Delhi District Court
Sunil Kumar vs M.G. Buildtech India And Ors on 3 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-02: NORTH ROHINI
COURTS COMPLEX: DELHI
CNR No. DLNT01-005144-2017
CS DJ No. 383/2017
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Sunil Kumar (Proprietor)
S. K. Engineering,
Plot No. 82, Pocket-O,
Sector-2, Bawana Industrial Area,
Bawana, Delhi. .....Plaintiff
Versus
1. M. G. Buildtech India (Through its Authorized Person)
Gali No. 6, Singh Colony
Rudrapur, Uttarakhand, PIN-248197
Also at:
0.6 Km on Bhuraram Road
From Kashipur Road, near Khushi Enclave,
Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar,
Uttarakhand.
2. Mr. Vikas Mohan Goel (Partner)
Gali No. 6, Singh Colony,
Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar,
Uttarakhand, PIN-248197.
3. Mr. Aman Bansal (Partner)
1, Sunny Dales, Kichha Road,
Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar,
Uttarakhand, PIN-248197. .....Defendants
CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 1/31
Date of institution : 25/04/2017
Date of Conclusion of Argument : 13.12.2025
Date of Order Judgment : 03.01.2026
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 22,98,714/- & MANDATORY
INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall decide the present suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.22,98,714/- (Rs. Twenty two lakhs Ninety eight thousand Seven hundred and fourteen only) and mandatory injunction and also for pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum till realization of the amount. Tersely put it is plaintiffs case that payment on account of sale and letting on hire / rent basis of scaffolding and other shuttering material was not made by defendant. Defences of defendant are that the bills raised by plaintiff are inflated, short material was supplied and the price charged in bills raised was not as per negotiated price.
PLAINTIFF's CASE
2. It is case of the plaintiff that he is engaged in business of sale and letting on hire / rent basis scaffolding and other shuttering material. Plaintiff raised invoices towards sale/renting of scaffolding and other shuttering material. Material was supplied as per specifications CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 2/31 desired. Invoices for sale and also for hire charges were raised. Defendants made part payment. However, since, November, 2015, no payment was made by the defendants in rental account. Since, August, 2015, no payment was made by the defendant towards purchase of material. Despite assurance, defendants did not provide C Form against sale of material for remaining amount of sale of Rs.8,01,812/-. Demand notice dated 01/09/2016 was sent but to no avail. As per Ledger Account maintained by plaintiff, following amount is due and outstanding:
a) Rs.16,56,919/- towards the balance payment of the sale consideration.
b) Rs.6,41,795/- towards the arrears of rentals/hire charges as on 31/03/2017.
3. It is case of plaintiff that the defendants are also liable to pay the interest @ 24% per annum on the outstanding amount from the respective due dates.
4. For ease of reference prayers in the suit are as under :
a) Pass a decree in favour of the Plaintiff for a sum of Rs.22,98,714/- and against the Defendants;
b) Pass a decree in favour of the Plaintiff in the nature of mandatory injunction by directing the CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 3/31 Defendants to provide the requisite C Form for an amount of Rs.8,01,812/-;
c) Pass a decree in favour of the Plaintiff in the nature of mandatory injunction by directing the Defendants to provide the TDS Certificate on the amount deducted by them on the payments made against the hire charges;
d) Pass a decree for pendent-lite and future interest @ 24% per annum till realization of the amount;
e) Award cost of the Suit in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.
DEFENDANT'S CASE IN WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO. 1 AND 2
5. It is plea of the defendant that this court has no territorial jurisdiction.
6. In para 3 of preliminary submissions it is stated that ledger account was maintained by defendant no 1 in name of plaintiff.
Defendant no 1 made payments in plaintiffs bank account by N.E.F.T./R.T.G.S. between 15/04/2014 to 04/11/2015.
CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 4/317. It is further pleaded that there is discrepancies in the rates mentioned in the bills / invoices as detailed in para 5 of preliminary submissions. Builty of GR No. 514 dated 02/04/2015 with 300 verticals was never supplied to defendant no.1. The bills are inflated. Short material was supplied, the price being charged is not as per mutually negotiated price.
