Delhi District Court
Harish Verma vs Neetu Rathore on 7 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA-II : DJ (COMMERCIAL COURT)-03
(SHAHDARA) : KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm.) No. 493/2025
CNR No.: DLSH01-004564-2025
Harish Verma
Proprietor: M/s. Asha Advertising
WZ-559A-1, Naraina Village
New Delhi-110028
..... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Neetu Rathore
Proprietor: M/s. Green Circle Media
Plot No. 410, Patparganj Industrial Area
Near CGHS Dispensary, Delhi-110092
..... Defendant
Date of Institution : 11.08.2025
Date of Arguments : 07.11.2025
Date of Judgment : 07.11.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,32,921/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 24% per annum against the defendant.
2. The plaintiff is a manufacturer of advertising materials including 'flex boards, sun boards, GSB boards and other allied products'.
3. The plaintiff supplied 'advertising material' to the defendant w.e.f. 20.11.2019 to 02.02.2021, vide Tax Invoices.
Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SANJAY Date:
SHARMA 2025.11.07
CS (Comm.) No. 493/2025 Harish Verma vs. Neetu Rathore 17:19:26
Page No. 1 of 6
+0530
4. The plaintiff was maintaining a running account. The plaintiff debited invoices and credited payments made by the defendant. As per ledger, principal amount of Rs. 10,32,921/- was due against the defendant. The plaintiff sent e-mails dated 17.07.2023, 19.07.2023 and 24.07.2023 to the defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent a demand notice dated 14.01.2025, through speed post, to the defendant. However, the defendant neither replied the demand notice nor cleared the outstanding amount. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant.
5. The defendant was served with the summons of the suit, through ordinary process, on 19.08.2025. However, the defendant neither appeared nor filed written statement.
6. Vide order dated 08.10.2025, notional issues were framed, as under:
"(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs. 10,32,921/-, as prayed?
(OPP) (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendente-lite and future interest @ 24% per annum?
(OPP) (3) Relief."
7. The plaintiff appeared as PW-1. He deposed, on strength of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He relied on documents, as under:
Sl. No. Documents Exhibits
1. Aadhar card of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/1
2. PAN card of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/2
3. GST Registration Certificate of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/3
4. 42 Invoices Ex.PW1/4 (colly.)
5. Statement of Account Ex.PW1/5
6. Attested copy of statement of account Ex.PW1/6
7. e-mails dated 17.07.2023, 19.07.2023 and Ex.PW1/7 (colly.) 24.07.2023
8. Demand Notice dated 14.01.2025 Ex.PW1/8 Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.11.07 17:19:37 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 493/2025 Harish Verma vs. Neetu Rathore Page No. 2 of 6
9. Postal receipts Ex.PW1/9 and Ex.PW1/10 10. e-mail Ex.PW1/11
11. 'Non-Starter Report' Ex.PW1/12
12. Certificate under Section 65-B of 'The Indian Ex.PW1/13 Evidence Act, 1872'
13. Certificate under Section 65-B of 'The Indian Ex.PW1/14 Evidence Act, 1872' of Mr. Manish Tanwar
8. I have heard arguments of Mr. Deepak Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and examined the pleadings and documents.
ISSUE NO. 1:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs. 10,32,921/-, as prayed?
(OPP)
9. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,32,921/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 24% per annum against the defendant on the ground that he supplied 'advertising material' to the defendant w.e.f. 20.11.2019 to 02.02.2021, vide tax invoices. The plaintiff was maintaining a running account. The plaintiff debited invoices and credited payments made by the defendant. As per ledger, principal amount of Rs. 10,32,921/- was due against the defendant. The plaintiff sent e-mails dated 17.07.2023, 19.07.2023 and 24.07.2023 to the defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent a demand notice dated 14.01.2025, through speed post, to the defendant. The defendant neither replied nor made payment of the outstanding amount. The defendant has not filed written statement. The defendant has not contested the suit. In the absence of any challenge to the averments made in the plaint and documents relied by the plaintiff, the averments made in the plaint are deemed admitted.
Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.11.07
17:19:45 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 493/2025 Harish Verma vs. Neetu Rathore Page No. 3 of 6
10. The plaintiff testified the facts stated in the plaint in evidence-affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He filed tax invoices Ex.PW1/4 (colly.) qua supply of 'advertising material' to the defendant, statements of accounts w.e.f. 20.11.2019 to 22.08.2022 reflecting debit and credit entries, vide Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6, e-mails dated 17.07.2023, 19.07.2023 and 24.07.2023 Ex.PW1/7 (colly.) and demand notice dated 14.01.2025 Ex.PW1/8 alongwith postal receipts Ex.PW1/9 and Ex.PW1/10. According to statements of accounts Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6, an amount of Rs. 10,32,921/- was due, as on 22.08.2022.
11. The evidence of the plaintiff is substantiated by documentary evidence. His evidence remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence, oral and documentary, led by the plaintiff.
12. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of principal amount of Rs. 10,32,921/-.
13. Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 2:
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendente-lite and future interest @ 24% per annum?
(OPP)
14. The plaintiff is claiming pendente-lite and future interest @ 24% per annum on the premise that the said rate of interest is mentioned in invoices. However, there is no evidence that the defendant ever agreed to the said rate of interest. The said rate of interest is on higher side. There is no evidence that the said rate of interest is usual market rate of interest. There is no evidence that the said rate of interest is paid by the banks. However, the defendant withheld the amount due to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to just and reasonable interest on the principal amount.
Digitally signed bySANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.11.07 17:19:54 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 493/2025 Harish Verma vs. Neetu Rathore Page No. 4 of 6
15. Section 34 of 'The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ' confers discretion upon the Court to grant pendente-lite and future interest. The nature of the transaction is commercial.
16. The plaintiff is entitled to pendente-lite and future interest @ 9% per annum on the principal amount.
17. Issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
RELIEF
18. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs and a decree in the sum of Rs. 10,32,921/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 9% per annum is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Decree sheet be drawn. File Digitally signed be consigned to record room. by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.11.07 17:20:02 +0530 Announced in the open Court SANJAY SHARMA-II on this 07th November, 2025 DJ (Commercial Court)-03 (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CS (Comm.) No. 493/2025 Harish Verma vs. Neetu Rathore Page No. 5 of 6 Harish Verma vs. Neetu Rathore CNR No.: DLSH01-004564-2025 CS (Comm.) No. 493/2025 07.11.2025 Present : Mr. Deepak Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
The Court has heard final arguments. Vide separate judgment, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs and a decree in the sum of Rs. 10,32,921/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 9% per annum is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Decree sheet be drawn. File be Digitally signed consigned to record room. by SANJAY SHARMA SANJAY Date:
SHARMA 2025.11.07
17:20:09
+0530
Sanjay Sharma-II
DJ (Commercial Court)-03
Shahdara, KKD, Delhi
07.11.2025
CS (Comm.) No. 493/2025 Harish Verma vs. Neetu Rathore Page No. 6 of 6