Delhi District Court
Madhubun Educational Books ... vs Ms. Kaveri on 18 August, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH PANDIT, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL)-04, SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
DLSW010027732023
CS (COMM) No. 158/2023
Madhuban Educational Books Distributors
(Unit of V. G. Plastics Pvt. Ltd.),
Through its AR
At Godown No.3, Gali No.14,
Saroop Nagar, Delhi-110042. .....Plaintiff
Versus
Kaveri
Proprietor/AR of Kaveri Book Distributors,
A-703, Mahalaxmi Apartment, Sector-2,
Pocket-2, Dwarka, New Delhi -110075. ...... Defendant
Date of institution : 29.03.2023
Received by this court : 09.01.2024
Date when order reserved : 19.07.2025
Date of Judgment : 18.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1 By this judgment, I shall dispose of suit for recovery of Rs.1,10,06,410.53/- filed by the plaintiff against defendant along with ancillary reliefs.
CS (COMM) No.158/2023 Madhubun Educational Vs. Kaveri Page 1/17 22 The brief facts of the case as per plaintiff are that plaintiff is a reputed Distributor of various kinds of books throughout India from New Delhi. It is stated that Madhuban Educational Books Distributor is a unit of V. G. Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Plaintiff authorized Sh. Amit Kumar, to represent it in the present case.
3 The defendant is the proprietor/AR of M/s Kaveri Book Distributors and is engaged in the business of selling books. It is stated that defendant contacted the plaintiff for supply of books. After several meetings, defendant placed various orders for supply of various books to the defendant. It was agreed between the parties that the plaintiff was to supply the books either to the defendant or to different schools as defendant instructs. The plaintiff had supplied various books to the defendant as well as different schools on the instructions of defendants. During the course of business, orders were placed by defendant and after receiving the orders, the plaintiff sent requisite books through invoices. It is stated that the defendant had been making the payments to the plaintiff and cleared the payment of various invoices, however, the payments of all the invoices had not been done by the defendant. It is stated that as per the sub-ledger maintained by the plaintiff, a sum of CS (COMM) No.158/2023 Madhubun Educational Vs. Kaveri Page 2/17 3 Rs.1,10,06,410.53/- is still outstanding against the defendant. It is stated that all the requisite books were supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant to her satisfaction and no complaint had ever been received. It is stated that the defendant made last payment of Rs.1,50,000/- on 22.04.2022. Plaintiff made several requests to the defendant to clear the suit amount. Plaintiff also sent a letter dated 12.07.2022 to the defendant requesting the defendant to clear the due amount. No reply to the said letter was given by the defendant nor the defendant cleared the due amount. Plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 09.09.2022 to the defendant but the defendant paid no heed to respond the notice. No amount was paid by the defendant. The suit amount i.e. Rs.1,10,06,410.53/- was outstanding defendant.
Plaintiff also initiated pre-litigation mediation with DLSA South-West and when none appeared on behalf of defendant and the same ended as "Non-Starter" on 12.01.2023.
The present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking decree of recovery of money of Rs.1,10,06,410.53/- along with ancillary reliefs.
4 In written statement, the defendant stated that the plaintiff has suppressed and concealed the material facts from the court and made misrepresentation and wrong statements. It CS (COMM) No.158/2023 Madhubun Educational Vs. Kaveri Page 3/17 4 is stated that the plaint is not in due format of Commercial Court Act. It is stated that from 19.02.2021, the defendant started dealing with the plaintiff and placed its first order with the plaintiff. It is stated that defendant used to place orders with the plaintiff and had been making payment against the same. It is stated that no dues of the plaintiff are pending against defendant. It is stated that from mid October 2021, the plaintiff stopped supplying goods to the defendant and started raising its absurd demands against the defendant. It is stated that defendant was liable to claim cash discount and Turnover discount from the plaintiff and when defendant started demanding these discounts, plaintiff started to avoid the same and started raising illogical demands against the defendant. It is stated that from February 2021 to October 2021, defendant purchased books of Rs.1,39,89,089/- from the plaintiff, out of which the defendant returned back books of Rs.39,19,522/- to the plaintiff. So, a total sum of Rs.89,50,000/- has been paid to the plaintiff which is reflected from the bank statement of the plaintiff. It is stated that defendant is also holding Credit Note for a sum of Rs.17,31,700/- against the plaintiff and liable to claim the same from plaintiff. It is stated that defendant is also liable to claim turnover discount @8.5% + 1.5% (as agreed) of total purchase/sale, from the plaintiff. It is stated that after returning the the books of Rs.39,19,522/-, books worth CS (COMM) No.158/2023 Madhubun Educational Vs. Kaveri Page 4/17 5 Rs.6 - Rs.7 lakhs are still lying with the defendant and despite requests, plaintiff had refused to accept the delivery of the same. It is stated that Rs.7,12,133/- is lying as advance payment against plaintiff. Rest of the contents of plaint are denied by defendant.
