Delhi District Court
Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmad on 17 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF Sh RAJESH KUMAR GOEL
District Judge (Commercial Court) -02,
Central, Tis Hazari
DLCT010188502024
CS (COMM.) No. 1338/2024
CNR No. DLCT010188502024
In the matter of
( As per amended plaint)
Sachin Sharma
Prop. M/s Power Sales & Services)
s/o Late Sh. B.N Sharma
Having permanent place of work at:-
Plot No.17, Chandra Park,
Opposite NSUT Sector 3,
Dwarka, Near PNB Behind Party Junction
New Delhi -110 078
Having permanent residence at :-
Flat No. 96, Sector 2, Pocket 2,
Dwarka, New Delhi 110075 ......Plaintiff
Versus
Saghir Ahmed
(Prop. M/s Asian Power Generator)
At-2835, Chowk Niaryan
Ajmeri Gate, Behind G.B Road
Delhi-110 006. ......Defendant
Digitally Date of Institution : 04.12.2024
Date of Argument : 09.04.2026
signed by
RAJESH
RAJESH KUMAR
KUMAR GOEL
GOEL Date: Date of Judgment : 17.04.2026
2026.04.17
15:09:25
+0530
Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 1 of 37 )
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit for recovery of Rs. 13,14,306/- (Rs Thirteen Lakh Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred and Six only) filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the plaint are that the plaintiff is the sole proprietor of M/s. Power Sales & Services and also a trader and Manufacturer of agriculture and construction equipment; the plaintiff is Authorized Dealer of Honda India Power Products and dealing in various products of Honda like Honda Engine, Generator set, Lawn Mower, Brush Cutter, Water Pumps, Sprayer Pumps and agriculture equipment etc ( hereinafter referred to as "products"); the defendant is the sole proprietor of M/s. Asian Power Generator.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant began purchasing Honda products on credit basis from the plaintiff since 05.04.2021 Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 and till 23.2.2023, the plaintiff supplied the 15:09:26 +0530 Honda products worth Rs. 1,70,22,298/- against Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 2 of 37 ) 83 invoices and 47 E-way bills to the defendant;
the defendant has made part payment of Rs.1,59,22,460/- to the plaintiff leaving behind an outstanding balance of Rs. 10,99,838/-; in the regular and usual course of his business, the plaintiff maintains proper accounts wherein the the transactions between the parties are duly entered; as per the account statement, last supply was made by the plaintiff on 23.02.2023 and the last payment was made by the defendant on 18.10.2023.
4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that in discharge of his legal liability, the defendant issued 10 cheques for a total consideration of Rs 15,48,396/-; when the said cheques were presented for encashment the same were dishonored for the reasons " funds insufficient", "stopped by the drawer", "drawer/cheque irregularly drawn amount", "alteration requires drawer's authentication" etc vide returning memos; the plaintiff tried to contact the defendant but the defendant avoided the plaintiff on one Digitally pretext or another; a legal notice dated 27.08.2022 signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL was sent to the defendant; the plaintiff has also GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 15:09:22 +0530 filed two cases u/s 138 of N.I Act against the Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 3 of 37 ) defendant qua the dishonored cheques; both the cases were dismissed by the Ld. Court concerned as well as Revision court on the ground of technical defects; a corrigendum legal notice dated 06.10.2022 was sent to the defendant but despite the service of the same, the defendant has not made any payment. The defendant is liable to pay outstanding principal amount of Rs 10,99,838/- alongwith interest in the sum of Rs 2,14,468/- i.e 18% on the principal amount. Thus, the plaintiff has claimed a total sum of Rs 13,14,306/-. Since, the defendant failed to clear the outstanding dues, hence, the present suit has been filed.
5. Since, the subject matter of the suit is a commercial dispute, therefore, the plaintiff is said to have approached Central DLSA in terms of section 12 (A) of the Commercial Court Act, 2015 and the Central DLSA has released a non-starter report dated 25.11.2023 in pre-institution mediation process.
Filing of Written Statement:
Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL
6. On the summons being served, the GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 15:09:25 +0530 defendant appeared and filed the written statement Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 4 of 37 ) taking various objections i.e the suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as the suit is without any cause of action; the suit is based upon the forged and fabricated documents; the plaintiff never supplied the alleged goods as shown in the alleged invoices; the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts and the actual products supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant are mentioned in the original invoices placed on record by the defendant; the plaintiff has supplied the products worth Rs 1,40,66,134/- to the defendant and the defendant has already made the payment of Rs 1,39,05,088/- to the plaintiff and now, only an amount of Rs 1,61,046/-is due against the defendant which defendant is ready to pay.
