Delhi District Court
Cinesales Mfg Private Ltd vs Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd on 15 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-01), NORTH
WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM)/398/2021
CNR No.DLNW010059312021
M/s Cinesales (Mfg) Private Limited
Through Sh. Sunil Chauhan
Director M/s Cinesales (Mfg) Private Limited
Office At C-93, Wazirpur Industrial Area Main Ring
Road, Delhi-110052
Mobile No-9810272444
Email- [email protected]
...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/s Carnival Films Private Limited
Popularly known as Carnival Group
Through-Shri Kunal Sawhnay VO Operations
Shri A C Dinesh - Director Finance
Shri P V Sunil Managing Director -
Having its registered office at:
Cinemas Carnival House, 801, 8 Th Floor, A Wing
Express Zone, Off Western Express Highway Malad
(East), Mumbai-400097 Maharastra
Mobile No-9167722014
Email - [email protected]
...DEFENDANT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY U/S 6 OF THE COMMERCIAL
COURTS, COMMERCIAL DIVISION AND COMMERCIAL
APPELLATE DIVISION OF HIGH COURTS ACT 2015 OF
Digitally signed
by DEVENDER
DEVENDER KUMAR
CS
KUMAR (Comm.) No.398/2021
JANGALA Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 1 of 43
Date:
JANGALA 2026.04.15
16:18:35
+0530
RS.14,10,000/- (RUPEES FOURTEEN LAKH TEN
THOUSAND ONLY) ALONG WITH PENDENTE LITE AND
FUTURE INTEREST & OTHER CHARGES
Date of institution : 16.08.2021
Date of final arguments heard : 13.03.2026
Date of judgment : 15.04.2026
JUDGEMENT
1. By way of present judgment, this Court shall adjudicate upon the suit of plaintiff for recovery of Rs.14,10,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Ten Thousand Only) alongwith pendentlite and future interest, from the date of filing till its realization. Plaintiff has also prayed for award of costs of the suit in its favour.
2. The brief facts as averred in the plaint is that the plaintiff Cinesales (Mfg) Pvt Ltd is a Private Limited Company having its registered office at C-93, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Main Ring Road, Delhi-110052, India and Shri Sunil Chauhan is its Director. That the plaintiff is running their business for the last 50 years of purchase, installation, fabrication, assembly, erection, fitting, testing, insulation, commissioning, main curtains, rear curtains, screen, speakers, frills, lights, ladders, light bars, light dimmers, control panel, wiring, safety chain, programming, sound reinforcement system, stage lights, video system, projection systems, integration of audio visual systems, accessories, consumables, Xenon Lamps, supply spares, maintenance other related works all related to cinema halls, conference halls, auditoriums on turnkey basis etc. That the plaintiff company is duly CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 of 43 registered with the ROC having the Registration No-5799 dated 30- 09-1971. That the plaintiff company is also registered with the GSTIN vide Registration No.07AAACC2345M1ZP dated 24.09.2017.
3. That the Board of Directors of the plaintiff Company has authorized one of its Director Shri Sunil Chauhan to look into and pursue the legal proceedings against the defendant M/s Carnival Films Pvt Ltd as he is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. It is stated that the plaintiff company has duly authorized Sh. Sunil Chauhan/Director to appoint advocate, send legal notice, file commercial recovery suit, sign & verify petition & application, affidavits, evidence, statements & vakalatnama & appeals & reviews & revisions, instruct advocate and to do all the other acts and deeds deemed necessary for the same by a Board Resolution dated 10.03.2021.
4. That the defendant M/s Carnival Films Pvt Ltd is also a Private Limited Company and the defendant company is duly registered with the ROC and is having the Registration No.27484 dated 16.01.2012. It is stated that the defendant Company Master Data also shows the Registered Office and list of Directors. It is stated that the defendant company is in the business of running cinema screens under the Carnival Group and brand Carnival Cinemas. That the defendant is running these cinema screens in various cities of India under the names of the defendant's various Group Private Limited Companies. It is stated that Sh. Kunal Sawhnay is the Vice President Operations, Sh. P.V. Sunil is the CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 43 Managing Director Cinemas and Shri A.C. Dinesh is the Director Finance and including others officials of the defendant are managing, running, responsible and liable for all the acts and deeds of the defendant. The other group companies of the defendant include Cinema Ventures, Carnivals Ventures Pvt Ltd and Stargaze Entertainment Pvt Ltd. It is stated that the defendant had contacted the plaintiff for the purchase of accessories, consumables including Xenon Lamps for use and replacement in the defendant's various cinema screens in different cities in India. That the defendant placed various purchase orders for the same from time to time after finalizing the rates and terms and conditions as mentioned in the invoice and agreed orally with the plaintiff. That the defendant also directed plaintiff to maintain only one account in the plaintiff's book of accounts as the defendant shall make all the payments to the plaintiff in the same in a running account for all purchase orders placed and goods supplied to the various companies and their cinema screen in different cities under the defendant's group companies. That the plaintiff had also issued three debit notes in favour of the defendant for adjustments of previous sales. That the defendant had placed various specific written purchase orders for specific items to be supplied at the various cinema screens in different cities in India from time to time by the defendant and its group companies to the plaintiff.
5. That the plaintiff had got the orders and delivered them by road transport against receipt to the defendant at the specified addresses in the purchase orders in the various cities of India vide CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 of 43 various invoices.