8. It is further pleaded that Form C is not being issued as plaintiff failed to correct the bills as per objections of the defendant no.1, raised from time to time. On these averments, dismissal of suit, is prayed for.
REPLICATION
9. Replication dated 27/02/2020 to the written statement of defendant no. 1 and 2 was filed. In essence, the averments in the plaint were reiterated and those in the written statements were denied.
ISSUES
10. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Court vide order dated 27/02/2020 :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for sum of Rs.
22,98,714 as per prayer clause (a) of the plaint?OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction to provide C Form to the plaintiffs for an amount of Rs.8,01,812/-
CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 5/31as well as TDS Certificate as per prayer clause (b) and (c) ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendente lite and future interest as per prayer clause (d) ? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cost of the suit as per prayer clause (e) of the plaint ? OPP
5. Whether this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit ? OPD (This additional issue was framed on 04/08/2023)
6. Relief.
11. PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE S. No. Name of witness Remarks/documents tendered
1. PW1 - Sh. Sunil PW 1 tendered his Evidence by way of affidavit Kumar Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon the following documents:
1. Ledger Account of the plaintiff from 01/04/2013 to 31/01/2017 towards sale account and higher charges account as Ex.
PW1/A (OSR) and Ex. PW1/B (OSR);
2. Invoices raised by the plaintiff from the year 2014-2015 onwards towards sale of the material alongwith Postal Receipts as Ex.
PW1/C (OSR) (pages from 19 to 49, colly.);
CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 6/313. Invoices raised by the plaintiff from the year 2014-2015 onward towards higher charges alongwith Postal Receipts as Ex. PW1/D (OSR) (pages from 50 to 69, colly.);
4. The document i.e. Form C issued by the defendant for the year 2014-2015 mentioned as Ex. PW1/E in the affidavit was de-
exhibited and marked as Mark - A (two pages, colly.);
5. Demand notice dated 01/09/2016 along with Postal Receipt as Ex. PW1/5 (OSR) (five pages, colly.) and
6. Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW1/G (two pages, colly.)
12. Plaintiff evidence was closed on 08/05/2024.
13. DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
14. Despite several opportunities, defendants could not lead DE and defence of the defendant was closed by order dated 09/01/2025 of the Court.
COURT HAS HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ARE PERUSED RECORD. ISSUE WISE SUBMISSIONS RAISED AND FINDINGS ARE AS UNDER CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 7/31 ISSUE NO. 1 IS :
1. "Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for sum of Rs.22,98,714 as per prayer clause (a) of the plaint? OPP"
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF
15. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued on this issue that in the written statement in para no. 5 of the preliminary submission; discrepancy in rates is mentioned in ten invoices. Receipt of material is not denied. Further, list of documents filed by the defendant Annexure 'A' which is a Ledger Account maintained by defendant regarding plaintiffs' S. K. Engineer; admits 31 invoices which shows that goods were supplied.
16. It is further argued by the Counsel for plaintiff that in para 6 of the preliminary submission of written statement, filed by defendant no.1 and 2, it is mentioned that 300 verticals were never supplied. It is argued that the perusal of the documents filed by the defendants Annexure A which is a Ledger Account maintained by defendant regarding plaintiffs' S. K. Engineer admits 31 invoices which shows that goods were supplied (reliance is placed upon entry of 04/02/2015 regarding bill no. 835). It is argued that the supply of goods were not disputed.
CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 8/31SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT NO. 1 AND 2.
17. Counsel for the defendants no. 1 and 2 contends that PW1 - Sh. Sunil Kumar is not credible. In cross-examination dated 16/02/2024, he submitted that business dealings with defendants starts from 18/04/2014 which shows that all bills prior to 18/04/2014, cannot be relied upon. To this submission, counsel for the plaintiff has clarified that in Ex. PW1/A and B, the transaction prior to 2014 have been duly proved and the admission in cross-examination must be read as a whole.