7. On merits, the stand taken by the defendant in the preliminary objection, has been reiterated and all the allegations made by the plaintiff, have been denied and it is stated that the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
8. The record would indicate that plaintiff and Digitally signed by RAJESH the defendant have filed the affidavits of RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 admission and denial of the documents. 15:09:23 +0530 Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 5 of 37 ) Settlement of issues and Fixing the Schedule for Second Case Management Hearing.
9. From the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 04.11.2025, following issues were framed and the second Case Management Hearing was fixed. :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of an amount of Rs 13,14,306/-, as prayed for? (OPP)
2. In case if issue no. 1 is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest, if so, at what rate and for what period? (OPP)
3. Relief.
Evidence led by the parties
10. In support of his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and PW2 Rajeev Ranjan Kumar from the GST department.
11. PW1 Sachin Sharma has filed his evidence by way of affidavit ExPW1/A and has deposed on the lines of the averments made in the plaint. He has relied upon the following documents:-
Sl. No Document Exhibit
1. Copy of the Aadhar Card ExPW1/1
2. Copy of the GST ExPW1/2
registration certificate of the plaintiff
3. Copy of Udyam registration ExPW1/3 Digitally certificate issued by MSME signed by RAJESH 4. Visiting Card of plaintiff ExPW1/4 RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
5. Copies of invoices ExPW1/5GOEL 2026.04.17 15:09:23 (colly)
6. Copies of e-way bills ExPW1/6 +0530 Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 6 of 37 ) (colly)
7. Leger account of the ExPW1/7 defendant for the financial year 2021-22
8. Ledger account of the ExPW1/8 defendant for the financial year 2022-2023
9. Ledger account of the ExPW1/9 defendant for the financial year 2023-2024
10. Certificate u/s 63 of BSA ExPW1/10
11. Certified copy of the ExPW1/11 cheque dated 21.05.2022
12. Certified copy returning ExPW1/12 memo dated 17.08.2022
13. Certified copy of the ExPW1/13 cheque dated 23.05.2022
14. Certified copy returning ExPW1/14 memo dated 17.08.2022
15. Certified copy of the ExPW1/15 cheque dated 02.08.2022
16. Certified copy returning ExPW1/16 memo dated 17.08.2022
17. Certified copy of the ExPW1/17 cheque dated 10.08.2022
18. Certified copy returning ExPW1/18 memo dated 17.08.2022
19. Certified copy of the ExPW1/19 cheque dated 12.08.2022
20. Certified copy returning ExPW1/20 memo dated 17.08.2022
21. Certified copy of the ExPW1/21 cheque dated 30.03.2022
22. Certified copy returning ExPW1/22 memo dated 31.03.2022
23. Certified copy of the ExPW1/23 cheque dated 13.05.2022
24. Certified copy returning ExPW1/24 memo dated 16.05.2022 Digitally signed by
25. Certified copy of the ExPW1/25 RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR cheque dated 16.05.2022 KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.04.17
26. Certified copy returning ExPW1/26 15:09:23 +0530 memo dated 19.05.2022
27. Certified copy of the ExPW1/27 Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 7 of 37 ) cheque dated 16.07.2022
28. Certified copy returning ExPW1/28 memo dated 17.08.2022
29. Certified copy of the ExPW1/29 cheque dated 08.08.2022
30. Certified copy returning ExPW1/30 memo dated 17.08.2022
31. Certified copy of legal ExPW1/31 notice dated 27.08.2022
32. Certified copy of the postal ExPW1/32 receipt
33. Certified coyp of tracking ExPW1/33 report
34. Certified copy of the ExPW1/34 corrigendum dated 06.10.2022
35. Certified copy of postal ExPW1/35 receipt
36. Certified copy of the ExPW1/36 tracking report
37. Copy of order dated ExPW1/37 12.10.2023 passed by the court of Ld. MM in the case bearing no. CC NI Act 31088/2022
38. Copy of order dated ExPW1/38 12.10.2023 passed by the Court of Ld. MM in the case bearing no. CC NI Act 31089/2022
39. Copy of order dated ExPW1/39 22.05.2024 passed by the court of Ld. ASJ in the case Crl. Revision Nol. 11/2024
40. Copy of order dated ExPW1/40 22.5.2024 passed by the court of Ld. ASJ in the case Crl. Revision No. 12/2024
41. Certificate u/s 63 of BSA ExPW1/41 Digitally signed by
42. Non-Starter report dated ExPW1/43 RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR 25.11.2023 KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 15:09:24 +0530
12. PW2 Rajeev Ranjan Kumar is the Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 8 of 37 ) summoned witness from the GST Department. He brought the requisite records i.e Communication dated 26.11.2025 ExPW2/A, Form GST-R 1-
January,2022 ExPW2/B, Form GST-R 2 A- March, 2022 ExPW2/C, Form GST-R 1- February,2023 ExPW2/D, Form GST-R-2A- February,2023 ExPW2/E and Certificate u/s 63 BSA ExPW2/F.