6. That the list / details of the 16 purchase orders as well as of the invoices are as under:-
Table 1: Details of 16 purchase orders S. Purchase Purchase Order Dated Destination City Amount No. Order No. by Company PO/ 14-09- Cinema Carnival Big Crystal 1 1,12,064 0917/0000154 2017 Ventures Pvt Ltd Mall, Rajkot, Gujarat PO/ 12-12- Cinema Cinemagic Big 2 1,03,309 1217/0000058 2017 Ventures Pvt Ltd Cinemas, Bikaner Carnival PO/ 12-12- Carnival Films 3 Krishnaplex, 61,180 1217/0000049 2017 Pvt Ltd Alambaug, Lucknow PO/ 12-12- Stargaze 4 Carnival Glitz City 96,760 1217/0000010 2017 Entertainment Mall Bilaspur / PO/ 11-08- Carnival Films 5 Carnival Funstar 61,478 0118/0000056 2018 Pvt Ltd Cinema, Jaipur Stargaze PO/ 13-02- Carnival Glitz Blue 6 Entertainment 73,750 0218/0000004 2018 City Mall, Jodhpur Pvt Ltd Carnival Gold Pune, PO/ 09-03- Carnival Films 7 Marigold Complex, 1,47,500 0318/0000055 2018 Pvt Ltd Pune PO/ 09-03- Cinema Carnival Crystal 8 81,009 0318/0000066 2018 Ventures Pvt Ltd Mall, Rajkot, Gujarat PO/ 09-03- Cinema Sangam Carnival 9 81,009 0318/0000067 2018 Ventures Pvt Ltd Cinemas, Nagpur PO/ 09-03- Cinema Carnival Viva Big 10 1,62,018 0318/0000068 2018 Ventures Pvt Ltd Cinemas, Jalandhar PO/ 09-03- Cinema Odean Carnival 11 81,009 0318/0000069 2018 Ventures Pvt Ltd Cinemas, New Delhi PO/ 09-03- Cinema IMAX Carnival 12 81,009 0318/0000070 2018 Ventures Pvt Ltd Cinemas, Wadala Huma Huma PO/ 09-03- Cinema 13 Carnival Cinemas, 81,009 0318/0000071 2018 Ventures Pvt Ltd Mumbai PO/ 09-03- Cinema Carnival Cinemas, 14 60,180 0318/0000065 2018 Ventures Pvt Ltd Pacific Mall, CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 5 of 43 S. Purchase Purchase Order Dated Destination City Amount No. Order No. by Company Mathura PO/ 09-03- Carnival Films Carnival Rap 15 60,180 0318/0000054 2018 Pvt Ltd Magnum, Meerut Carnival World PO/ 09-03- Carnival Films 16 Square Mall, 73,750 0318/0000056 2018 Pvt Ltd Ghaziabad Table 2 : Details of invoices S. Invoice No. Dated Destination Amount No. Carnival Big Crystal Mall, 1 TX032/17-18 21-09-2017 1,14,816 Rajkot, Gujarat Cinemagic Big Cinemas, 2 TX057/17-18 20-12-2017 1,05,610 Bikaner Carnival Krishnaplex, 3 TX062/17-18 26-12-2017 61,301 Alambaug, Lucknow Carnival Glitz City Mall, 4 TX066/17-18 11-01-2018 99,002 Bilaspur 5 TX071/17-18 16-01-2018 Carnival Funstar Cinema, Jaipur 62,599 Carnival Glitz Blue City Mall, 6 TX083/17-18 16-02-2018 74,871 Jodhpur Carnival Gold Pune, Marigold 7 TX088/17-18 13-03-2018 1,49,742 Complex, Pune Carnival Crystal Mall, Rajkot, 8 TX092/17-18 14-03-2018 82,130 Gujarat Sangam Carnival Cinemas, 9 TX093/17-18 15-03-2018 82,130 Nagpur Carnival Viva Big Cinemas, 10 TX094/17-18 15-03-2018 1,64,260 Jalandhar Odean Carnival Cinemas, New 11 TX095/17-18 15-03-2018 81,599 Delhi IMAX Carnival Cinemas, 12 TX096/17-18 15-03-2018 82,130 Wadala Huma Huma Carnival Cinemas, 13 TX097/17-18 15-03-2018 82,130 Mumbai Carnival Cinemas, Pacific Mall, 14 TX101/17-18 23-03-2018 60,770 Mathura 15 TX102/17-18 28-03-2018 Carnival Rap Magnum, Meerut 61,301 CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 6 of 43 S. Invoice No. Dated Destination Amount No. Carnival World Square Mall, 16 TX105/17-18 30-03-2018 73,750 Ghaziabad
7. That the plaintiff regularly maintains its book of accounts including the running account in the name of the defendant. It is stated that the plaintiff also regularly updates the sale of all goods by the plaintiff and payments made by the defendant and maintains the running ledger account of the defendant in the book of accounts of the plaintiff. That all the entries in the book of accounts of the plaintiff were also got cross-checked from the book of accounts maintained by the defendant. That there is no dispute with regard to the outstanding payment to be made by the defendant to the plaintiff. That the plaintiff had lastly sold and supplied goods to the defendant on 30.03.2018. That the defendant after making some part payments on 07.07.2018, 10.07.2018 and 22.10.2018 has failed to pay the dues.
8. That the plaintiff thereafter made several requests to the defendant on telephone and by e-mails to make the outstanding payments to the plaintiff. It is stated that various e-mails were sent to the defendant i.e., 25.05.2018, 16.06.2018, 27.06.2018, 02.07.2018, 22.01.2019, 23.03.2019, 08.05.2019, 24.06.2019, 18.09.2019, 19.09.2019, 23.09.2019, 07.11.2019, 18.11.2019 and 17.02.2020. That the defendant failed to make the balance payment due to the plaintiff and have delayed the same on one pretext or another as is clear from the defendant's emails dated 25.05.2018, CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 of 43 27.06.2018, 23.03.2019, 23.09.2019, 18.10.2019, 31.10.2019, 23.10.2019, 31.10.2019, 30.10.2019 and 17.02.2020.
9. That a sum of Rs.10,36,867/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Thirty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Seven only) is still outstanding towards the plaintiff in books of accounts which is outstanding against the defendant. That the defendant has also admitted to the outstanding payments in their emails dated 02.07.2019, 23.09.2019, 18.10.2019 and 17.02.2020 but still failed to make the outstanding payments. That the plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice dated 12.03.2021 to the defendant through their counsel. That the legal notice was also sent to the defendant through registered post and speed post on 12.03.2021.
10. That the defendant and the officials named and other officials are jointly & severally liable to pay the principal amount of Rs.10,36,800/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Thirty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Seven only) plus the interest at the rate of 12% from the date of last invoice i.e. 01.04.2018 till date 01.03.2021 amounting to Rs.3,73,200/- (Rupees Three Lacs Seventy Three Thousand and Two Hundred Only), totaling to Rs.14,10,000/- in discharge of their legal liability.
11. That the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant from 14.09.2017 to 09.03.2018, when the defendant placed the 19 written purchase orders to the plaintiff and when the plaintiff supplied goods to the defendants by various invoices and the goods were duly received by the defendant. It again arose on 07.07.2018, 10.07.2018 and 22.10.2018 when the CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 8 of 43 defendant made part payments to the plaintiff. It also arose on 25.05.2018, 16.06.2018, 27.06.2018, 02.07.2018, 22.01.2019, 23.03.2019, 08.05.2019, 24.06.2019, 18.09.2019, 19.09.2019, 23.09.2019, 07.11.2019, 18.11.2019 and 17.02.2020 when the plaintiff sent email to the defendant to make the balance due payments. It also arose when the defendant delayed the payment on one pretext or another by emails dated 25.05.2018, 27.06.2018, 23.03.2019, 23.09.2019, 18.10.2019, 31.10.2019, 23.10.2019, 31.10.2019, 30.10.2019 and 17.02.2020. It also arose on 02.07.2018, 23.09.2019, 18.10.2019 and 17.02.2020 as per emails sent by the defendant in which defendant admitted the outstanding amount It again arose on 12.03.2021 when the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant. That the cause of action is still continuing and persisting till date as the defendant has failed to discharge their legal debt & liability jointly & severally till date. Hence the present Suit.
12. Summons for settlement of issues, in respect of the present Suit were sent to the defendant. Defendant were duly served through e-mail on 24.08.2021. However, defendant failed to appear before the Court despite due service, as per law and accordingly, was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22.11.2021.
13. Plaintiff in support of its case examined Sh. Sunil Chauhan, who is its Director, as PW-1. PW-1 Sh. Sunil Chauhan, tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/17 bearing his signatures at Point A and Point B.
14. Sh. Sunil Chauhan, further deposed as PW-1 and relied upon CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 9 of 43 the following documents in evidence :-
1. Computer generated ROC certificate, which is now exhibited as Ex.PW-1/1.
2. Computer generated master data of the plaintiff company, which is now exhibited as Ex.PW-1/2.
3. Computer generated GST registration certificate of plaintiff company, which is now exhibited as Ex.PW-1/3
4. The original Board Resolution of plaintiff company, which is now exhibited as Ex.PW-1/4.
5. Computer generated master data of defendant company, which is now exhibited as Ex.PW-1/5.
6. Computer generated copy of 3 debit notes, which are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW-1/6 (Colly.)
7. Computer generated copy of 16 purchase orders, which are now collectively exhibited as Ex.PW-1/7 (Colly.)
8. Computer generated copy of 16 invoices, which are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW-1/8 (Colly.)
9. The copies of e-mail exchanged between the plaintiff company and the defendant company, which are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW-1/9 (Colly.), 22 pages.
