Delhi District Court
Berlia Steels Private Limited vs Rajendra Giri on 14 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER : NORTH DISTRICT : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
PRESIDED BY : MS. AKRITI MAHENDRU
Berlia Steels Private Limited
Through its AR/ Director
Sh. Vikas Berlia
Office at: 59, SSI Co-Operative Indl. Estate
G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi - 110033 .....Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Rajendra Giri
Proprietor of M/s. Shri Gopal Traders
Main Road, Sanauli, Mahraj Ganj
Uttar Pradesh -273164 .....Defendant
E X - PAR T E J U D G M E N T
CNR No. DLNT 0300-1990-2024
Case No. 1242/2024
Suit seeking recovery of Rs.
1,35,803/- (rupees one lac thirty
Under Section five thousand eight hundred three
only/-) along with pendente lite &
Future interest @ 18% per annum.
Date of Institution 19.11.2024
Date of Reserving Order 07.01.2026
Date of Final Order 14.03.2026
Final Order Suit Decreed
CS No. 1242/2024 Berlia Steels Private Limited Vs. Rajender Giri Page 1 of 8
Digitally
signed by
AKRITI
AKRITI MAHENDRU
MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.14
16:46:20
+0530
1.The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff seeking recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,35,803/- (rupees one lac thirty five thousand eight hundred three only) along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum.
2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act 1956 in the name of M/s Berlia Steels Private Limited, engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of ceiling fan, exhaust fan and other electronic goods. The defendant is a proprietorship firm in the name of M/s Shri Gopal Traders engaged in the trading of electronic goods. In the month of February 2024, the defendant approached the plaintiff and placed an order for purchasing ceiling fans on credit basis. The plaintiff supplied the goods to the defendant as per the orders placed at different times which were delivered at the place designated by the defendant and invoices regarding the same were raised by the plaintiff, however, payment towards the invoices was not made by the defendant despite repeated requests from plaintiff. It is claimed by the plaintiff that at the time of filing of the present suit an amount of Rs. 1,35,803/- (rupees one lac thirty five thousand eight hundred and three only) was outstanding and remaining to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff along with interest @ 18% per annum.
CS No. 1242/2024 Berlia Steels Private Limited Vs. Rajender Giri Page 2 of 8
Digitally
signed by
AKRITI
AKRITI MAHENDRU
MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.14
16:46:25
+0530
3. The Plaintiff had also issued a legal demand notice dated 21.10.2024 through his counsel to the defendant to pay the outstanding amount within 15 days which was duly served upon the defendant on 26.10.2024. However, neither any reply was received from the defendant nor the payment of the outstanding amount was forthcoming, consequently, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the present suit for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,35,803/- (rupees one lac thirty five thousand eight hundred and three only) along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum from the defendant.
4. Summons were served upon the defendant on 09.12.2024 but defendant neither appeared in the court nor filed any Written Statement, therefore, defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 15.04.2025 and right of the defendant to file the written statement was closed.
5. Sh. Vikas Berlia, AR/Director of the plaintiff firm, examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex. PW1/A wherein he reiterated the contents of his plaint and relied upon the following documents :-
SERIAL DOCUMENTS EXHIBIT
No.
1 Certificate of Incorporation of PW-1/1
plaintiff company.
2 Board Resolution dated 04.11.2024. PW-1/2 CS No. 1242/2024 Berlia Steels Private Limited Vs. Rajender Giri Page 3 of 8 Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.14 16:46:29 +0530
3 GST Registration of defendant. Mark- A 4 Invoices issued by plaintiff to PW-1/3, PW-1/4, defendant. PW-1/5 5 Ledger account of defendant PW-1/6 maintained by plaintiff.
6 Legal Notice PW-1/6A 7 Postal Receipts PW-1/7 8 Tracking report PW-1/8 9 Certificate u/s 63 of BSA PW-1/9
6. The witness was not cross-examined as the defendant remained ex-parte during trial. No other witness was examined and PE was closed vide order dated 26.11.2025.