18. It is further argued that by Counsel for the defendant no. 1 and 2 criminal complaint has not been produced by the plaintiff. Material documents have been concealed. To this submission, counsel for the plaintiff has clarified that the same has not been produced as it is not being relied by plaintiff.
19. It is further argued by Counsel for the defendant no 1 and 2 that short material was supplied. The bills raised were not as per negotiated price. To this submission, counsel for the plaintiff has clarified that the invoices at page no.41 to 45 onward of the list of documents by the plaintiff i.e. Ex. PW1/C (colly) show acknowledgment by defendant no.2. No notice regarding short supply or discrepancy was sent by defendants to plaintiff before suit (Section 42 of Goods Act, 1930). Defendants did not gather courage to step into witness box.
CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 9/3120. It is further argued by Counsel for the defendant no 1 and 2 that there is admission by PW1 - Sh. Sunil Kumar in cross-examination dated 16/02/2024 that in 25 invoices, there is no acknowledgment of defendant no.1. To this submission, counsel for the plaintiff has clarified that some invoices were signed by the representative of the defendants i.e. Sh. T. D. Arora. One such invoice is Ex. PW1/C (colly) at page 36 of the documents of the plaintiff. Same is duly reflected in annexure A, filed by the defendants (at entry dated 30/04/2015 acknowledging bill no. 850).
21. It is further argued on behalf of the defendants no.1 and 2 that Ex.DW1/G which is certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act is issued by the plaintiff. Same is of no consequence as there is admission by PW1 - Sunil Kumar in his cross-examination dated 16/02/2024 that accountant in his office maintains books of account and Ledgers. Further, the certificate does not comply with the conditions u/s 65 B (4) Indian Evidence Act. To this submission, counsel for the plaintiff has clarified that since the transaction were in personal knowledge of the plaintiff being proprietor, the plaintiff was duly authorized to issue certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act.
22. It is further argued on behalf of the defendant no. 1 and 2 that at page 23 of the documents of the plaintiff Ex. PW1/C (colly), bill no. 887 shows that 30 verticals were sold to the defendant. Whereas, at page no. 38 of the documents of the plaintiff Ex. PW1/C (colly), bill no.
CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 10/31882 shows that MTR Rs.18,000/- verticals were given for hire. It is argued that case of the plaintiff is not credible as same verticals are shown for hire and for sale as well. To this submission, counsel for the plaintiff clarifies that bill no.850 stands admitted in annexure A, filed by the defendants which is regarding rent. Further, bill no.887 regarding purchase stands admitted in annexure A, filed by the defendants. It is further clarified that the quantity is different in the bills and it is wrong that same product is being shown as rented as well as sold. Defendant did not have courage to step in witness box. Plaintiff could have cross examined him on point to show material shown as for hire and for sale differed.
23. It is further argued on behalf of the defendant no.1 and 2 that all the tracking reports showing delivery of invoices, has not been proved as admitted by PW1 - Sh. Sunil Kumar in his cross-examination dated 08/05/2024. To this submission, counsel for the plaintiff clarifies that 31 out of 40 invoices stand admitted in annexure A, filed by the defendants. The rest of the invoices were duly acknowledged by representative of the defendant i.e. Sh. T. D. Arora.
24. It is further argued on behalf of the defendant no.1 and 2 that the delivery by transportation of goods has not been proved. Builty receipts have been concealed. To this submission, counsel for the plaintiff clarifies that since there is acknowledgment by defendants or their representatives in the invoices itself, the non-production of builty CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 11/31 receipts is inconsequential/pales into insignificance. No issue regarding quantity / quality or discrepancies in the bill was raised by the defendants by way of notice before suit.
FINDING OF THE COURT ON ISSUE NO. 125. Tersely put it is plaintiffs case that payments on account of sale and letting on hire / rent basis scaffolding and other shuttering material was not made by defendant. Defenses of defendant are that the bills raised by plaintiff are inflated, short material was supplied and the price charged in bills raised was not as per negotiated price.