10. Copy of legal notice, which is now exhibited as Ex.PW-1/10.
11. The true copy of email for legal notice, which is now exhibited as Ex.PW-1/11
12. The original copies of two postage slips, which is now exhibited as Ex.PW-1/12 & Ex.PW-1/13.
13. The computer copies of the two postal tracking reports, which is now exhibited as Ex.PW-1/14 (Colly.)
14. The certified computer copy of statement of account of the defendant in plaintiff's book of account, which is now exhibited as Ex.PW-1/15.
15. The Plaintiff did not examine any other witness and vide statement dated 15.09.2022, plaintiff's evidence was closed.
16. Written Submissions were filed by the plaintiff through which the plaintiff reiterated and reaffirmed its case and stance as mentioned in the plaint as well as its evidence.
17. I have heard Sh. Arun Aggarwal and Sh. Suraj Kumar, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and perused the entire record including the CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 10 of 43 pleadings, documents and oral testimony of PW1 Sh. Sunil Chauhan on record. The defendant has remained ex-parte and has not cross-
examined the sole plaintiff witness PW1, the testimony of PW1 remains unrebutted and unchallenged. However, Court is to examine the entire case of the plaintiff in light of the evidence, both oral and documentary, to determine if the plaintiff has been able to discharge the onus to prove its entitlement to the claimed amount, relying upon standard of proof by way of 'preponderance of probabilities', as per law.
18. It is settled position of law that in civil proceedings, the standard of proof is governed by the principle of preponderance of probabilities. The court is not required to attain absolute certainty, rather, it must assess whether, on the basis of the material on record, one version appears more probable than the other. If the evidence leads the court to conclude that a fact is more likely than not to have occurred, the burden of proof stands discharged. However, where the probabilities are evenly balanced, the party bearing the burden must fail. (See Phipson on Evidence, 20th edn., LexisNexis, 2023).
19. This standard is not uniform in its application and may admit of varying degrees depending upon the nature and gravity of the subject-matter involved. In cases involving serious allegations or grave consequences, the court is expected to exercise greater caution and require a higher degree of probability, though still within the civil standard. Thus, while proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required, the evidence must inspire sufficient confidence to persuade CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 11 of 43 the court that the version advanced is reasonably probable and worthy of acceptance. (See Miller v. Minister of Pensions, (1947) 2 All ER 372; Bater v. Bater, 1951 P 35 (CA)).
20. Thus, proof of a fact depends upon the probability of its existence. The finding of the court must be based on the test of a prudent person, who acts under the supposition that a fact exists and in the context and circumstances of a particular case. (See "proved" under Section 3, para 7 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 2(1)(j) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). Analysing this, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane, reported as (1975) 2 SCC 326 observed as follows:
"The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. A prudent man faced with conflicting probabilities concerning a fact situation will act on the supposition that the fact exists, if on weighing the various probabilities he finds that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact. As a prudent man, so the court applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved. The first step in this process is to fix the probabilities, the second to weigh them, though the two may often intermingle. The impossible is weeded out at the first stage, the improbable at the second. Within the wide range of probabilities the court has often a difficult choice to make but it is this choice which ultimately determines where the preponderance of probabilities lies. Important issues like those which affect the status of parties demand a closer scrutiny than those like the loan on a promissory note:'the nature and gravity of an issue necessarily determines the manner of attaining reasonable satisfaction of the truth of the issue [Per Dixon, J. in Wright v. Wright, (1948) 77 CLR 191 (Aust).] , CLR at p. 210'; or as said by Lord Denning, 'the degree of probability depends on the subject-matter'. In proportion as the offence is grave, so ought the proof to be clear [Blyth v. Blyth, 1966 AC 643], All ER at p. 536'. But whether the issue is one of cruelty or of a loan on a pronote, the test to apply is whether on a preponderance of probabilities the relevant fact is proved. In civil cases this, normally, is the standard of proof to apply for finding whether the burden of proof is discharged."
(emphasis supplied) CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 of 43
21. In State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal, (1988) 4 SCC 302, this Court observed :
"26. The concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the Judge."
(emphasis supplied)
22. In Harish Mansukhani vs. Ashok Jain, reported as 2009(109) DRJ (DB) (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi noticed that the plaintiff has to prove his case and had to stand on his own legs. Similarly, in Ganpatlal v. Nandlal Haswani & Ors., AIR 1998 M.P. 209, the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court took note of the elementary rule of civil litigation in this country that the plaintiff must stand or fall on the strength of his own case. The relevant para of Ganpatlal (supra) is reproduced below:
"8...It is necessary to stress that it is the strong "prima facie case "of the plaintiff that is the requisite to be considered; not the weak defence. This evidently flows from the elementary rule of jurisprudence of civil litigation in India that the plaintiff must stand or fall on the strength of his own case...."
(Emphasis supplied)
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak & Ors, decided on 12.08.2013, reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 also provided the present position of burden of proof while providing that the burdent CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 13 of 43 of proof as to a fact lies on a person who asserts it. The relevant para of Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra) is reiterated as follows:
"38.3. ... This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averment about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact...."
(Emphasis supplied)
24. The Apex Court in Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma, decided on 04.01.2023, reported as (2023) 19 SCC 782 while taking help of Addagada Raghavamma v. Addagada Chenchamma, AIR 1964 SC 136, stated that the proving of a fact is to be based on the person who asserts it in terms of Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 104 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). The relevant porition of Smriti Debbarma (supra) is reproduced below:
"37. The burden of proof to establish a title in the present case lies upon the plaintiff as this burden lies on the party who asserts the existence of a particular state of things on the basis of which she claims relief. (See Addagada Ragha-vamma (supra). This is mandated in terms of Section 101 of the Evidence Act, which states that burden of proving the fact rests with party who substantially asserts in the affirmative and not on the party which is denying it. This rule may not be universal and has exceptions, but in the factual background of the present case, the general principle is applicable. In terms of Section 102 of the Evidence Act, if both parties fail to adduce evidence, the suit must fail. Onus of proof, no doubt shifts and the shifting is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence, but this happens when in a suit for title and possession, the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability to shift the onus on the defendant. In the absence of such evidence, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and can be discharged only when he is able to prove title. (See Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple, (2003) 8 SCC
752). The weakness of the defence cannot be a justification to decree the suit. (See Union of India v. Vasavi Coop. Housing Society Ltd., CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 14 of 43 (2014) 2 SCC 269 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 66)."
25. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Equus Stud Pvt.Ltd vs Dharmil A Bodani And Ors., decided on 11 July, 2024, reported as 2024:BHC-OS:10260-Db, while relying upon Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority vs. Shiv Saraswati Iron & Steel Re-Rolling Mills, 1998 (2) MPWN 187, observed that the rights of the plaintiff stand independent and do not depend upon the failure of the defendant's case. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad Patel (Dead) & Ors. vs. Shivnath & Ors., AIRONLINE 2019 SC 2298, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the plaintiff can succeed only on the basis of his own evidence, irrespective of whether the defendant has been able to prove his case or not. The relevant paras of Equus Stud Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as observed by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay are reproduced as follows:
"36. ....In such context, Mr. Narichania would be correct in his contention in placing reliance on the decision in Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority vs. Shiv Saraswati Iron & Steel Re-Rolling Mills, 1998 (2) MPWN 187, when he contends that the position in law is well-settled that the plaintiff must succeed or fail on his own case and cannot take advantage of weakness in the defendant's case to get a decree. Such rights would stand independent and would not depend on the failure of adjudication of defendant's right in defendant's proceedings.