5 In replication, plaintiff reiterated and reaffirmed the facts of the plaint and denied those of written statement of defendant.
6 On 08.07.2023, from the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount claimed? OPP.
2 If answer to issue no.1 is in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
3 Relief?
7 To prove its case, plaintiff examined Sh. Amit Kumar as PW-1. He led examination-in-chief by way of affidavit and deposed in terms of the facts of the plaint and relied on following documents:-
Srl. Document/Particulars Exhibit(s) pages No. CS (COMM) No.158/2023 Madhubun Educational Vs. Kaveri Page 5/17 6 1 Copy of memorandum and Article of Ex.PW1/A (OSR) 20 Association of M/s V.G. Plastics Pvt. Ltd., Madhuban Educational Books Distributors is unit of M/s V.G. Plastics Pvt. Ltd.
2 Original Board Resolution Ex.PW1/B 1
3 Certain emails showing the order received Ex.PW1/C-1 to Ex. 11
and details of shipment PW1/C-10
4 Original Invoices Ex.PW1/D-1 to Ex. 182
PW1/D-179 (colly)
5 Sub ledger of defendant maintained by the Ex.PW1/E 35
plaintiff
6 Detail of the discount statement as Ex.PW1/F 3
maintained by the plaintiff and the same is
reflected in the sub-ledger maintained by the plaintiff 7 Certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW1/G 2 8 Original letter dated 12.07.2022 Ex.PW1/H 1 9 Legal notice dated 09.09.2022 Ex.PW1/I 4 10 Postal receipt of legal notice Ex.PW1/J 1 11 Tracking report of speed post Ex.PW1/K 1 8 To rebut the case of plaintiff and to prove her own case defendant examined herself as DW1. She led examination-
in-chief by way of affidavit and deposed in terms of the facts of the written statement and relied on following documents:-
Srl. Document/Particulars Exhibit(s) pages No. 1 Copy of registration certificate Ex.DW1/1 1 2 Copy of e-mail correspondence Ex.DW1/2 46 3 Copy of bank statement of the Ex.DW1/3 21 defendant 4 Copy of invoices issued by the Ex.DW1/4 26 defendant against its further suppliers CS (COMM) No.158/2023 Madhubun Educational Vs. Kaveri Page 6/17 7 5 Copy of terms of sale decided by the Ex.DW1/5 3 plaintiff 6 Certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Ex.DW1/ 6 2 Act 9 After closure of evidence, final arguments were heard.
10 I have gone through the record, evidence, submissions forwarded by counsel for the plaintiff.
11 My issue wise finding is as under:-ISSUE NO.1 & 2
Issue no.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount claimed? OPP.
Issue no.2 If answer to issue no.1 is in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
12 The onus to prove these issues was on plaintiff. As per plaintiff, it was supplying books to an entity M/s Kaveri Book Distributor since the year 2018. It is deposed that the goods were supplied through valid invoices and a statement of account was maintained. As per plaintiff, there is an outstanding of Rs.1,10,06,410.53/- against this entity against the bills mentioned in paragraph 4 of the plaint (179 bills, Ex.PW1/D1 to Ex.PW1/D179). The details of payment are reflected in CS (COMM) No.158/2023 Madhubun Educational Vs. Kaveri Page 7/17 8 statement of account/ledger Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/F. 13 On the other hand, in the pleadings and deposition of DW1, defendant stated that she is the proprietor of M/s Kaveri Book Distributor. This proprietorship firm was started on 05.02.2021 and started dealing with the plaintiff from 19.02.2021.