13. PW1 and PW2 were cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
14. The defendant has examined himself as DW1, Bhupender Sharma from J&K Bank as DW2, Inzamam Khan from Kotak Mahindra Bank as DW3 and Rajeev Ranjan Kumar, from GST Department as DW4.
15. DW1 Saghir Ahmed has deposed on the lines of the stand taken by him in his written statement. DW1 filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A. He has relied upon the documents i.e Invoices raised by the plaintiff ExDW1/1 to ExDW1/79, statement of account issued by J& K Bank ExDW2/A, statement of Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL account issued by Kotak Mahindra Bank GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 15:09:28 +0530 ExDW3/A and certificate u/s 63 of BSA,2023 Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 9 of 37 ) ExDW1/82.
16. DW2 Bhupender Sharma brought the requisite summoned record i.e statement of account pertaining to the account no. 0050010100005423 for the period from 1.1.2019 to 13.2.2024 ExDW2/A and deposed that the said account is in the name of Asian Power Generator.
17. DW3 Inzamam Khan is the witness from Kotak Mahindra Bank who brought the requisite summoned record pertaining to the account no. 0612397437 in the name of Asian Power Generator for the period from 01.01.2019 to 13.02.2024 ExDW3/A .
18. DW4 Rajeev Ranjan Kumar is witness from GST Department who brought the requisite summoned record i.e copy of the certificate on the letter head of Power Sales and Services ExDW4/A and the details of Form 2 B for the period from October 2011 and November, 2011 pertaining to Power Sales and Services ExPW4/B.
19. DW1 Saghir Ahmed and DW4 Rajeev Digitally signed by Ranjan Kumar were cross examined by the Ld. RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
Counsel for the plaintiff. DW2 Bhupender Sharma 2026.04.17 15:09:26 +0530 and DW3 Inzamam Khan were not cross Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 10 of 37 ) examined by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff despite opportunity being given.
Arguments made by the Ld. Counsels:
20. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the present case of the plaintiff is based upon 83 invoices out of which the defendant has not disputed the 79 invoices and the dispute is pertaining to 4 invoices. He has taken me to the testimony of PW2 Rajeev Ranjan Kumar and by referring the records ExPW2/B to ExPW2/E, produced by the PW2, he pointed out that the 4 invoices, which have been disputed by the defendant, have duly been reflected even in the GST records. Regarding the non filing of the Carbon copy of the invoices, it was stated that the printouts of the e-invoices were taken for uploading the same on the GST portal and there is no deviation in the e-invoices and the carbon copies thereof. It was also stated that initially there was an objection from the Registry at filing counter regarding the uploading of the carbon copies of the invoices being dim and accordingly, Digitally signed by RAJESH the printout of the e-invoices were uploaded and RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 were placed on record; whatever the part 15:09:24 +0530 payments were made by the defendant the same Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 11 of 37 ) were duly incorporated and has been reflected in the ledger accounts ExPW1/7 to ExPW1/9 filed by the plaintiff.
21. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that in the written statement, the defendant has not denied the receipt of the goods vide the invoices as relied upon by the plaintiff except the 4 invoices; the defendant has also admitted of having issued the cheques ExPW1/11, ExPW1/13, ExPW1/15, ExPW1/17, ExPW1/19, ExPW1/21, ExPW1/23, ExPW1/25, ExPW1/27 and ExPW1/29, in discharge of his legal liability which on presentation received back dishonored vide returning memos ExPW1/12, ExPW1/14, ExPW1/16, ExPW1/18, ExPW1/20, ExPW1/22, ExPW1/24, ExPW1/26, ExPW1/28 and ExPW1/30. It was further stated that the plaintiff has been enable to establish his case therefore, plaintiff is entitled for the decree, as prayed for.
22. Per Contra, Ld. Counsel for the defendant at the very outset submitted that the printouts of the e- invoices which have been placed on record Digitally signed by by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated; during RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date: the cross examination of PW1, it has come on the 2026.04.17 15:09:27 +0530 record that the carbon copies having the Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 12 of 37 ) acknowledgment of the defendant had been raised but the same have not been placed on record; the defendant has not denied the 79 invoices, carbon copies of which has been placed on record by the defendant, but not the invoices ExPW1/5 (colly) which have been placed on record by the plaintiff. By referring to the 4 invoices, which have been disputed by the defendant i.e the invoice dated 18.1.2022 bearing no.728 and 729, invoice dated 11.3.2022 bearing no.839, and the invoice dated 23.2.2023 bearing no.783 , it was stated that how it is possible that the invoice dated 23.2.2023 has been numbered as 0783 whereas the invoice dated 11.3.2022 has been numbered as 839, which indicates that the said invoices are forged and fabricated and no goods were ever supplied to the defendant.