37. In Union of India & Ors. vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 937 even in the context of suit for declaration of title, the Supreme Court observed that the burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants could not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff.CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 15 of 43
38. In Jagdish Prasad Patel (Dead) & Ors. vs. Shivnath & Ors., AIRONLINE 2019 SC 2298, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle as laid down in the case UOI v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., AIR 2014 SC 937, The relevant observation as made by the Court reads thus:
"45. Observing that in a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiffs- respondents are to succeed only on the strength of their own title irrespective of whether the defendants- appellants have proved their case or not, in Union of India and Others vs. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Limited and others, 2002(5) ALD 532, it was held as under:-
"15. It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff."
26. It may be relevant now to consider the law pertaining to discharge of burden of proof of the issues as relevant and applicable to the Civil Jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chowdamma v. Venkatappa, decided on 25.08.2025, reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1814, while relying upon its own judgment in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558, and Addagada Raghavamma (supra), discussed the difference between burden of proof and onus of proof. The relevant paras of Chowdamma (supra) are extracted as follows:
"BURDEN OF PROOF AND ONUS OF PROOF
43. This Court in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh (2006) 5 SCC 558, observed thus:
"19. There is another aspect of the matter which should be borne in mind. A distinction exists between burden of proof and onus of proof. The right to begin follows onus probandi. It assumes importance in the early stage of a case. The question of CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 16 of 43 onus of proof has greater force, where the question is, which party is to begin. Burden of proof is used in three ways: (i) to indicate the duty of bringing forward evidence in support of a proposition at the beginning or later; (ii) to make that of establishing a proposition as against all counter-evidence; and
(iii) an indiscriminate use in which it may mean either or both of the others. The elementary rule in Section 101 is inflexible. In terms of Section 102 the initial onus is always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same."
44. Also, in Addagada Raghavamma (supra), this Court observed as follows:
"12. ... There is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof : burden of proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus of proof shifts. ...Such considerations, having regard to the circumstances of a particular case, may shift the onus of proof. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. ..." "
27. As observed in the judgments discussed above, it is trite law that the onus to prove is upon the plaintiff and if the plaintiff discharges that onus and makes out a case to entitle him to the relief asserted, in these circumstance, the onus shifts upon the defendant to prove such circumstances which may disentitle the plaintiff to the relief claimed.
28. At the outset, this court is required to discuss whether the present suit has been instituted in right jurisdiction. The present suit has been instituted within the jurisdiction of this court stating that the defendant contacted the plaintiff for purchase of Xenon Lamps for use and replacement at the registered address of the Plaintiff at C-93, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Main Ring Road, CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 17 of 43 Delhi-110052, and placed various purchase orders for the same from time to time after finalizing the rates and terms and conditions as mentioned in the invoices and agreed orally with the plaintiff which comes in territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The testimony of plaintiff in this regard remained unrebutted and unchallenged. The part cause of action/transaction has taken place within the jurisdiction of this court, hence this court is having territorial jurisdiction as per Section 20(c) of CPC. In view of unrebutted submission of PW- 1 Sh. Sunil Chauhan, it is held that this court is having the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as per Section 20(c) of CPC.
29. Now the Court shall examine the limitation aspect. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff on 16.08.2021. The plaintiff relied upon 16 invoices with dates ranging from 21.09.2017 to 30.03.2018. The law of limitation provides the limitation period of three years for filing the suit for recovery of money. The right to sue will survive within a period of three years from the date of last invoice, i.e., till 30.03.2021. However, the present suit is filed on 16.08.2021, beyond the period of three years from the date of supply of goods/invoice dated 09.03.2018.
30. It is claimed by the plaintiff that the limitation stands extended by way of part payment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "LA, 1963"). It is submitted that the defendant made various part payments dated 07.07.2018, 10.07.2018, and on 22.10.2018. It is also submitted that the limitation period would start running from 22.10.2021. As a result, it CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 18 of 43 is necessary to examine the provisions of extension of limitation period as a result of written acknowledgement or part payment under the LA, 1963.
31. Section 18 of the LA, 1963 provides for extension of limitation by way of written acknowledgement. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Technical Construction Company v. Engineering Project (India) Limited, decided on 15th March, 2024, reported as 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1924 discussed in detail on aspect of written acknowledgement vis-a-vis Section 18 of the LA, 1963 while relying upon the celebrated decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India v. Assam State Cooperative Marketing & Consumer Federation Ltd, decided on26.10.2004, reported as (2004) 12 SCC 360. The relevant paragraphs of the Technical Construction (supra) are extracted hereinbelow:
"22. Section 18 of the Limitation Act, reads:
(1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed.
(2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was signed; but subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), oral evidence of its contents shall not be received. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,--
(a) an acknowledgment may be sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right, or avers that the time for payment, delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 19 of 43 come or is accompanied by a refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy, or is coupled with a claim to set off, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the property or right,
(b) the word "signed" means signed either personally or by an agent duly authorised in this behalf, and
(c) an application for the execution of a decree or order shall not be deemed to be an application in respect of any property or right.
23. The above-mentioned provision clearly provides that if there is an express acknowledgement of liability in writing by the opposite party, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when acknowledgement was signed. The same has also been laid down by the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India (supra), wherein it was held that that to amount to an acknowledgement of liability within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, it need not be accompanied by a promise to pay either expressly or even by implication. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are set out below:
"14. According to Section 18 of the Limitation Act, an acknowledgement of liability made in writing in respect of any right claimed by the opposite party and signed by the party against whom such right is claimed made before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit in respect of such right has the effect of commencing a fresh period of limitation from the date on which the acknowledgement was so signed. It is well settled that to amount to an acknowledgement of liability within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, it need not be accompanied by a promise to pay either expressly or even by implication.
15. The statement providing foundation for a plea of acknowledgement must relate to a present subsisting liability, though the exact nature or the specific character of the said liability may not be indicated in words. The words used in the acknowledgement must indicate the existence of jural relationship between the parties such as that of debtor and creditor. The intention to attempt such jural relationship must be apparent. However, such intention can be inferred by implication from the nature of the admission and need not be expressed in words. A clear statement containing acknowledgement of liability can imply the intention to admit jural relationship of debtor and creditor. Though oral evidence in lieu of or making a departure from the statement sought to be relied on as acknowledgement is excluded but surrounding circumstances CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 20 of 43 can always be considered. Courts generally lean in favour of a liberal construction of such statements though an acknowledgement shall not be inferred where there is no admission so as to fasten liability on the maker of the statement by an involved or far-fetched process of reasoning. So long as the statement amounts to an admission, acknowledging the jural relationship and existence of liability, it is immaterial that the admission is accompanied by an assertion that nothing would be found due from the person making the admission or that on an account being taken something may be found due and payable to the person making the acknowledgement by the person to whom the statement is made."
32. Thus, it can be said that if there is an express written acknowledgment of liability by the defendant, a fresh period of limitation shall start from the time when such acknowledgment was signed. While strongly relying upon Food Corporation of India (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Technical Construction (supra) said that within the meaning of Section 18 of the LA, 1963, it need not be accompanied by a promise to pay either expressly or even by implication. The statement which provides foundation for a plea of acknowledgement must relate to a present subsisting liability, though the liability may not be indicated in words. The words as used in the acknowledgement must show that there is an existing jural relationship between the parties which can be implied by a clear statement containing acknowledgement of liability. Courts generally apply a liberal construction method of statutory interpretation in ascertaining whether an acknowledgement of debt results in extension of limitation under Section 18 of the LA, 1963.