The business was going smoothly between February 2021 to October 2021. In the mid of October 2021, plaintiff stopped supplying goods to the defendant and started raising absurd demands against the defendant. It is stated that between February 2021 to October 2021, her firm make a total purchase of Rs.1,38,89,089/-. Against it a total payment of INR 89,50,000/- was made. There was a credit note in favour of the defendant of Rs.17,31,700/-. Books worth Rs.39,19,352/- were returned. Even books worth Rs.6-7 lacks are lying with the defendant for return but plaintiff refused to accept the same. There is no alleged outstanding against defendant of plaintiff. On the other hand, plaintiff has to pay a sum of Rs.7,12,133/- to the defendant.
14 Apart from these, during evidence, some additional facts, came before the court i.e. earlier M/s Kaveri Book Distributor was being run by the father of DW1, who died in November 2020 (plaintiff admitted this fact when he put the question to DW1 "it is correct that the name of the proprietorship CS (COMM) No.158/2023 Madhubun Educational Vs. Kaveri Page 8/17 9 of my father and myself are same i.e. M/s Kaveri Distributors"). Even PW1 admitted that she started her business in the same name i.e. M/s Kaveri Book Distributors.
So, as per record, there are two different time lines in which the plaintiff dealt with M/s Kaveri Distributors i.e. before February 2021 with M/s Kaveri Book Distributors (proprietorship firm started by father of DW1) and M/s Kaveri Book Distributors (started by DW1 in February 2021).
15 It is argued by Ld. counsel for the plaintiff that since the defendant had inherited the proprietorship firm so she is liable to pay the entire amount which accrued during the lifetime of her father as the business was in continuation. On the other hand, it is argued by Ld. counsel for the defendant that the proprietorship firm is not a separate legal entity but a business name of a natural person. With the death of that natural person, this proprietorship firm also comes to an end. Plaintiff had not made party the other legal heirs to claim the amount, if allegedly due towards father. It is stated that even if we go through the statement of account filed by the plaintiff since February 2021, no amount is due towards the defendant i.e. M/s Kaveri Book Distributors run by DW1.
CS (COMM) No.158/2023 Madhubun Educational Vs. Kaveri Page 9/17 1016 Now it is an admitted fact on record that M/s Kaveri Book Distributors was in existence as being a proprietorship firm of the father of DW1. Plaintiff was dealing with this firm. On account payments were made. This is also a proved fact on record that father expired in November 2020 (deposed by DW1 and there is no rebuttal to this fact, no contrary evidence produced on record by the plaintiff).
As per the law laid down by Superior Courts, the proprietorship firm has no legal entity separate from its proprietor. On the date of death of proprietor, this proprietorship firm also looses its identity. It is argued by Ld. counsel for plaintiff that as per the law laid down in judgment CIT Vs. Madhukant M. Mehta, 2001 (10) SCC 100, the legal heirs are liable to pay the tax dues even after the death of proprietor of the firm. The legal representative of the proprietary concern can sue or be sued in respects of dealing of the proprietary business. As far as the law laid down in the judgment CIT (supra), it is self explanatory, but only as legal representative i.e. not as in independent capacity. In the present case DW1 appears to have been running M/s Kaveri Book Distributors as an independent identity w.e.f. February 2021. As far as the law of taxes are concerned, Hon. Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5802/2005 Shabina Abraham CS (COMM) No.158/2023 Madhubun Educational Vs. Kaveri Page 10/17 11 & Ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and Customs DOD 29.07.2015 stated as under:-
The individual assessee has ordinarily to be a living person and there can be no assessment on a dead person and the assessment is a charge in respect of the income of the previous year and not a charge in respect of the income of the year of assessment as measured by the income of the previous year. Wallace Brothers & Co. Ltd. v Commissioner of Income- tax. By section 24B the legal representatives have, by fiction of law, become assessees as provided in that section but that fiction cannot be extended beyond the object for which it was enacted. As was observed by this Court in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar legal fictions are only for a definite purpose and they are limited to the purpose for which they are created and should not be extended beyond that legitimate field. In the present case the fiction is limited to the cases provided in the three sub sections of section 24B and cannot be extended further than the liability for the income received in the previous year." (at page 66) So, accordingly for the narrow purposes of payment of taxes, there are enabling provisions in the tax laws which cannot be generalized or extended to other cases.