23. Ld. Counsel for the defendant further submitted that although the plaintiff has claimed the interest @ 18% p.a but it has not been explained as to on what basis the interest has been claimed as there was no agreement between the Digitally parties regarding the interest as claimed by the signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL plaintiff. By referring to the cross examination of GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 15:09:25 +0530 the plaintiff (PW1), it was again reiterated that Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 13 of 37 ) even as per the case of the plaintiff, the goods were supplied vide the invoices which were having the carbon copies but no such invoices have been placed on record. He further submitted that in some of the invoices placed on record even the description of the goods is not exactly the same as it is there in the carbon copy of the invoices which was supplied to the defendant; the plaintiff has filed a false and forged case hence, it is liable to be dismissed.
24. I have gone through the material available on record and heard the Ld. Counsel of both the parties.
Discussion and Finding on Issues:-
Issue no.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of an amount of Rs 13,14,306/-, as prayed for? (OPP)
25. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs 13,14,306/- alleging that there was a dealing between the plaintiff and the defendant since the year 2021; the goods were supplied to the defendant; the defendant made part payment Digitally and as on 18.10.2023, an amount of Rs signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL 10,99,838/- is due and outstanding against the GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 15:09:24 +0530 defendant. The claim of the plaintiff is primarily Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 14 of 37 ) based upon the 83 invoices ExPW1/5 (colly) out of which there is no dispute in respect of 79 invoices.
26. The main stand of the defendant is that the invoices as relied upon by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated and so is the case with the ledger account ExPW1/7 to ExPW1/9. According to the defendant, the defendant had received the delivery of the goods in respect of the 79 invoices ExDW1/1 to ExDW1/79 but the goods in respect of the invoices dated 18.1.2022 bearing no.728 and 729, invoice dated 11.3.2022 bearing no.839, and the invoice dated 23.2.2023 bearing no.783 (herein after referred to as "invoices in dispute") were not received. In continuation of the said objection, the another objection raised by the defendant is that there was a bill book maintained by the plaintiff and the plaintiff should have placed on record the carbon copies of the bills, original of which have been placed on record by the defendant; the e-invoices were not in picture and they have been forged and fabricated.
Digitally signed by RAJESH
27. Here it would be relevant to refer to the RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 evidence led by both the parties particularly the 15:09:26 +0530 testimonies of the PW1 and DW1 who are the Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 15 of 37 ) main contesting parties. Both these witnesses have filed their evidence by way of affidavits ExPW1/A and ExDW1/A which is nothing but reiteration of their respective pleadings and the same has already been noted in the initial paragraphs. So, I would be referring to their cross examination which is relevant to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
28. During his cross examination, PW1 Sachin Sharma replied that he is in business dealing with the defendant since the year 2021 and is the authorized dealer of Honda Power Products; he had supplied generators, agricultural sprayer pump and multi purpose engine to the defendant and he used to raise the invoice as and when the sale was made to the defendant;there used to be one invoice for one transaction of sale;no acknowledgment was taken on the invoices raised against the defendant regarding the delivery of the goods;the acknowledgment of the receipt of the goods was only through telephonic conversation;the delivery of the goods used to be Digitally through commercial vehicles. signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.04.17
29. PW1 further replied that as and when the 15:09:23 +0530 goods were delivered through the said vehicle, the Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 16 of 37 ) copy of invoice and e-way bill is provided to such tempo; the same is handed over as without the invoice and e-way bill the delivery of the goods is not possible. Regarding the claim of interest PW1 replied that there was no written contract or agreement between him and the defendant regarding the business dealings and he has claimed the interest at the rate of 18% as it is mentioned on the invoices but there was no separate agreement between him and the defendant about the interest to be charged on delayed or non payment. PW1 admitted that he had submitted the same copies of the invoices to the GST department which have been placed on record in the present case by him; he keeps the carbon copy with him and his accountant upload the same on the GST portal also; admitted that he has not placed on record the carbon copy of the invoices; he maintains the ledger account of our customers and had maintained the ledger account of the defendant also and which has been placed on record,which is duly audited.
Digitally
30. PW1 further replied that the defendant used signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL to make the part payment and it was duly adjusted GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 15:09:25 +0530 against the goods supplied; the payments were Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 17 of 37 ) never on bill to bill basis; whatever the payments were made by the defendant, the credit of the same was given to the defendant;at the time of making the entry in the ledger regarding the amount received, it is not indicated as to for which invoice, the said payment has been received;the last transaction between and the defendant was in the month of February, 2023; it was the transaction for an amount of Rs.1,66,000/- (approx); and he had received the last payment of Rs.10,000/- from the defendant, which was duly entered into the ledger account; the defendant used to make the payment through cheques and also online payment. I have placed on record indicating the payments received through cheques and received through online mode.