33. Before going over the merits of the present case, the Court CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 21 of 43 shall also discuss current judicial position with respect to part payment and its effect on limitation expressly provided under Section 19 of the LA, 1963. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam SEB, decided on 18.12.2019, reported as (2020) 2 SCC 677 discussed in detail while excerpting Section 19 of the LA, 1963. The relevant portion is provided as follows:
"12. Section 19 of the Limitation Act is as follows:
"19. Effect of payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy.--Where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made:
Provided that, save in the case of payment of interest made before the 1st day of January, 1928, an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section--
(a) where mortgaged land is in the possession of the mortgagee, the receipt of the rent or produce of such land shall be deemed to be a payment;
(b) "debt" does not include money payable under a decree or order of a court."
15. Order 7 Rule 6 uses the words "the plaint shall show the ground upon which exemption from such law is claimed". The exemption provided under Sections 4 to 20 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are based on certain facts and events. Section 19, with which we are concerned, provides for a fresh period of limitation, which is founded on certain CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 22 of 43 facts i.e. (i) whether payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy, (ii) an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment.
16. We may notice the judgment of this Court dealing with Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which was akin to present Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In Sant Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad, AIR 1951 SC 477, this Court held that for applicability of Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908, two conditions were essential that the payment must be made within the prescribed period of limitation and it must be acknowledged by some form of writing either in the handwriting of the payer himself or signed by him. This Court further held that for claiming benefit of exemption under Section 20, there has to be pleading and proof. In paras 9 and 10, the following has been laid down : (AIR p. 479) "9. It would be clear, we think, from the language of Section 20, Limitation Act, that to attract its operations two conditions are essential : first, the payment must be made within the prescribed period of limitation and secondly, it must be acknowledged by some form of writing either in the handwriting of the payer himself or signed by him. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that it is the payment which really extends the period of limitation under Section 20, Limitation Act; but the payment has got to be proved in a particular way and for reason of policy the legislature insists on a written or signed acknowledgment as the only proof of payment and excludes oral testimony. Unless, therefore, there is acknowledgment in the required form, the payment by itself is of no avail. The Subordinate Judge, however, is right in holding that while the section requires that the payment should be made within the period of limitation, it does not require that the acknowledgment should also be made within that period. To interpret the proviso in that way would be to import into it certain words which do not occur there. This is the view taken by almost all the High CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 23 of 43 Courts in India and to us it seems to be a proper view to take. (See Mohd. Moizuddin Mia v. Nalini Bala Devi [Mohd. Moizuddin Mia v. Nalini Bala Devi, 1937 SCC OnLine Cal 20 : AIR 1937 Cal 284 : ILR (1937) 2 Cal 137] ; Lal Singh v. Gulab Rai [Lal Singh v. Gulab Rai, 1932 SCC OnLine All 265 : ILR (1933) 55 All 280] , Venkata Subbhu v. Appu Sundaram [Venkata Subbhu v. Appu Sundaram, ILR (1894) 17 Mad 92] , Ram Prasad Babu v. Mohan Lal Babu [Ram Prasad Babu v. Mohan Lal Babu, 1922 SCC OnLine MP 10 : AIR 1923 Nag 117] and Vishwanath Raghunath Kale v. Mahadeo Rajaram Saraf [Vishwanath Raghunath Kale v. Mahadeo Rajaram Saraf, 1933 SCC OnLine Bom 3 : ILR (1933) 57 Bom 453] .)
10. ... If the plaintiff's right of action is apparently barred under the statute of limitation, Order 7 Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code makes it his duty to state specifically in the plaint the grounds of exemption allowed by the Limitation Act, upon which he relies to exclude its operation; and if the plaintiff has got to allege in his plaint the facts which entitle him to exemption, obviously these facts must be in existence at or before the time when the plaint is filed; facts which come into existence after the filing of the plaint cannot be called in aid to revive a right of action which was dead at the date of the suit. To claim exemption under Section 20, Limitation Act the plaintiff must be in a position to allege and prove not only that there was payment of interest on a debt or part-payment of the principal, but that such payment had been acknowledged in writing in the manner contemplated by that section."
(Emphasis supplied)
34. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shanti Conductors (supra) while relying upon Sant Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad, decided on 17.10.1951, reported as AIR 1951 SC 477, gave two essentials for a part payment to come under Section 19 of the LA, 1963 which are as follows:
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 24 of 43(i) whether payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy,
(ii) an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment.
35. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shanti Conductors (supra) while relying upon Sant Lal (supra) held that the part payment for extension of limitation is to be proved in only by a written or signed acknowledgment and not by oral testimony. Unless there is a written acknowledgment in the required form, the payment by itself is of no avail.
36. Hence, in view of Section 19 of LA, 1963, the new limitation period begins from the time of payment for a debt or interest on a legacy only if the payment is made before the original period expired. The payment is required to be made by the person liable to pay or duly authorised agent. A plaintiff can claim exemption only when there was a payment of interest on a debt or part-payment of the principle along with an acknowledgment in writing by the person making the payment.
37. Coming back to the facts of the present case, no written proof of acknowledgement is present on the record stating that the defendant is acknowledging or admitting any liability against the suit amount or against any of the invoices placed on record by the CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 25 of 43 plaintiff. Moreover, there is no proof present on record which establishes that the defendant has made any part payment against any of the invoices. Thus, without any sufficient proof establishing extension of limitation either by way of written acknowledgement or part payment, the right to institute the present suit stands extinguished being barred by limitation.
38. Notwithstanding the bar of limitation, even on merits, the plaintiff has failed to establish its claim, for the reasons discussed hereinafter.
39. The onus to prove the averments and claim of the plaintiff rests entirely upon the plaintiff, who has to discharge the burden of proof to establish its case, as per law. In civil litigation, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to discharge the burden laid upon it successfully, if the plaintiff is able to prove its case by preponderance of probabilities. It is the law of land as re-affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Adiveppa V. Bhimappa (2017) 9 SCC 586. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Adiveppa (supra) was pleased to uphold that:
"It is a settled principle of law that the initial burden is al- ways on the plaintiff to prove his case by proper pleadings and adequate evidence (oral and documentary) in support thereof."
Thus, the onus to prove its case and that the burden to prove the case as per law, entirely lies upon the plaintiff, by way of documentary and oral evidence.
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 26 of 4340. The plaintiff is required to prove the delivery of the goods and the outstanding payment against the said supply. The present suit is for recovery of Rs. 14,10,000/-, along with pendente lite and future interest. As the Plaintiff has relied upon the statement of account Ex.PW-1/15 and 16 invoices Ex.PW-1/8 (Colly.), which are unilateral documents in nature, it becomes necessary to examine their evidentiary value in light of Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 28 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; hereinafter referred to as 'IEA' and 'BSA' respectively). Section 34 IEA provides as under:
"34. Entries in books of account, including those maintained in an electronic form, when relevant.--
1[Entries in the books of account, including those maintained in an electronic form], regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability."