The plaintiff has also relied on two judgments i.e. Vinayak Purshotam Dubey Vs. Jai Shree Padmakar Bhatt, 2024 (9) SCC 398 and M. G. Tours and Travels Vs. Union of India, 2024 Law Suit (Del) 866. As per these two judgments, it is held by Hon. Courts that if the nature of the contract to be performed is such that, it could only be performed by the person (when he was alive), then there is no liability of the legal heirs. Otherwise, CS (COMM) No.158/2023 Madhubun Educational Vs. Kaveri Page 11/17 12 the legal heirs can be impleaded in the running suit. As far as the law laid down in these judgments, these are self explanatory.
However, in the present case, the death of the person had taken place before filing of the suit. The appropriate law in this regard is mentioned by Hon. DHC in Sanjeev Jain Vs. Rajni Dhingra & Ors", CS (OS) 378/2018 DOD 19.12.2018 DHC.
Now Hon. Delhi High Court in "Sanjeev Jain (supra), held that the suit is maintainable against the legal heirs of the deceased person for the debt recoverable by the plaintiff, however, to the extent of the Estate inherited by the legal heirs from that deceased person.
17 So, the discussion can be summed up to the effect that in November 2020 i.e. with the death of father, the earlier M/s Kaveri Book Distributors run by the father of the DW1, came to an end. So, the contract between plaintiff and father of DW1 came to an end at the time of death of the father. So, any liability of DW1 of the debts accrued for her father is governed by the law down in Sanjeev Jain (supra), along with other LRs (not party in case).
However, the present M/s Kaveri Book Distributors, proprietorship of DW1 came into existence in February 2021. So, DW1, in individual capacity, is in contractual relationship w.e.f. February 2021 and is liable for any amount etc., from this period CS (COMM) No.158/2023 Madhubun Educational Vs. Kaveri Page 12/17 13 on wards i.e. February 2021 on wards.
18 As far as the documents are concerned, DW1 has not disputed the entries of the ledger filed by the plaintiff that means Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/5 are not disputed documents.
As far as Ex.PW1/E is concerned, it starts from the year 01.04.2018 and ends 23.11.2021.
As already discussed above, between 01.04.2018 till November 2020, the debt/outstanding, if any, is attributable to the father of DW1. Period between November 2020 and February 2021, there was no legal entity i.e. proprietorship concern M/s/ Kaveri Book Distributors (as it extinguished with the death of its proprietor in November 2020 itself). Thereafter between February 2021 till 23.11.2021, the entries of Ex.PW1/E are attributable as transactions between M/s Kaveri Book Distributors (proprietorship of DW1).
19 As far as the period February 2021 to 23.11.2021, the first transaction towards DW1 starts with 25.02.2021 with purchase of goods worth Rs.1,42,569.18/- and thereafter, there are several debit/credit entries. As per the business norms, debit entries are the liabilities created by DW1/firm towards itself while credit entries are the liabilities discharged by DW1/firm.
CS (COMM) No.158/2023 Madhubun Educational Vs. Kaveri Page 13/17 1420 There are also some entries started from 11.11.2021 to 16.11.2021 which appears to be the credit given by the plaintiff to the defendant. During arguments, it is stated that this is due to the goods/books etc., received back by the plaintiff.
21 As far as the liabilities of the period February 2021 to November 2021 are concerned i.e. debit entries, it comes to about Rs.1.39 crores. On the other hand, the discharge of liabilities i.e. credit entries, it appears to be about Rs.1.73 crores. So, it appears that the figure of credit entries is more than that of debit entries for the period in which the DW1 was running her proprietorship concern. So, from this statement of account Ex.PW1/E, there does not appear any contractual liability of DW1 or defendant towards the plaintiff in her individual capacity.