31. Although, PW1 Sachin Sharma was cross examined at length but even during his cross examination nothing substantial or material facts could be elicited to make a dent in the claim of the plaintiff; major part of the cross examination was Digitally aimed on certain facts which were not in dispute. signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Even during the cross examination of PW1, it has GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 15:09:28 +0530 come on the record that both the parties were Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 18 of 37 ) having business relationship; the goods were supplied to the defendant; the defendant used to make the part payments which was duly adjusted in the ledger account maintained by the plaintiff etc.
32. This takes me to the testimony of the defendant Saghir Ahmed (DW1). During his cross examination DW1 replied that whatever the invoices have been admitted the same have been filed on record; denied the suggestion that the amount in the sum of Rs.1,61,046/- as admitted by him in my written statement has not been incorporated or adjusted the four disputed invoices of Rs.9,11,634/- (total); he did not receive any goods vide invoices dated 18.01.2022 (two invoices), dated 23.02.2023 and 11.03.2022, part of Ex.PW1/5 (colly) and stated that all these invoices are forged and fabricated.
33. DW1 admitted that he has indicated the aforesaid four invoices in his GST records; his accountant maintains the ledger account of the plaintiff; denied that he has not placed on record Digitally signed by RAJESH the copy of the said ledger account of the plaintiff RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 just to avoid his alleged liability. DW1 was shown 15:09:26 +0530 the ledger account Ex.PW1/7, Ex.PW1/8 and Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 19 of 37 ) Ex.PW1/9 and he was asked whether he can point out the forged entry in the said ledger account as contained by him, to which he stated that the plaintiff has raised forged invoices and have made forged entries also but he cannot exactly point out the same.
34. Regarding issuance of cheques, DW1 replied that the cheques in question Ex.PW1/11, Ex.PW1/13, Ex.PW1/15, Ex.PW1/17, Ex.PW1/19, Ex.PW1/21, Ex.PW1/23, Ex.PW1/25, Ex.PW1/27 and Ex.PW1/29 bear his signatures and he had given the same to the plaintiff. He stated that the plaintiff had assured him to return back the said cheques but the same were never returned;the said cheques had been issued as a security; admitted that he has not made any complaint against the plaintiff for non returning of the said cheques and also he has not filed any case against the plaintiff in this regard.
35. From the aforesaid testimony of DW1, it has come on the record that there is no dispute qua 79 invoices as filed by the defendant; even Digitally signed by RAJESH according to the defendant, an approximate RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 amount of Rs 1,61,046/- is due and outstanding 15:09:24 +0530 against the defendant; the four disputed invoices Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 20 of 37 ) were duly indicated in the GST Records; the defendant maintains the ledger account of the plaintiff but the same has not been placed on record; the defendant had issued the cheques in question but according to the defendant, the same were issued as a security; no complaint was ever made by the defendant against the plaintiff for non returning of the aforesaid cheques etc.
36. In addition to that three more witnesses i.e DW2 Sh. Bhupender Sharma, Manager, J&K Bank, DW3 Inzamam Khan from Kotak Mahindra Bank and DW4 Rajeev Ranjan Kumar from GST have been examined who have simply produced the records pertaining to the account maintained by the defendant with the aforesaid bank and the records available with the GST department.
37. During the arguments, on the query being raised by this Court regarding the relevancy of the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses examined by the defendant, Ld. Counsel for the defendant submitted that he just wanted to show that certain Digitally payments were made by the defendant to the signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL plaintiff. Nothing could be pointed out by him GOEL Date:
indicating that any particular transaction qua the 2026.04.17 15:09:23 +0530 Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 21 of 37 ) payments made by the defendant was not incorporated in the ledger accounts of the defendant maintained by the plaintiff. So, was the case with regard to the relevancy of the testimony of DW4 Rajeev Ranjan Kumar, who produced the record for the period from October 2011 to November,2011 pertaining to the plaintiff firm.
38. Even otherwise also, the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses i.e DW2, DW3 and DW4 cannot be considered for the reasons that the electronics produced by them is not supported by the requisite certificate u/s 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam, 2023.
39. If the testimonies of the witnesses examined by both the parties are put to close scrutiny, it would be revealed that there is no dispute in respect of the supply of the products vide 79 invoices ExDW1/1 to ExDW1/79 which have been placed on record by the defendant. The only dispute is qua the four "invoices in dispute" which are part and parcel of the ExPW1/5 (colly).
40. Coming to the main contention of the Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL defendant that there was a bill book maintained by GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 15:09:27 +0530 the plaintiff and the plaintiff should have placed Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 22 of 37 ) on record the carbon copies of the same. It is true that it has come on the record that the plaintiff was maintaining a bill book and the invoices had been raised by using the said bill book but at the same time, the plaintiff raised the e-invoices which have been placed on record. The bill book maintained by the plaintiff having carbon copies of the invoices which were supplied to the defendant have not been placed on record for the reasons best known to the plaintiff. Now, the question arises what would be the effect of the same?
