and get its imported/ exported goods/ materials cleared from Customs and is liable to make the payment of the bills/ debit notes/ invoices raised by the plaintiff from time to time for the services provided by it. As per the ledger account the amount of Rs. 10,82,022/- is due towards the defendnat as on 29.06.2021. The plaintiff demanded the balance amount from the defendant many times but defendant neglected to make the payment on one CS (Comm.) No. 360/2024 -2- pretext or the other. It is mentioned that plaintiff is also entitled to interest on the amount of Rs. 10,82,022/- @ 18% per annum. The plaintiff approached West District Legal Services Authority for Pre-litigation Mediation. The defendant after availing time on 3-4 occasions did not give its consent and willingness to participate in the Mediation Proceedings and ultimately Non- Stater Report was issued to the plaintiff. It is prayed by the plaintiff to pass a decree of Rs. 16,04,950/- in its favour and against the defndant. Plaintiff has also claimed interest @ 18 per annum from 13.03.2024 till realization along with cost of the suit.
3. Notice of the suit was sent to the defendant. The defendant has filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands. The defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff in view of the Order passed by the Hon,ble NCLT, Mumbai Bench in TCP No. 839/I&BP/NCLT/MAH/2017. The present suit is not maintainable as no cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The present suit is not maintainable in view of the order passed by Hon'ble NCLT whereby the Hon'ble Tribunal had approved the Resolution Plan that the plaintiff company has to pay 15% of any outstanding dues payable to all operational creditors including government departments and the said order has neither been challenged by any creditor nor any appeal is pending. It is mentioned that Section 238 of IBC Act, 2016 is having overriding effect. The plaintiff is not entitled to any claim.
CS (Comm.) No. 360/2024 -3-In reply on merits, it is mentioned that the name of defendant company is changed to M/s. Shirdi Panel Industries Limited. It is mentioned that no amount is payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The Principle amount is not recoverable from the defendant so there is no question of any payment of interest to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no legal right to file the present suit. No cause of action ever arose in favour of the plaintiff. Dismissal of suit is prayed by the defendant.
4. The plaintiff has filed replication and controverted the allegations made in the written statement and further reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by this court on 24.08.2024, which are as under:-
(i) Whether the present suit is liable to be dismissed in view of the order passed by NCLT, Mumbai Bench dated 12.12.2017 ? (OPD)
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.
16,04,950/- ? (OPP)
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the amount of Rs. 16,04,950/-. If yes at what rate and for what period ? (OPP)
(iv) Relief.
6. In evidence plaintiff has examined Sh. Bibek Kumar Jha S/o Sh. Malik Narayan Jha, Accountant as PW-1. This witness has filed affidavit on the lines of plaint. This witness has proved CS (Comm.) No. 360/2024 -4- the certified true copy of the Board Resolution dated 20.07.2022 as Ex. PW-1/1, copies of invoices as Ex. PW-1/2 to Ex. PW-1/23, the hard copies of ledger account from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2022, 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 & 01.09.2018 to 31.03.2019 as Ex. PW-1/24 to E x. PW-1/26, Non Starter Report dated 07.02.2024 as Ex. PW-1/27 and Certificate under Order XI Rule 6(3) CPC read with Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of computer generated copies of invoices/bills/ debit notes and ledger account as Ex. PW-1/28.