41. Section 34 IEA makes it clear that entries in books of account regularly maintained by the plaintiff is not a conclusive piece of evidence and is to be corroborated with independent documentary evidence. In the absence of such documents, an adverse inference must be drawn in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CBI v. VC Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 410. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India, (2017) 11 SCC 731 while reiterating the settled position of law as laid down in V.C. Shukla (supra) held as under:
"279. It has further been laid down in V.C. Shukla as to the value of CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 27 of 43 entries in the books of account, that such statement shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability, even if they are relevant and admissible, and that they are only corroborative evidence. It has been held that even then independent evidence is necessary as to trustworthiness of those entries which is a requirement to fasten the liability."
42. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Jay Ambe Industries Proprietor Shri Dinesh Kumar Bajranglal Somani Versus Garnet Specialty Paper Ltd., decided on 02.02.2022, reported as 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 18 discusses Section 34 IEA while taking help from landmark judgments. The relevant portion of Jay Ambe (supra) is reproduced below for easy reference:
"15) In Chandi Ram vs. Jamind Kanta Deka, reported in AIR 1952 Assam 92, the Assam High Court held that if a ledger is not supported by any Day-book or Roznama, it would not fulfill the requirement of Section 34 of the Evidence Act and cannot be regarded relevant under that section. In the opinion of the Assam High Court there is no daily opening or closing balance in the ledger accounts which is maintained in some other books and ledger can be prepared at any time. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as relevant
16) In Hira Meher vs. Birbal Prasad Agarwal, reported in AIR 1958 Orissa 4, the Orissa High Court held that if the plaintiff relies on the entries in his credit ledger which he himself has scribed out, the plaintiff does not assert that the transaction on credit took place actually the credit register cannot be relied upon because there will be no corroboration of the entries made therein.
17) In Sohan Lal vs. Gulab Chand, reported in AIR 1966 Raj. 229, the Rajasthan High Court held that Bahi Khata is an account book if maintained in regular course of business and entries therein are not admissible if not supported by corresponding entries on Rokam or Nagal Behi.
18) In Zehna Sorabji vs. Mirabella Hoter Col. (Pvt.) Ltd., reported in AIR 1981 Bom 446, the Bombay High Court held that a ledger by CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 28 of 43 itself cannot be a book of account of the character contemplated by Section 34 of the Evidence Act unless it is corroborated by the entries in the cash-book.
19) In Beni vs. Bisan Dayal, reported in AIR 1925 Nag. 445, the Nagpur High Court held that, the entries in the books of account by itself are not sufficient to charge any person with liability unless there is independent evidence of the transaction to which the entries relate.
20) The proposition laid down in the above referred authorities about the admissibility of ledger without the corroborative evidence being led in support of the entries in the ledger cannot be disputed. It is well settled that a ledger, though an account book, has no evidentiary value unless the entries made therein are proved by independent evidence which, in other words, would mean that there must be corroboration of entries which corroboration can be supplied by proving the transaction or by proving the entries in the Daily cash book or Roznama. Without corroboration, entries in the ledger cannot be brought within the purview of Section 34 of the Evidence Act. In the instant case, it is, therefore, to be seen, whether apart from the entries in the ledger, there was corroborative evidence in support of the entries in the ledger. This matter would largely depend on the facts of each case."
43. Applying the settled position of law to the facts of the present case, all the documents relied upon by the plaintiff to prove its case are unilateral in nature and require independent corroboration in terms of Section 34 IEA. Moreover, invoices as well as statement of account do not bear any seal or signature of the defendant. Mere invocation of entries in the Statement of Account without any bank account statement or any independent bank witness as per Section 34 IEA does not create any entitlement in favour of the Plaintiff. (See VC Shukla (Supra); Gopal Krishna Ketkar v Mohamed Haji Latif, AIR 1968 SC 1413; Mohinder Kumar Gandhi vs. Praveen Kumar, 2025:DHC:8843-DB). Thus, CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 29 of 43 statement of account as well as unilateral invoices placed on record by the plaintiff without any supporting independent and corroborative evidence are not reliable documents and cannot be relied upon.
44. As most of the documents relied upon by the Plaintiff like Computer generated master data of defendant company (Ex.PW-1/5), Computer generated copy of 16 purchase orders (Ex.PW-1/7 (Colly.)), Computer generated copy of 16 invoices, (Ex.PW-1/8 (Colly.)), copies of e-mail exchanged between the plaintiff company and the defendant company (Ex.PW-1/9 (Colly.)), True copy of email of legal notice (Ex.PW-1/11), Computer copies of two postal tracking reports (Ex.PW-1/14 (Colly.)), and computer copy of statement of account of the defendant in plaintiff's book of account, duly certified by the plaintiff (Ex.PW-1/15) relied upon by the Plaintiff are computer generated documents are electronic records, their admissibility must also be tested in light of Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the law governing the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B is to be considered. It is well settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, decided on 18.09.2014, reported as [2014] 11 SCR 399, that Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 63 BSA) constitute a complete and exhaustive code governing the admissibility of electronic evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that any information contained in an electronic record, sought to be relied upon in CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 30 of 43 evidence, is admissible only if the mandatory requirements of Section 65B are strictly complied with. In particular, the production of a certificate under Section 65B(4), identifying the electronic record, describing the manner of its production, furnishing particulars of the device involved, and certifying that the conditions stipulated under Section 65B(2) are satisfied, is a sine qua non for admissibility. Oral evidence or secondary evidence under Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act cannot be substituted for the statutory certificate prescribed under Section 65B(4). Any contrary view permitting admissibility of electronic evidence without compliance of Section 65B(4) is legally unsustainable, and non-compliance with the said provision renders the electronic evidence inadmissible in law. The relevant paras are reproduced hereinafter:
"14. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65-A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65-B. Section 65-B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer. It may be noted that the section starts with a non obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document only if the conditions mentioned under sub-section (2) are satisfied, without further proof or production of the original. The very admissibility of such a document i.e., electronic record which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions under Section 65-B(2). Following are the specified conditions under Section 65-B(2) of the Evidence Act:
(i) The electronic record containing the information should have been produced by the computer during the period over which the same was regularly used to store or process information for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 31 of 43 control over the use of that computer;
(ii) The information of the kind contained in electronic record or of the kind from which the information is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity;
(iii) During the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly and that even if it was not operating properly for some time, the break or breaks had not affected either the record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(iv) The information contained in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity.
15. Under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65-B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device....
...17. Only if the electronic record is duly produced in terms of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, would the question arise as to the genuineness thereof and in that situation, resort can be made to Section 45-A--opinion of Examiner of Electronic Evidence.
18. The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law now stands in India....
...20. Proof of electronic record is a special provision introduced by the IT Act amending various provisions under the Evidence Act. The very caption of Section 65-A of the Evidence Act, read with Sections 59 and 65-B is sufficient to hold that the special provisions on evidence relating to electronic record shall be governed by the CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 32 of 43 procedure prescribed under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. That is a complete code in itself. Being a special law, the general law under Sections 63 and 65 has to yield....
...22. The evidence relating to electronic record, as noted hereinbefore, being a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same. Generalia specialibus non derogant, special law will always prevail over the general law. It appears, the court omitted to take note of Sections 59 and 65-A dealing with the admissibility of electronic record. Sections 63 and 65 have no application in the case of secondary evidence by way of electronic record; the same is wholly governed by Sections 65-A and 65-B. To that extent, the statement of law on admissibility of secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record, as stated by this Court in Navjot Sandhu case [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1715] , does not lay down the correct legal position. It requires to be overruled and we do so. An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65- B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65-B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible.
45. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors, decided on 14.07.2020, reported as [2020] 7 S.C.R. 180, while clarifying the settled position of law in Anwar P.V. (supra) has held that:
"73. The reference is thus answered by stating that:
73.1.Anvar P.V., as clarified by us hereinabove, is the law declared by this Court on Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. The judgment in Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 178, being per incuriam, does not lay down the law correctly. Also, the judgment in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P., (2018) 2 SCC 801 and the judgment dated 3-4-2018 reported as Shafhi Mohd. v. State of H.P. (2018) 5 SCC 311, do not lay down the law correctly and are therefore overruled. 73.2. The clarification referred to above is that the required certificate under Section 65-B(4) is unnecessary if the original CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 33 of 43 document itself is produced. This can be done by the owner of a laptop computer, computer tablet or even a mobile phone, by stepping into the witness box and proving that the device concerned, on which the original information is first stored, is owned and/or operated by him. In cases where the "computer"
happens to be a part of a "computer system" or "computer network" and it becomes impossible to physically bring such system or network to the court, then the only means of providing information contained in such electronic record can be in accordance with Section 65-B(1), together with the requisite certificate under Section 65-B(4). The last sentence in para 24 in Anvar P.V. which reads as "... if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act ..." is thus clarified; it is to be read without the words "under Section 62 of the Evidence Act,...". With this clarification, the law stated in para 24 of Anvar P.V. does not need to be revisited.
73.3. The general directions issued in para 64 (supra) shall hereafter be followed by courts that deal with electronic evidence, to ensure their preservation, and production of certificate at the appropriate stage. These directions shall apply in all proceedings, till rules and directions under Section 67-C of the Information Technology Act and data retention conditions are formulated for compliance by telecom and internet service providers. 73.4. Appropriate rules and directions should be framed in exercise of the Information Technology Act, by exercising powers such as in Section 67-C, and also framing suitable rules for the retention of data involved in trial of offences, their segregation, rules of chain of custody, stamping and record maintenance, for the entire duration of trials and appeals, and also in regard to preservation of the metadata to avoid corruption. Likewise, appropriate rules for preservation, retrieval and production of electronic record, should be framed as indicated earlier, after considering the report of the Committee constituted by the Chief Justices' Conference in April 2016."
46. This position of law has been reaffirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sundar @ Sundarrajan vs. State by Inspector of Police, decided on 21.03.2023, reported as 2023 LiveLaw (SC)
217. The relevant portion is reproduced below:
"37. Therefore, the law is now settled: a Section 65B certificate is CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 34 of 43 mandatory in terms of this Court's judgment in Anvar P.V. as confirmed in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar."
47. After applying the settled position of law to the facts of the present case, the plaintiff has not placed on record any Section 65B Certificate to prove all the electronic evidence upon which he has relied. Consequently, the electronic records sought to be proved through Computer generated master data of the plaintiff company, (Ex.PW-1/2), Computer generated master data of defendant company (Ex.PW-1/5), Computer generated copy of 16 invoices, (Ex.PW-1/8 (Colly.)), copies of e-mail exchanged between the plaintiff company and the defendant company (Ex.PW-1/9 (Colly.)), True copy of email of legal notice (Ex.PW-1/11), Computer copies of two postal tracking reports (Ex.PW-1/14 (Colly.)), and statement of account (Ex.PW-1/15) without any certificate of electronic evidence cannot be relied upon as admissible evidence, and the same are liable to be excluded from consideration.
48. Another important issue which needs to be considered by this Court is that the parties to the present suit are different then the parties to the present suit are different from that of the parties to the purchase orders and invoices. As such, the concept of privity of contract comes into picture. The doctrine of privity of contract is a fundamental principle in contract law stating that only parties who are signatories to a contract (or have provided consideration) can enforce its terms or be bound by its obligations. A third party, or stranger to the contract, cannot sue for breach, even if they benefit CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 35 of 43 from the agreement.
49. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Utair Aviation vs Jagson Airlines Limited & Another, decided on 13.04.2012, reported as 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2114, discussed the well established principles of privity of contract and its exceptions. The relevant paras are reproduced as under:
"17. It is well established principle of law that a party who is not privy to the contract, cannot sue for enforcement of the said contract and the said principle has been laid down by the English courts from time to time which has been appreciated by the Indian Courts with the well recognized exceptions. There are number of exceptions which have been carved out by the courts to the principle of privy to the contract ever since the said principle was evolved by the English Courts. This is due to the reason that the definition of consideration under Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is wide enough to encompass a situation wherein contract is entered into between the two parties and the consideration may or may not pass from them and can pass from the third party.
...
23. The case of Jnan (supra) was also followed by learned Single Judge in the case of Babu Ram Buddu Mal v. Dhan Singh Bishan Singh, reported in AIR 1957 Punjab & Haryana 160. In 'Bigelow on Estoppel', 6th Edn., at pp. 158 and 159, the learned author observes the following on the aspect of creation of privity by way of estoppel:--
"In the law of estoppel one person becomes privy to another (1) by succeeding to the position of that other as regards the Subject of the estoppel, (2) by holding in subordination to that other...................... But it should be noticed that the ground of privity is property and not personal relations. To make a man a privy to an action he must have acquired an interest in the subject-matter of the, action either by inheritance, succession, or purchase from a party subsequently to the action, or he must hold property subordinately."
(Emphasis Supplied)
24. What is apparent from the reading of the said observations of Calcutta High Court in the afore-quoted case and the opinion expressed in the authorities that there may be cases, where there is no privity existing-at the first place but, the party may by acknowledgement or by his conduct, can proceed to create such privity with the said third party CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 36 of 43 by virtue of it being a subordinate to the party to the contract or dealing with the parties to the contract etc. The said privity can be created by way of conduct also either express or implied and the court has to see in those cases as to whether actually the party can be said to be a complete stranger to a contract or where the plea is taken only to defeat the claims of the party. All this can be seen by looking into the attending circumstances after the contract.
25. This is more so when all the parties are before the court including the contracting parties as well as the stranger. In that event of the matter, it cannot be said that the court is precluded from complete justice between the parties.
26. There are ample line of authorities to suggest the proposition when all the parties are there before the court including the contracting parties as well as the stranger as plaintiff and defendant, then the court can do complete justice between the parties and that was even a rationale as laid down in Debnarayan Dutt (supra) while departing from the views expressed in Twaddle (supra) and making a fine distinction between a court of equity and the court of law in England and the justice oriented approach adopted by the Indian Courts as noted therein. ...
28. A reading of the aforementioned judicial opinion coupled with well recognized exceptions that the privity can be created by virtue of conduct acknowledgment and admission, it becomes clear that any case where one party is made aware about the relationship of the other party with that of a stranger and the said party proceeds to contract out only with other party in question, knowing fully well the participation and role of the said stranger, further, it corresponds with the said third party/stranger, and conduct suggests kind of relationship, then there can be said to be a nexus or a privity which can be said to have been created by virtue of conduct. The said question essentially becomes a question of fact and basing upon the said fact finding, the law has to be necessarily applied as to whether the said person is a complete stranger to a contract or whether the privity can be said to have been created by way of conduct.
29. Therefore, the said question relating to privity having been created by virtue of conduct, acknowledgment and admission becomes a mixed question of fact and law as it requires a fact finding as well as due application of law. Furthermore, once the judicial opinion exists that courts are entitled to do justice when all are before the court, then it is unwise to reject the plaint at the threshold, considering the question of privity of contract as a pure question of law when actually the conduct of the parties and the attending circumstances reveal otherwise."