41. In this regard, I may mention that as far as the present claim of the plaintiff is concerned, it would not be fatal to the case of the plaintiff though it may be a material fact for consideration by the GST or other Government department. On a close examination, it is revealed that the 79 invoices ExDW1/1 to ExDW1/79 , as relied upon by the defendant are matching with the invoices ExPW1/5 (colly) as placed on record by the plaintiff except few trivial deviations regarding Digitally date or description of the goods in a few invoices. signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.04.17
42. The main controversy between the parties 15:09:26 +0530 revolves around the supply of the goods vide Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 23 of 37 ) "invoices in dispute". The stand of the defendant is that the defendant never received the goods vide the said invoices whereas according to the plaintiff, the goods were supplied to the defendant. In order to prove his contention, the plaintiff has examined PW2 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan Kumar from the GST department who produced the requisite records i.e ExPW2/B to ExPW2/E supported by the certificate u/s 63 of the BSA, 2023 ExPW2/F. The defendant has not disputed the testimony of PW2 and the records produced by him.
43. The documents ExPW2/B to ExPW2/E would indicate that in the Form GSTR -1 for the month of Janaury,2022, the entries in respect of the two invoices in dispute bearing no. 728 and 729 both dated 18.01.2022, have been made at serial no. 64 & 66 respectively and in the Form GSTR-2A the relevant entries qua the same have been reflected at sl. no. 38 & 39 respectively; in the Form GSTR-1 for the month of February, 2023, the entry in respect of invoice in dispute bearing no. 783 dated 23.02.2023 has Digitally been made at serial no.49 and in the Form GSTR-2 signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL A the relevant entry qua the same is reflected at sl. GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 15:09:25 +0530 no.25; and in the Form GSTR-1 for the month of Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 24 of 37 ) March, 2023, the entry in respect of invoice in dispute bearing no. 839 dated 11.03.2022 has been made at serial no.51 and in the Form GSTR-2 A the relevant entry qua the same is reflected at sl. no.34.
44. During the cross examination of DW1, it has come on the record that the defendant has taken the Input Tax Credit which is further evident from the records produced by PW2 i.e GSTR-2A returns as referred to herein above. In case the defendant had not received any delivery of the goods vide the "invoices in dispute", there was no occasion for the defendant to avail Input Tax Credit. The defendant cannot be allowed to run away from the record maintained by a Govt.
Department. There is nothing on record suggesting that the defendant ever raised any objection to the aforesaid record either to the GST department or even to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff has been able to establish that the goods/product had been supplied to the defendant vide "invoices in dispute" also.
45. Coming to the ledger account ExPW1/7 to Digitally signed by RAJESH ExPW1/9, maintained by the plaintiff, during the RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 cross examination, the defendant was asked to 15:09:23 +0530 point out the false entries in the said ledger Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 25 of 37 ) accounts but no such entry could be located by the defendant.
46. This takes me to the another contention of the defendant that the cheque in question had been issued as a security. In the background of the fact that the goods were supplied to the defendant, Now it is to be seen whether the aforesaid contention of the defendant has any merits or not?
47. Here I may mention that in a significant departure from the general rule applicable to contracts, Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act provides certain presumptions to be raised. This section lays down some special rules of evidence relating to presumptions. The reason for these presumptions is that, negotiable instruments pass from hand to hand on endorsement and it would make trading very difficult and negotiability of the instrument impossible, unless certain presumptions are made. The presumption, therefore, is a matter of principle to facilitate negotiability as well as trade. Section 118 of the Act provides Digitally presumptions to be raised until the contrary is signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL proved (i) as to consideration, (ii) as to date of GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 15:09:22 +0530 instrument, (iii) as to time of acceptance, (iv) as to Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 26 of 37 ) time of transfer, (v) as to order of indorsements,
(vi) as to appropriate stamp, and ( vii) as to holder being a holder in due course.
48. It goes without saying that the presumptions are devices by use of which the courts are enabled and entitled to pronounce on an issue notwithstanding that there is no evidence or insufficient evidence. Under the then Evidence Act and also under Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 all presumptions must come under one or the other class of the three classes mentioned in the Act, namely, (1) "may presume"
(rebuttable), (2) "shall presume" (rebuttable), and (3) "conclusive presumptions" (irrebuttable). The term "presumption" is used to designate an inference, affirmative or disaffirmative of the existence of a fact, conveniently called the "presumed fact" drawn by a judicial tribunal, by a process of probable reasoning from some matter of fact, either judicially noticed or admitted or established by legal evidence to the satisfaction of the tribunal. Presumption literally means "taking Digitally as true without examination or proof".
signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.04.17
49. Here I may also note the observations made 15:09:27 +0530 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 27 of 37 ) Official Receiver v. Abdul Shakoor, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 172, which are as under:-
"16. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act authorises the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Under the third illustration of Section 114 the Court may presume that a bill of exchange accepted or endorsed was accepted for good consideration. But the section provides, that the Court shall also have regard to other material facts in considering whether the maxim does or does not apply in the particular case before it, it is therefore open to the Court to consider in its proper setting, the fact that the drawer of a bill of exchange was a man of business, and the acceptor was a young and ignorant person completely under the former's influence. This is one illustrative fact which the Court may consider in raising the presumption. There may be other circumstances which may also justify the Court in declining to raise the presumption. Mr Pathak for the respondents urged that the Indian Evidence Act was enacted in 1872 and the Negotiable Instruments Act having been enacted in 1881, and as the two provisions conflict or overlap, Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must supersede Section 114 of the Evidence Act. We are unable to accept that contention. Undoubtedly Section 114 of the Evidence Act is a general provision Digitally signed by RAJESH which enables the Court to presume, RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL though not obliged to do so, that a bill of GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 15:09:25 exchange or a promissory note was +0530 founded on a good consideration. Section Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 28 of 37 ) 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, however, enacts a special rule of evidence which operates between parties to the instrument or persons claiming under them in a suit or proceeding relating to the bill of exchange and does not affect the rule contained in Section 114 of the Evidence Act, in cases not falling within Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act."
50. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Kalamani Tex and Another vs. P. Balasubramanian"
(2021) 5 SCC 283, examines the scope and ambit of the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act, to hold:
" 14. Once the 2nd appellant had admitted his signatures on the cheque and the deed, the trial Court ought to have presumed that the cheque was issued as consideration for a legally enforceable debt. The trial Court fell in error when it called upon the respondent complainant to explain the circumstances under which the appellants were liable to pay. Such approach of the trial Court was directly in the teeth of the established legal position as discussed above, and amounts to a patent error of law.
xx xx xx
17. Even if we take the arguments raised by the appellants at face value that only a blank cheque and signed blank stamp papers were given to the respondent, yet the statutory presumption cannot be obliterated. It is useful to cite "Bir Singh v. Mukesh Digitally Kumar", where this court held that: signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR "Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 handed over by the accused, which is towards 15:09:27 +0530 some payment, would attract presumption under Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 29 of 37 ) Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt."
18. Considering the fact that there has been an admitted business relationship between the parties, we are of the opinion that the defence raised by the appellants does not inspire confidence or meet the standard of 'preponderance of probability'. In the absence of any other relevant material, it appears to us that the High Court did not err in discarding the appellants' defence and upholding the onus imposed upon them in terms of Section 118 and Section 139 of the NIA."
51. In a recent case of Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that once execution of cheque is admitted, presumptions under sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arise. It was further observed as under:-
"15. In the present case, the cheque in question has admittedly been signed by respondent No. 1- accused. This court is of the view that once the execution of the cheque is admitted, the presumption under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, that the cheque in question was drawn for consideration and the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, that the holder of the cheque received the said cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability arise against the accused. It is pertinent to mention Digitally that observations to the contrary by a two-judge signed by RAJESH Bench in Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Hegde; 2008 SCC OnLine SC 106.] have been set GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 15:09:24 aside by a three-judge Bench in Rangappa v. Sri +0530 Mohan; 2010 SCC OnLine SC 583. 16. This court is Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 30 of 37 ) further of the view that by creating this presumption, the law reinforces the reliability of cheques as a mode of payment in commercial transactions. 17. Needless to mention that the presumption contemplated under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is a rebuttable presumption. However, the initial onus of proving that the cheque is not in discharge of any debt or other liability is on the M/s Phool Chand Bhagat Singh Vs Vikas Aggarwal Date of judgment 14.01.2026 (Page 27 of 30 ) accused/drawer of the cheque (see : Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar 2019 SCC OnLine SC 138) . 18. The judgment of this court in APS Forex Services P. Ltd. v. Shakti International Fashion Linkers [(2020) 12 SCC 724; (2020) 4 SCC (Cri) 505; 2020 SCC OnLine SC
193.] relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No. 1- accused only says that the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable and when the same is rebutted, the onus would shift back to the complainant to prove his financial capacity, more particularly, when it is a case of giving loan by cash. This judgment nowhere states, as was sought to be contended by learned counsel for respondent No. 1-accused, that in cases of dishonour of cheques, in lieu of cash loans, the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not arise. Approach of some courts below to not give effect to the presumptions under sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is contrary to mandate of Parliament"
52. Reverting back to the case at hand, it is not denied that the defendant had issued the cheques in question which received back dishonored vide returning memos ExPW1/12, ExPW1/14, Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL ExPW1/16, ExPW1/18, ExPW1/20, ExPW1/22, GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 15:09:27 +0530 ExPW1/24, ExPW1/26, ExPW1/28 and Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 31 of 37 ) ExPW1/30. That being so, the defendant was under obligation to rebut the presumption available in favour of the plaintiff but he has miserably failed to rebut the same. It has not been explained as to against which product or order the aforesaid cheques had been issued by the defendant as as security? As to why the defendant never asked the plaintiff in writing to return the said cheques?