This witness is duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant. In cross examination, this witness has stated that he is Accountant in the plaintiff company and working with the plaintiff company for the last 9-10 years. This witness has stated that he cannot tell the exact year when the plaintiff company had started business with the defendant company. He has stated that the plaintiff was having business dealings with the defendant prior to his joining in the plaintiff company. He has stated that the defendant used to send work orders through email or through telephonic call. This witness has admitted that he had not placed on record any email in this regard nor he has brought copy of any email today. He has stated that the present suit has been filed on the basis of ledger account. He has stated that the entries in the ledger account were based on the invoices/ bills raised against the defendant. He has admitted that the plaintiff company has not filed all the invoices mentioned in the ledger account filed by the plaintiff. He has stated that the plaintiff company has shared the copy of ledger account with the defendant through email before filing the present suit. This witness has stated that he had himself sent the ledger account to the defendant through plaintiff's email CS (Comm.) No. 360/2024 -5- id [email protected]. He has stated that the plaintiff has not filed any email in this regard on the record. This witness has stated that he did not know whether the defendant company had filed a petition before NCLT, Mumbai or that the resolution plan was finalized vide order dated 12.12.2017. This witness has stated that he cannot tell without seeing the record as to how much amount was due towards the defendant company on 12.12.2017. He has stated that Ms. Renu Gupta might be one of the employee of plaintiff company on 16.07.2019. This witness has stated that he cannot admit or deny if Renu Gupta has sent any email to the defendant through the email id [email protected]. of the plaintiff company on 16.07.2019. This witness has stated that he is still having access of the email id [email protected]. This witness has stated that he has not filed any document related to the opening balance as shown in Ex. PW-1/26. He has stated that the email ID mentioned at point- A on Ex. PW-1/24 to Ex. PW-1/26 belongs to the defendant company. He has admitted that the plaintiff has not placed on record any document to show the ledger accounts were sent on the email ID of the defendant mentioned at point- A of Ex. PW-1/24 to Ex. PW-1/26. He has stated that whatever payment is made by the defendant is shown in the ledger account filed by the plaintiff. He has not admitted that no separate agreement regarding rate of interest was executed between the plaintiff and defendant. He has voluntarily stated that rate of interest is duly mentioned on the invoices. He has admitted that in the ledger account there is no mention about rate of interest. He has stated that the plaintiff used to send only signed invoices to the defendant. He has admitted that invoices from Ex. PW-1/2 CS (Comm.) No. 360/2024 -6- to Ex. PW-1/17 are neither signed nor any seal has been put by the plaintiff company.
7. On the other hand, defendant has examined Sh. S.N. Gupta, Vice President, Corporate Affairs of defendant as DW-1. This witness has filed affidavit on the lines of written statement. This witness has proved the copy of Board Resolution dated 12.01.2024 as Ex. DW-1/A. This witness is duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. During cross examination, this witness has stated that he had signed the written statement after reading the same. This witness has stated that he is Vice President, Corporate Affairs of the defendant company. This witness has stated that he is looking after the corporate affairs of the defendant company. He has stated that Mr. Hari Singh used to deal with the accounts of the defendant company. He has admitted that defendant company has approached NCLT, Delhi. He has stated that as per ledger of the defendant no amount is due towards the plaintiff. This witness has admitted that he has not placed on record the ledger account. He has admitted that the Account department of the defendant used to maintain ledger of the plaintiff. This witness has stated that he has seen the ledger maintained by the defendant in respect of plaintiff. This witness has stated that he has no much knowledge of Accounts. He has stated that as far as his knowledge is concerned, 5-6 entries of the plaintiff in its ledger account are wrong. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has put a specific question that which entries of the ledger account are wrong. The DW-1 replied that he cannot tell immediately after seeing Ex. PW-1/24.
CS (Comm.) No. 360/2024 -7-8. I have heard Ld. Counsels for both the parties at length and perused the record carefully.
9. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
10. Issue No. 1-Whether the present suit is liable to be dismissed in view of the order passed by NCLT, Mumbai Bench dated 12.12.2017 ? (OPD) The burden to prove this issue is upon the defendant. I have perused the order dated 12.12.2017 passed by Hon,ble NCLT, Mumbai Bench. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery in respect of the invoices which are placed on record as Ex. PW-1/2 to Ex. PW-1/23. The invoices are for the period from 10.09.2018 to 29.06.2021. The plaintiff has also placed on record the ledger account of the defendant maintained by the plaintiff as Ex. PW-1/24 to Ex. PW-1/26. The order of Hon'ble NCLT, Mumbai Bench is dated 12.12.2017. Thus, after the passing of the order dated 12.12.2017 the defendant made transactions with the plaintiff. However, the ledger account maintained by the plaintiff shows that defendant has made various payments to the plaintiff after passing of order by the Hon'ble NCLT. So, it can be held that all the transactions are after 12.12.2017. Moreover, there is no embargo placed on this court to try and entertain the present suit. Additionally, this Order vacated the moratorium granted at the time of admission of the company. Relevant paragraph of this Order has been reiterated as under:-
CS (Comm.) No. 360/2024 -8-10. Accordingly, this MA No. 552/2017 is hereby allowed by vacating the moratorium already granted at the time of admission of Company Petition No. 839/2017. It is made clear that the corporate debtor is liable to pay the direct taxes, indirect taxes, municipal taxes etc., as applicable without any exemption as sought in the resolution plan.