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 37 of 4350. Thus, it can be said that the doctrine of privity of contract in India establishes that only parties to a contract are entitled to enforce its terms. However, unlike the rigid application in English law, Indian jurisprudence adopts a more flexible and equitable approach. Owing to the wide scope of "consideration" under Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, courts have consistently recognized that strict adherence to privity may, in certain cases, defeat the ends of justice. Accordingly, the rule is not treated as absolute, and its application depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
51. Coming back to the facts of the present case, the Plaintiff has relied upon 16 computer generated invoices Ex. PW-1/8 (Colly.). The details of the defendants to which these 16 invoices are sent are provided below:
Defendant S. No. Invoice No. Complete Address Name Carnival Big Crystal Mall Big Cinema, F.P. No. 853, Ra- 1 TX032/17-18 Crystal Rajkot jkot, Gujarat - 360005, India Cinemagic Big Cinemas, Road No. 5, Rani Carnival Cin-
2 TX057/17-18 Bazar Industrial Area, Bikaner, Rajasthan -
emagic Bikaner 334001, India Carnival Krishnaplex, Alambagh, 551 KA/ Carnival Films 3 TX062/17-18 CC, Bhilawan, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh -
Pvt. Ltd.
226005, India
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 38 of 43
Defendant
S. No. Invoice No. Complete Address
Name
Stargaze Enter- City Mall, 36 Mungeli Road, Mangla
4 TX066/17-18 tainment Pvt. Chowk, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - 495001,
Ltd. India
Funstar Cinema, 1st Floor, Times Square
Carnival Films
5 TX071/17-18 Mall, Central Spine, Vidhyadhar Nagar,
Pvt. Ltd.
Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302039, India
Stargaze Enter- Carnival Glitz Cinemas, Blue City Mall,
6 TX083/17-18 tainment Pvt. Ajeet Bhawan, Circuit House Road, Jodh-
Ltd. pur, Rajasthan - 342001, India
Carnival Gold Pune, Marigold Complex,
Carnival Films
7 TX088/17-18 Mariplex Mall, Kalyani Nagar, Pune, Maha-
Pvt. Ltd.
rashtra - 411014, India
Cinema Ven- Crystal Mall, Opp. Rani Tower, Kalawad
8 TX092/17-18
tures Pvt. Ltd. Road, Rajkot, Gujarat - 360005, India
Ayab Layout, Near Sangam Cinemas, 369-
Cinema Ven-
9 TX093/17-18 A, Sakkardara, Nagpur, Maharashtra -
tures Pvt. Ltd.
440009, India
Viva Big Cinema, Lily G.T. Road, Viva Col-
Cinema Ven-
10` TX094/17-18 lege Mall, 3rd Floor, Paragpur, Near Haveli,
tures Pvt. Ltd.
Jalandhar, Punjab - 144005, India
Odeon - Carnival Cinemas, Block D, Inner
Cinema Ven-
11 TX095/17-18 Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi -
tures Pvt. Ltd.
110001, India
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 39 of 43
Defendant
S. No. Invoice No. Complete Address
Name
Cinema Ven- Crystal Mall, Opp. Rani Tower, Kalawad
8 TX092/17-18
tures Pvt. Ltd. Road, Rajkot, Gujarat - 360005, India
IMAX Wadala, IMAX Carnival Cinemas,
Cinema Ven- Bhakti Park, Anik Wadala Link Road,
12 TX096/17-18
tures Pvt. Ltd. Wadala, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400037,
India
Huma Huma Carnival Cinemas, Huma City
Cinema Ven-
13 TX097/17-18 Mall, LBS Marg, Kanjurmarg (West), Mum-
tures Pvt. Ltd.
bai, Maharashtra - 400078, India
Pacific Mall Mathura - Carnival Cinemas,
Cinema Ven- C-1 Industrial Area, Opp. Mathura Refinery,
14 TX101/17-18
tures Pvt. Ltd. NH-2, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh - 281006, In-
dia
Carnival Rap Magnum, Magnum Mall, Near
Carnival Films
15 TX102/17-18 Hapur Railway Crossing, Delhi Road,
Pvt. Ltd.
Meerut, Uttar Pradesh - 250002, India
Carnival World Square Mall, Mohan Nagar
Carnival World
16 TX105/17-18 T Point, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh - 201007,
Square Mall
India
52. The present suit for recovery of Rs. 14,10,000/- is filed against the Defendant M/s Carnival Films Private Limited having its registered place of business at Cinemas Carnival House, 801, 8th Floor, A Wing Express Zone, off Western Express Highway, Malad (East), Mumbai-400097, Maharastra. As per the details of tax invoices along with the parties to which the tax invoices are addressed, not even a single invoice in Ex. PW-1/8 (Colly.) CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 40 of 43 mentions the above address. No cause of action lies against the defendant in the present case, whereas the documentary record itself clearly demonstrates that the unilateral documents as well as alleged transactions and invoices were not raised upon the defendant but were raised upon distinct and separate legal entities different from the present defendant, which are independent juristic persons and cannot be acted against in the present suit as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013.
53. It is a settled principle of law that only a party to a contract can be bound by or enforce the same, and a stranger to the contract cannot be made liable. In the absence of any cogent evidence to demonstrate that the defendant had undertaken any liability for the transactions of other group entities, or that any recognized exception to the doctrine of privity of contract such as agency, acknowledgment, assignment, or creation of privity by conduct, is attracted, the plaintiff cannot seek recovery against the present defendant for transactions admittedly entered into with separate entities. Mere assertion that all group companies maintained a common running account, without any written agreement or legally admissible evidence, is insufficient to override the settled doctrine of separate corporate personality and privity of contract.
54. In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds that the plaintiff has failed to establish its entitlement to recover the claimed amount of Rs. 14,10,000/-. The alleged part payment on 07.07.2018, 10.07.2018 and 22.10.2018 without any written acknowledgment during the limitation period CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 41 of 43 does not revive or extend or start a new limitation period of three years in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Even on merits, the statement of account (Ex.PW-1/15) or the invoices (Ex.PW-1/8 (Colly.)). all are unilateral documents created by the plaintiff and there is no acknowledgment or endorsement made by the defendant by way of signature or seal on them to prove that the defendant actually ordered anything to the plaintiff. The electronic documents like master data of the plaintiff company, (Ex.PW-1/2), Computer generated master data of defendant company (Ex.PW-1/5), Computer generated copy of 16 invoices, (Ex.PW-1/8 (Colly.)), copies of e-mail exchanged between the plaintiff company and the defendant company (Ex.PW-1/9 (Colly.)), copy of email of legal notice (Ex.PW-1/11), Computer copies of two postal tracking reports (Ex.PW-1/14 (Colly.)), and statement of account (Ex.PW-1/15) without any certificate of electronic evidence cannot be relied upon as admissible evidence, and the same are liable to be excluded from consideration. Moreover, there is not a single tax invoice against the The plaintiff has not been able to establish its entitlement for recovery against the defendant and has not been able to duly discharge its onus to prove its case by way of the standard of proof required in Civil cases i.e., proving its case by way of by preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, the present suit is liable to be dismissed on the aforesaid grounds, as per law.
55. In light of the above discussions having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the present suit for recovery of Rs. 14,10,000/- along with pendente lite and future CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 42 of 43 interest is dismissed.
56. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to record room, after due completion.
Announced in the open Court today on this 15th day of April, 2026 ( Devender Kumar Jangala ) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West, Rohini, Delhi.
15.04.2026 CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 43 of 43