53. In the background of the fact that the aforesaid cheques had been issued by the defendant and the same admittedly bear the signatures of the defendant, the plaintiff has a reasonable presumption in his favour to the effect that the same had been issued by the defendant in discharge of his legal liability. In the given circumstances, the defence of the defendant that the cheque had been issued as a security appears to be a sham defence, which has no value in the eyes of the law. Thus, the factum of issuance of the cheques would support and corroborate the claim of the plaintiff, making the plaintiff entitled Digitally signed by for the decree, as prayed for. RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 15:09:24 +0530 Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 32 of 37 )
54. Pertinent to mention that one of the contentions of the defendant was that the invoice dated 11.03.2022 is bearing no. 839 whereas the invoice which is of a later date i.e 23.2.2023 has been numbered as 783, which according to the Ld. Counsel for the defendant is not possible. The aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the defendant is not tenable. Both the invoices as referred to are of different financial year and naturally would have different numbers. Thus, the aforesaid contention being devoid of merits is hereby rejected.
55. The normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact will be said to be proved if it's proved by a preponderance of probabilities. The principle of preponderance essentially requires the Plaintiff to introduce more or even slightly better evidence than the defence. In other words, this principle could also refer to a more probable and rational view in adjudicating a specific fact/issue. The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines it as the "standard of proof in Digitally most civil cases in which the party bearing the signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL burden of proof must present evidence which is GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 15:09:22 +0530 more credible or convincing than that presented Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 33 of 37 ) by the other party or which shows that the fact to be proven is more probable than not.
56. The concept has been very succinctly explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narayan Dastane [AIR (1975) (SC) 1534] by observing as follows:-
"The normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact can be said to be established if it is proved by a preponderance of probabilities. This is for the reason that under the Evidence Act, section 3, a fact is said to be proved when the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. 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 Digitally signed by it is this choice which ultimately determines RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL where. the preponderance of probabilities GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 lies."
15:09:26
+0530
Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 34 of 37 )
57. In the present case the plaintiff has been able to pass the said test of preponderance of probabilities as the Plaintiff's evidence is better than the stand taken by the defence. The case as set by the plaintiff is more credible or convincing than that presented by the defendant.
58. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff company has been able to establish that, as per the statement of account ExPW1/9, as on 18.10.2023, a principal amount of Rs 10,99,838/- is due and outstanding against the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the same. Hence, issue no.1 is answered accordingly.
Issue no.2 In case if issue no. 1 is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest, if so, at what rate and for what period? (OPP)
59. The plaintiff has also claimed the interest to the extent of Rs 2,14,468/- i.e 18 % p.a on the principal amount of Rs 10,99,838/- w.e.f 18.10.2023 till filing of the suit, to reach at the suit amount of Digitally Rs 13,14,306/-.
signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 15:09:27 +0530 Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 35 of 37 )
60. In the invoices ExDW1/1 to ExDW1/79, which have been placed on record by the defendant himself and are not in dispute, one of the terms & conditions, is that " interest @ 18% p.a will be charged if the bill is not paid within 30 days". There is nothing on record suggesting that the defendant ever raised any objection to any of the terms and conditions as mentioned in the said invoices. It is the own case of the defendant that he had received the delivery of the products vide aforesaid invoices so, he is bound by the said terms and conditions also. Thus, the plaintiff would be entitled for the interest, as claimed for and consequently, would be entitled for a decree in the sum of Rs 13,14,306/- (Rs 10,99,838/- principal amount + Rs 2,14,468/- towards interest ).
61. The plaintiff has also also claimed the pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% p.a. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, Court is of the view that interest of justice would be met by awarding pendente lite and future interest @ 8% per annum, so is ordered accordingly. Issue no.2 is disposed Digitally off in view of the aforesaid directions.
signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.04.17 15:09:28 +0530 Issue no.3 Relief Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 36 of 37 )
62. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the Court is of the view that the plaintiff has been able to prove his case against the defendant. Thus, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and following reliefs are granted:-
(i.) The plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs 13,14,306/- ( Rs Thirteen Lakh Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred and Six) from the defendant.
(ii.)The plaintiff is also awarded the pendente- lite and future interest @ 8% per annum (iii.) Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff .
63. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
64. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance. Digitally signed RAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
2026.04.17 GOEL 15:09:56 +0530 (Rajesh Kumar Goel) District Judge (Commercial)-02 Central, Tis Hazari Courts 17.04.2026 Announced in the Open Court today i.e: 17.04.2026 Sachin Sharma vs Saghir Ahmed Date of Judgment 17.04.2026 ( 37 of 37 )