From the documents placed on record and from Ledger Account, it is clear that plaintiff is seeking recovery on the basis of transactions which are after passing of order dated 12.12.2017 in petition titled as "Mr. Devendra Padamchand Jain (Resolution Professional) Vs. Shirdi Industries Limited passed by Hon'ble NCLT, Mumbai. I have perused the judgment titled as "Saranga Anil Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Bhavesh Dhirajal Seth" Civil Appeal No. 4048/2024 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. This judgment reaffirmed that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is intended as a mechanism for resolving financial distress, and not as a tool to nullify or evade statutory obligations. Relevant paragraph of this judgment is reiterated as under:-
"Further, the appellant cannot invoke insolvency proceedings as a shield to evade statutory liabilities. The objective of the IBC is to provide a mechanism for resolving financial distress, not to nullify obligations arising under regulatory statutes".
In view of the above, I am of the view that defendant is not able to prove this issue. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
CS (Comm.) No. 360/2024 -9-11. Issue No. 2- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 16,04,950/- ? (OPP) The burden to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. To prove this issue Sh. Bibek Kumar Jha, Accountant of plaintiff appeared as PW-1 and filed affidavit on the lines of plaint. This witness has proved invoices as Ex. PW-1/2 to Ex. PW-1/23 and ledger account as Ex. PW-1/24 to Ex. PW-1/26. I have perused the written statement filed by the defendant. The defendant in the written statement has not specifically denied the transactions between the parties. The invoices Ex. PW-1/2 to Ex. PW-1/23 show that services were availed by the defendant from the plaintiff company and plaintiff company raised invoices upon the defendant. PW-1 has specifically stated that defendant used to send the work order through email or through telephonic call. This witness has stated that the plaintiff company has shared the copy of ledger account with the defendant through email before filing the present suit. This witness has stated that he had himself sent the ledger account to the defendant through plaintiff's email ID [email protected]. The ledger account maintained by the defendant shows that defendant has made various payments. Moreover, defendant has not placed on record any ledger account maintained by it in respect of transactions made between the plaintiff and defendant. DW-1 in clear terms admitted that he has not placed on record any ledger account. He has admitted that the Account department of the defendant used to maintain ledger of the plaintiff. This witness has stated that he had seen the ledger maintained by the defendant in respect of plaintiff. If the Account department of the defendant used to maintain the ledger of the plaintiff then defendant should have placed on record CS (Comm.) No. 360/2024 -10- ledger account to show that no amount is due towards the plaintiff. The defendant should have called the witness from Account Department to show that no amount is due.
12. It is vehemently contended by Ld. Counsel for defendant that ledger account filed by the plaintiff is wrong so no reliance can be given on the ledger account maintained by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff has proved ledger account as Ex. PW-1/24 to Ex. PW-1/26. The ledger account is for the period from 01.09.2018 to 31.03.2022. A specific question was asked by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff to DW-1, which is as under:-
Q- Can you tell while seeing the ledger account of plaintiff Ex. PW-1/24 as to which entries are wrong ?
Ans- I cannot tell immediately after seeing Ex. PW-1/24.
DW-1 is not able to pin point which entry of the ledger account is wrong. PW-1 has clearly stated that whatever payment is made by the defendant is shown in the ledger account filed by the plaintiff. So, this contention of Ld. Counsel for defendant carries no force.
13. The next contention raised by Ld. Counsel for defendant is that plaintiff has not placed on record any document to show that ledger account was sent on the email ID of the defendant.
PW-1 has clearly stated that the plaintiff company has shared the copy of ledger account with the defendant through email before filing the present suit. This witness has stated that he had himself sent the ledger account to the defendant through plaintiff's email ID [email protected]. No suggestion was given by the defendant to the plaintiff that this ledger account was not sent CS (Comm.) No. 360/2024 -11- by the plaintiff to the defendant. I am of the view that as PW-1 has clearly stated that he has himself sent the ledger account to the defendant through plaintiff's email ID [email protected], this contention of Ld. Counsel for defendant carries no force.
14. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for defendant that the ledger account of plaintiff has shown a sum of Rs. 12,64,784.26 paise as on 01.09.2018. It is also contended by ld. Counsel for defendant that this amount is prior to the period of 01.09.2018, so this amount is not recoverable from the defendant.
I am not inclined to accept this contention of Ld. Counsel for defendant as all the invoices proved on record are for the period from 10.09.2018 to 29.06.2021 i.e. after passing of order by Hon'ble NCLT.
15. It is vehemently contended by Ld. Counsel for defendant that PW-1 has admitted that invoices from Ex. PW-1/2 To Ex. PW-1/17 are neither signed nor any seal has been put by the plaintiff company. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for defendant that all the invoices are forged and fabricated.
I have perused the invoices placed on record. It is true that invoice are copies of the invoices and original copies have already been sent by the plaintiff to the defendant. I am of the view that this contention of Ld. Counsel for defendant carries no force.
16. In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that plaintiff is able to make out a case that it is entitled for recovery of Rs. 10,82,022.48 paise from the defendant. The plaintiff is CS (Comm.) No. 360/2024 -12- able to prove this issue and according issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
17. Issue No. 3- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the amount of Rs. 16,04,950/-. If yes at what rate and for what period ? (OPP) The plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18% per annum from the defendant. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for defendant that no separate agreement regarding rate of interest was executed between the parties. Ld. Counsel for defendant has drawn my attention towards cross examination of PW-1 wherein, PW-1 has admitted that no separate agreement regarding rate of interest was executed between the plaintiff and defendant and witness has voluntarily stated that rate of interest is duly mentioned on the invoices.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has drawn my attention towards invoices, wherein, it is mentioned that " All delayed payments will attract interest @ 18% per annum". Reliance can be placed in this regard on the judgment of Central Bank of India Vs Ravindra & Ors MANU/SC/0663/2001 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In this judgment it is held that according to stroud's Judicial dictionary of Words and Phrases interest means, inter alia, compensation paid by the borrower to the lender for deprivation of the use of his money. In Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa & Ors Vs G. C. Roy Manu/ SC/0297/1992 (1992) 2 SCC 508, it is held that the constitution bench opined that a person deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name. It CS (Comm.) No. 360/2024 -13- may be called interest, compensation or damages. This is the principles of Section 34 CPC.
In this judgment, Judgment of Dr. shamlal Narula Vs CIT Punjab MANU/ SC/0109/1964 (53) was also relied upon wherein it is held that interest is paid for the deprivation of the use of the money. In this judgment it is also held that in whatever category "interest in a particular case may be put, it is a consideration paid either for the use of money or for forbearance in demanding it, after it has fallen due, and thus, it is charge for the use of forbearance of money. In this sense, it is a compensation allowed by law or fixed by parties, or permitted by customs or usage, for use of money, belonging to another, or of the delay in paying money after it has become payable.
Reliance can also be placed on the judgment of Aditya Mass Communication (P) Ltd Vs APSRTC MANU/SC/0759/2003 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court granted interest @ 12% p.a. Reliance can also be placed on the judgment of "M/s IHT Network Limited Vs. Sachin Bhardwaj" in RFA No. 835/2016 & CM Appl.14617/2020 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has granted interest @12% per annum. I am of the view that interest claimed by the plaintiff is every excessive and plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. which is reasonable and usually prevailing market rate of interest.
18. RELIEF:
In view of my above discussions, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and a decree of Rs. 10,82,022.48 paise is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff is also entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.CS (Comm.) No. 360/2024 -14-
10,82,022.48 paise from 31.03.2022 since when the amount was due till realization. Plaintiff is also entitled to the cost of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room, after necessary compliance.
Announced in the (NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA)
open court on 02.09.2025 District Judge, Comm. Court-06
West, Tis Hazari Courts
Extension Block, Delhi/02.09.2025
Digitally
signed by
NARESH
NARESH KUMAR
KUMAR MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date:
2025.09.02
16:24:50
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 360/2024 -15-