26. Perusal of record shows that in the written statement in para no.5 of the preliminary submission; though discrepancy in rates is mentioned in ten invoices. Receipt of material is not denied. Further, list of documents filed by the defendant Annexure A which is a Ledger Account maintained by defendant regarding plaintiffs' S. K. Engineer admits 31 invoices which shows that goods were supplied.
27. Perusal of record shows that in para 6 of the preliminary submission of written statement, filed by defendant no. 1 and 2, it is mentioned that 300 verticals were never supplied. Perusal of the documents filed by the defendants Annexure A which is a Ledger Account maintained by defendant regarding plaintiffs' S. K. Engineer admits 31 invoices which shows that goods were supplied (reliance is rightly placed upon entry of 04.02.2015 regarding bill no. 835). The CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 12/31 supply of goods has not been disputed. Further, Bill No. 835 at PW1/ C (colly) at page 21 of plaintiffs document shows suply of 30 verticals.
28. No notice under of Sales Section 42 of Goods Act, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") has been placed on record by the defendants which takes away the sheen of the argument of defendant that the goods supplied by the plaintiff were defective.
29. (ii) Section 42 of the "Act" for ready reference is re- produced hereunder :
xxxxx
42. Acceptance.--
The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them, or when the goods have been delivered to him and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller, or when, after the lapse of a reasonable time, he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them.
xxxxx
30. In case reported as, "RFA No.478/2007", titled as, "Charlie Creations Pvt. Ltd. V/s Chahat Creations Pvt. Ltd. " (DOD: 06.02.2009), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to lay down as under:
xxxxx CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 13/31
8. The trial court on issue No.2 observed that the liability of six bills came to Rs.19,21,180.78. The payment of Rs.16,67,775/- was made by the defendant, therefore, only a sum of Rs.2,53,405.78 was due and payable by the defendant. It was observed by the learned trial court that under the Sales of Goods Act, the presumption is that if there did not exist any defect in the goods, no counter claim has been set up by the defendant claiming damages to supply defects, it cannot be presumed that deductions are made on the ground of infirmities in the goods.
xxxxx
31. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case reported as, "RFA No. 479/2006", titled as, "M/s Kumar Industries V/s Suresh Kumar Mittal" (DOD: 10/10/2018) has been pleased to lay down as under:
xxxxx
6. The trial court has rejected the defence of the appellant/defendant, praying for dismissal of the suit, while holding that the appellant/defendant has failed to prove that the said defective goods were returned as the Challan documents/Ex. DW1/1 and Ex. DW1/2 did not bear any signatures on the receipt of the respondent/plaintiff of the alleged defective materials which were claimed to have been returned by the appellant/defendant, owing to the fact that Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 provides that goods are deemed to be accepted if rejection of the goods is not communicated in reasonable period of time. It is noted that for the first Bill no. 01 dated 15/05/2000, the reasonable period would be one month i.e. up to 15/06/2000, and for the Bill no. 07 dated 10/07/2000 the period of one month would expire on 10/08/2000 and for the third Bill no. 011 dated 30/09/2000 the period would expire on 30/10/2000.
Admittedly, in these periods of 30 days after receipt of the CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 14/31 goods, no intimation has been proved by the appellant/defendant which they have served upon the respondent/plaintiff in terms of Section 42 of Sale of Goods Act about the goods supplied by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant of being defective. Even the so-called Challans Ex. DW1/1 and Ex. DW1/2 which in any case have not been proved to show the return of goods by the appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff with the fact that these Challans are dated 30/03/2001, and the date of 30/03/2001 is not a reasonable period as per Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, and therefore, the trial court in my opinion has rightly held that the appellant/defendant is deemed to have accepted the goods.
xxxxx
32. Even if for the sake of argument, the defense propounded by the defendant regarding the material/goods supplied by the plaintiff being "defective" is believed on its face value, then also it is apparent that defendant has not filed any counter claim against the instant suit of plaintiff. The defendant company has further not issued any Debit Note against the plaintiff in this regard.