7. Ex-parte final argument were advanced on behalf of the plaintiff.
8. In view of the arguments advanced as well as the material placed on record during the course of evidence on behalf of plaintiff, this court is of the view that PW-1 has duly proved the contents of the plaint as well as the documents relied upon by him. His testimony to the effect that the plaintiff had supplied goods worth Rs. 1,35,803/- (rupees one lac thirty five thousand eight hundred three only) but defendant did not pay the due amount has gone unrebutted and uncontested in the absence of any cross-examination by the defendant CS No. 1242/2024 Berlia Steels Private Limited Vs. Rajender Giri Page 4 of 8 Digitally signed by AKRITI MAHENDRU AKRITI MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.14 16:46:33 +0530 to this effect. The uncontroverted testimony of the witness is duly corroborated by plethora of documents including invoices issued by plaintiff to defendant i.e. Ex. PW1/3, Ex. PW1/4 and Ex. PW1/5 and ledger account of defendant maintained by plaintiff Ex. PW1/6. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the same. The unrebutted testimony of PW-1 stands proved, insofar as, the amount for which recovery has been sought is concerned, as the same is reflected in the ledger account statement, Ex. PW1/6 duly corroborated by the invoices Ex. PW1/3, Ex. PW1/4 and Ex. PW1/5.
9. Now, this court shall deal with the interest claimed by plaintiff. In this regard, reference may be made to the observation of The Hon'ble Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Pt. Munshi Ram &Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. DDA, 2010 SCC Online Del 2444 where it was held that higher rates of interest, which are against public policy, can be struck down by the Court by finding such rates of interest to be against the public policy. Any Contract, which is against the public policy, is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The said Judgment was also relied upon by the Hon'ble Single Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in case bearing R.F.A. No. 823 of 2004, titled as Shri Sanjay Mittal Versus Sunil Jain decided on 07/12/2018. The Hon'ble Single Bench has granted 9% p.a. interest instead of 24% per annum.
9.1 In the matter of M/S. Tommorrowland Limited vs Housing And Urban Development, Arising out of SLP (C) No. 34338 OF 2016 vide CS No. 1242/2024 Berlia Steels Private Limited Vs. Rajender Giri Page 5 of 8 Digitally signed by AKRITI MAHENDRU AKRITI MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.14 16:46:37 +0530 latest judgment dated 13.02.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme held as under:
"9. It is trite law that under Section 34 of the CPC, the award of interest is a discretionary exercise steeped in equitable considerations. The law in this regard has been succinctly discussed in the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra & Ors.; (2002) 1 SCC 367, which states:
"Award of interest pendente lite or post-decree is discretionary with the Court as it is essentially governed by Section 34 of the CPC de hors the contract between the parties. In a given case if the Court finds that in the principal sum adjudged on the date of the suit, the component of interest is disproportionate with the component of the principal sum actually advanced, the Court may exercise its discretion in awarding interest pendente lite and post- decree interest at a lower rate or may even decline to award such interest. The discretion shall be exercised fairly, judiciously, and for not arbitrary or fanciful reasons."
50. There is no gainsaying that the power to award interest ought to be exercised judiciously, aligning with equitable considerations and also ensuring neither undue enrichment nor unfair deprivation. Courts are duty-bound to assess the facts and circumstances of each case, applying the principles of fairness and justice. This discretion must reflect a balanced approach, grounded in reason, and guided by the overarching objective of equity."
9.2. It would be appropriate to refer to Section 34 of the CPC at this stage. Section 34 of the CPC reads as under:
"34. Interest .-
(1)Where and in so far as a decree is for the 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 the CS No. 1242/2024 Berlia Steels Private Limited Vs. Rajender Giri Page 6 of 8 Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.14 16:46:41 +0530 suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent. per annum, as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit:
Provided that 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 nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions.
Explanation.-In this sub-section, "nationalised bank" means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970).
Explanation II.-For the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability.
10. Upon due circumspection of the totality of foregoing facts and circumstances, including but not limited to scrutiny of material available on record in the adumbral of the legal position governing the field, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 1,35,803/- (rupees one lac thirty five thousand eight hundred and three only) alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of suit till its realisation from the defendant.
11. In view of the aforementioned observation, a decree for CS No. 1242/2024 Berlia Steels Private Limited Vs. Rajender Giri Page 7 of 8 Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.14 16:46:47 +0530 recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,35,803/- (rupees one lac thirty five thousand eight hundred and three only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from filing of suit till its realization is passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
12. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favor of the plaintiff.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by AKRITI (Announced in the open Court AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
on 14.03.2026) 2026.03.14
16:46:52
+0530
(Akriti Mahendru)
SCJ / RC / North
Rohini Court / Delhi
14.03.2026
CS No. 1242/2024 Berlia Steels Private Limited Vs. Rajender Giri Page 8 of 8