As the DW1 has not disputed the entries of Ex.PW1/E, there appears to be a credit balance of Rs.1,10,06,410.53/-. So, this balance appears due to the liability of the father when he was running M/s Kaveri Book Distributors as his proprietorship firm.
Now as per the law laid down by Hon. DHC in Sanjeev Jain (supra), the suit for recovery of money against the legal heir is also maintainable subject to the condition mentioned in the said judgment. Now DW1, Ms. Kaveri (though she is CS (COMM) No.158/2023 Madhubun Educational Vs. Kaveri Page 14/17 15 impleaded as proprietor of M/s Kaveri Book Distributors, however, her individual identity is not separable from her this firm), so, it can be held that she is present on record, as party, as one of the legal heirs of her late father. So, she is liable for the debts of her father from the estate left by her father.
In this case also, similarly to Sanjeev Jain (supra) case, the plaintiff has not proved on record any assets left by the father of DW1. Now as per the judgment Sanjeev Jain (supra), in the present case also, it is clarified that this court has not gone into the issue as to whether the assets of father of DW1 were inherited by LR (DW1) or that it can be attached or sold, because plaintiff had not proved any concrete fact that the LR have inherited any specific asset of late father. The defences available to the LR (DW1) u/sec.50 CPC and sec.52 CPC, shall continue to be available in any execution of the present judgment/decree.
As far as the interest part is concerned, as discussed above, DW1 was having no liability towards the plaintiff in her individual capacity. The debt was attributable to the father of DW1 who had expired before filing of this case. So, after the death of the father, the contract between plaintiff and father comes to an end. So, no interest could be levied in such scenario. Only, the legal heirs are liable for the principal amount and that too from the Estate left by the father of DW1. So, in CS (COMM) No.158/2023 Madhubun Educational Vs. Kaveri Page 15/17 16 these circumstances, no interest is awarded.
Similar is the reasoning for pendent-lite and future interest. The same is also not granted.
22 So, the findings can be summed as under:-
(i) No liability of Ms. Kaveri (DW1), in individual capacity, is proved on record by plaintiff. So, Ms. Kaveri (DW1) as being proprietor of M/s Kaveri Book Distributors is not liable for any suit amount.
(ii) Ms. Kaveri, daughter of her deceased father (who was the proprietor of earlier M/s Kaveri Book Distributors), and is adjudged on record, as legal heir, is liable to pay Rs.1,10,06,410.53/- from the Estate left by her father and in terms of the law laid down in Sanjeev Jain (supra) case.
(iii) Plaintiff is not entitled for any interest on Rs.1,10,06,410.53/-
These issues no. 1 and 2 are decided in these terms.
RELIEF 23 In view of the aforesaid discussions, plaintiff is able to prove its case and thus following reliefs follows:-
(i) The suit of the plaintiff is decreed against Ms. Kaveri daughter of her deceased father (who was the proprietor of earlier M/s Kaveri Book Distributors), and is adjudged on record, as legal heir, is liable to pay Rs.1,10,06,410.53/- from the Estate left by her father and in terms of the law laid down in Sanjeev Jain (supra) case and subject to the observations made in the present case while deciding issues no. 1 and 2.
(ii) No interest is granted to the plaintiff.
(iii) Cost of the suit is also awarded.CS (COMM) No.158/2023 Madhubun Educational Vs. Kaveri Page 16/17 17
24 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
25 Copy of judgment be issued to all the parties through Digitally email or hard copy be provided physically. signed by RAKESH RAKESH PANDIT 26 File be consigned to Record Room. PANDIT Date:
2025.08.18 17:46:08 +0530 Announced in the open court (Rakesh Pandit) on 18.08.2025 District Judge (Commercial Court)-04 SW/Dwarka/Delhi CS (COMM) No.158/2023 Madhubun Educational Vs. Kaveri Page 17/17