33. Perusal of record shows that Ledger Account of the plaintiff from 01.04.2013 to 31.01.2017 towards sale account and higher charges account as Ex. PW1/A (OSR) and Ex. PW1/B (OSR); Invoices raised by the plaintiff from the year 2014-2015 onward towards sale of the material alongwith Postal Receipts as Ex. PW1/C (OSR) (pages from 19 to 49, colly.); invoices raised by the plaintiff from the year 2014-2015 onward towards higher charges alongwith Postal Receipts as Ex. PW1/D CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 15/31 (OSR) (pages from 50 to 69, colly) are duly proved on record. No dent has been created in version of PW1 - Sunil Kumar during cross examination.
FINDINGS UPON SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT NO. 1 AND 2
34. Submissions on behalf of defendant no 1 and 2 that PW1 - Sh. Sunil Kumar is not credible as in cross-examination dated 16/02/2024, he submitted that business dealings with defendants starts from 18/04/2014 which shows that all bills prior to 18/04/2014, cannot be relied upon, are without merits. These submissions are rejected. In Ex. PW1/A and B, the transaction prior to 2014 have been duly proved and the case of plaintiff is to be seen as a whole.
35. Submissions on behalf of defendant no 1 and 2 that criminal complaint has not been produced by the plaintiff. Material documents have been concealed, so case set up by plaintiff is not credible are without merits. These submissions are rejected. Plaintiff did not rely upon the criminal complaint. Defendant was at liberty to lead defence evidence. It was not done. Non production of criminal complaint is of no consequence. This court is to decide issues before it as per evidence produced and fate of criminal complaint is not relevant.
CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 16/3136. Submissions on behalf of defendants no. 1 and 2 that short material was supplied. The bills raised were not as per negotiated price, so case of plaintiff is not credible are without merits. These submissions are rejected. The invoices at page no. 41 to 45 onward of the list of documents by the plaintiff i.e. Ex. PW1/C (colly) show acknowledgment by defendant no. 2. No notice regarding short supply or discrepancy was sent by defendants to plaintiff before suit (Section 42 of Goods Act, 1930 is rightly relied upon by plaintiff as in absence of notice defendant is deemed to have accepted goods). Defendants did not gather courage to step into witness box.
37. As defendants did no come to the witness box an adverse inference is inferred against the defendants. In case titled as Iqbal Basith And Others (S) v. N. Subbalakshmi And Others (S), 2020 INSC 696, it was held that:
"...Having not entered into the witness box and having not presented himself for cross- examination, an adverse presumption has to be drawn against him on the basis of the principles contained in illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872...."
38. Submissions on behalf of defendants no. 1 and 2 that there is admission by PW1 - Sh. Sunil Kumar in cross-examination dated 16/02/2024 that in 25 invoices, there is no acknowledgment of defendant CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 17/31 no.1, so case of plaintiff is not credible are without merits. These submissions are rejected. Some invoices were signed by the representative of the defendants i.e. Sh. T. D. Arora. One such invoice is Ex. PW1/C (colly) at page 36 of the documents of the plaintiff. Same is duly reflected in annexure A, filed by the defendants (at entry dated 04/30/2015 acknowledges bill no. 850). Defendants did not gather courage to step in witness box. No notice qua rejection of material was given.
39. Submissions on behalf of defendant no 1 and 2 that Ex.DW1/G which is certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act is issued by the plaintiff, is invalid as there is admission by PW1 - Sh. Sunil Kumar in his cross-examination dated 16/02/2024 that accountant in his office maintains books of account and Ledgers, so certificate given by plaintiff is invalid. These submissions that certificate is invalid are without merits. These submissions are rejected. Admittedly plaintiff is proprietor. Since the transaction were in personal knowledge of the plaintiff being proprietor, the plaintiff was duly authorized to issue certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act. Plaintiff is nor debarred from appointing an accountant to delegate his work.
40. Further Submissions on behalf of defendant no 1 and 2 that the certificate does not comply with the conditions u/s 65 B (4) Indian Evidence Act, so certificate is invalid are also without merits. These submissions are rejected. During cross examination of PW1 - Sh. Sunil CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 18/31 Kumar no defect in form of certificate under Section 65 B Indian Evidence Act was pointed out. If defects were pointed out, same could have been cured, as purpose of requisite certificate is to meet the requirement of law to prove a report on record. Curing the same is permissible at any stage. Even other wise in totality of circumstances plaintiff has duly proved his case as Ledger Account of the plaintiff from 01/04/2013 to 31/01/2017 towards sale account and higher charges account as Ex. PW1/A (OSR) and Ex. PW1/B (OSR); Invoices raised by the plaintiff from the year 2014-2015 onward towards sale of the material alongwith Postal Receipts as Ex. PW1/C (OSR) (pages from 19 to 49, colly.); invoices raised by the plaintiff from the year 2014-2015 onwards towards higher charges alongwith Postal Receipts as Ex. PW1/D (OSR) (pages from 50 to 69, colly.) are duly proved on record. No dent has been created in version of PW1 - Sh. Sunil Kumar during cross-examination.
41. Further Submissions on behalf of defendant no 1 and 2 that at page 23 of the documents of the plaintiff Ex. PW1/C (colly), bill no.887 shows that 30 verticals were sold to the defendant. Whereas, at page no.38 of the documents of the plaintiff Ex. PW1/C (colly), bill no.882 shows that MTR Rs.18,000/- verticals were given for hire. Submission is that case of the plaintiff is not credible as same verticals are shown for hire and for sale as well. These submissions are without merit. Same are rejected. Perusal of record shows that that bill no. 850 CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 19/31 stands admitted in Annexure A, filed by the defendants which is regarding rent. Further, bill no.887 regarding purchase stands admitted in Annexure A, filed by the defendants. The quantity is different in the bills. Defendants did not have courage to step in witness box. Plaintiff could have cross examined defendants on point to show material shown as for hire and for sale differed.
42. Further Submissions on behalf of defendant no 1 and 2 that all the tracking reports showing delivery of invoices, has not been proved as admitted by PW1 - Sh. Sunil Kumar in his cross-examination dated 08/05/2024, so case of plaintiff is not credible are without merits. These submissions are rejected. Perusal of record shows that 31 out of 40 invoices stand admitted in Annexure A, filed by the defendants. The rest of the invoices were duly acknowledged by representative of the defendant i.e. Sh. T. D. Arora.
43. Further Submissions on behalf of defendant no 1 and 2 that the delivery by transportation of goods has not been proved. Builty receipts have been concealed, so case of plaintiff is not credible are without merits. These submissions are rejected. Perusal of record shows that since there is acknowledgment by defendants or their representatives in the invoices itself, the non-production of builty receipts pales into insignificance. No issue regarding quantity / quality or discrepancies in the bill was raised by the defendants by way of notice before suit.
CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 20/31Reliance is rights placed upon Section 42 of Goods Act, 1930 on behalf of plaintiff
44. To sum up: no notice under Section 42 of Sales of Goods Act was issued by defendant rejecting goods. Defendants did not gather courage to step into witness box. Plaintiff has duly proved his case on touch stone of probabilities inter-alia on ground that in annexure A with written statement itself defendant acknowledges bills raised.
45. Issue no. 1 is decided in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled for decree for sum of Rs.22,98,714.
ISSUE No. 2 IS :
"Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction to provide C Form to the plaintiffs for an amount of Rs.8,01,812/- as well as TDS Certificate as per prayer clause (b) and (c)?OPP"
46. Counsel for plaintiff states that defendants have taken plea that necessary corrections were not made in the bills so Form C were not issued. It is argued that no such alleged discrepancy was brought to the notice of the plaintiff before the filing of the suit.
47. It is further argued on behalf of plaintiff that invoices are not disputed. The alleged discrepancy in the invoices, was not brought to the knowledge of the plaintiff and thus, defendants have not discharged CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 21/31 onus placed upon them. Defendants did not gather courage to step into witness box.
48. It is further argued by the counsel for the plaintiff that on this issue that invoices (Ex. PW1/C, colly page 19 onward in documents of the plaintiff) provide total sale price inclusive of VAT / CST @ 2% which shows liability of the defendants.
49. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that since, the bills were not raised as per negotiated price so Form C was not issued by the defendants.
FINDING OF THE COURT ON ISSUE NO. 250. Counsel for the plaintiff had rightly explained; that in pre G.S.T. era C Form was a declaration form provided by a registered buyer to a seller in another state to avail a concessional Central Sales Tax (CST) rate (usually 2%) on the purchase of certain goods. Plaintiff is located in Delhi. Defendant is in Uttrakand. Buyer defendant must give Form C to Plaintiff seller. This will enable plaintiff so save tax on inter state transaction.
51. Perusal of record shows that defendants have taken plea that necessary corrections were not made in the bills by plaintiff so C Form were not issued. This plea and submissions raised in this regard on CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 22/31 behalf of defendants are without merits as no such alleged discrepancy was brought to the notice of the plaintiff before filing of the suit.
52. Perusal of record shows that invoices are not disputed. The alleged discrepancy in the invoices, was not brought to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Defendants did not gather courage to step into witness box.
53. Perusal of record shows that invoices (Ex. PW1/C, colly page 19 onward in documents of the plaintiff) provide total sale price inclusive of VAT / CST @ 2% which shows liability of the defendants.
54. Issue no. 2 is decided in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction to defendant provide C Form to the plaintiffs for an amount of Rs.8,01,812/- as well as TDS Certificate.
ISSUE NO. 3 IS :
"Whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendente lite and future interest as per prayer clause (d) ? OPP"
55. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued on this issue that invoices (Ex. PW1/C, colly page 19 onward in documents of the plaintiff) provide interest @ 24 % per annum (point no. 2 in the invoice at bottom) which is being claimed.
56. Per contra counsel for the defendants submits that the rate of interest is highly excessive. Unilateral mention of the same in the CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 23/31 invoice is not a concluded contract as there is no acceptance of the same by the defendants.
FINDING OF THE COURT ON ISSUE NO. 3.
57. Interest is in nature of compensation paid to plaintiff. Plaintiff has been deprived of money due to him.
58. Perusal of record shows that invoices (Ex. PW1/C, colly page 19 onward in documents of the plaintiff) provide interest @ 24 % per annum (point no. 2 in the invoice at bottom) which is being rightly claimed.
59. Submissions on behalf of defendants that the rate of interest is highly excessive. Further submission that unilateral mention of the same in the invoice is not a concluded contract as there is no acceptance of the same by the defendants, are without merits. These submissions are rejected. Transaction between parties is admittedly commercial in nature. In annexure A filed with written statement bills of plaintiff are admitted. Their is acknowledgment on bills (Ex. PW 1/C colly.) by defendants. Defendants could not lead DE and defence of the defendant was closed by order dated 09.01.2025 of the court. The conduct of defendant shows they were interested to delay proceedings. Keeping in view the commercial nature of transaction, interest @ 24 % pa is not excessive.
CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 24/31PENDENT-LITE PERIOD
60. Word 'may' in the provision of Section 34 C.P.C. indicates grant of interest is discretionary.
61. Perusal of file shows that Despite several opportunities, defendants could not lead DE and defence of the defendants was closed by order dated 09/01/2025 of the court. The conduct of defendants shows they were interested to delay proceedings.
62. For this Plaintiff must be adequately compensated. In considered opinion of the court pendente lite interest at the rate of 24% per annum on principal sum adjudged i.e. Rs.22,98,714 will meet the ends of justice.
FUTURE INTEREST
63. Proviso to Section 34 C.P.C. provides that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent. per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest.
64. Perusal of file shows that Despite several opportunities, defendants could not lead DE and defence of the defendant was closed by order dated 09/01/2025 of the Court. The conduct of defendant shows CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 25/31 they were interested to delay proceedings. For this Plaintiff must be adequately compensated.
65. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 34 C.P.C. in considered opinion of the Court future interest till realization at the rate of 24% per annum on principal sum adjudged i.e. Rs.22,98,714 will meet the ends of justice as transaction between parties is admittedly commercial in nature.
ISSUE NO 4 IS :
"Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cost of the suit as per prayer clause (e) of the plaint?OPP"
66. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued on this issue that same may be awarded as per discretion of the Court.
67. Counsel for the defendant has argued on this issue that no cost be awarded.
FINDING OF THE COURT ON ISSUE NO. 468. In view of provisions of Section 35 of C.P.C. as a general rule, costs shall follow the event. Since plaintiff has proved his case, the plaintiff is entitled to costs.
ISSUE NO. 5 IS :
CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 26/31"Whether this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit ? OPD ( This additional issue was framed on 04.08.2023 )"
69. Counsel for the defendants contends that PW1 - Sh. Sunil Kumar in his cross-examination dated 16/02/2024 has admitted that all sold articles and rented articles were sent from Village Rajpur Khurd near Chhatarpur. In cross-examination dated 08/05/2024 of PW1 - Sh. Sunil Kumar, there is admission that invoices were sent by Registered Post from from Village Rajpur Khurd near Chhatarpur. Same is not within the jurisdiction of Rohini North as it falls in Saket Court jurisdiction.
70. Per contra, counsel for the plaintiff submits that as per invoice Ex. PW1/C (colly.) at page 19 of the documents of the plaintiff. It is mentioned that disputes are subject to Delhi Jurisdiction only. Reliance is placed upon signature by defendant no. 2 on received (dated 08/02/2016) at page 41 of the documents of the plaintiff. Further submission is that plaintiff operates from Bawana Industrial area which is within jurisdiction of Rohini North. Material was supplied and invoices were raised so Section 20 (c) CPC applies as cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction of this court. It is further submitted hat debtor must follow the creditor. Further submission is that in the first preliminary submission in written statement itself there is admission that Manufacturing shop is in Chattasrpur and a factory office is in Bawana Industrial Area.
CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 27/3171. It is further argued on behalf of plaintiff that Annexure A, filed by the defendant, shows balance of Rs.5,43,327/- which shows that jurisdiction of the court is admitted as invoices are not disputed containing jurisdiction clause of Delhi. Balance amount is duly acknowledged in Annexure A, filed by the defendants.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 572. Submissions on behalf of defendant no 1 and 2 that PW1 - Sh. Sunil Kumar in his cross-examination dated 16/02/2024 has admitted that all sold articles and rented articles were sent from Village Rajpur Khurd near Chhatarpur. In cross-examination dated 08/05/2024 of PW1 - Sh. Sunil Kumar, there is admission that invoices were sent by Registered Post from from Village Rajpur Khurd near Chhatarpur. Chhatarpur is not within the jurisdiction of Rohini North as it falls in Saket Court jurisdiction, so this court has no territorial jurisdiction is without merits. These submissions are rejected. Perusal of record shows that as per invoice Ex. PW1/C (Colly) at page 19 of the documents of the plaintiff it is mentioned that disputes are subject to Delhi Jurisdiction only.
73. Reliance is rightly placed upon signature by defendant no. 2 with word received (dated 08/02/2016) at page 41 of the documents of the plaintiff.
CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 28/3174. Perusal of record shows that plaintiff operates from Bawana Industrial area which is within jurisdiction of Rohini North.
75. Perusal of record shows that in the first preliminary submission in written statement itself there is admission that Manufacturing shop is in Chattarpur and a factory office is in Bawana Industrial Area.
76. Further, Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case reported as, "RFA(OS) 64/2007", titled as, "Union Bank of India V/s Milkfood Ltd." (DOD: 14.05.2012), has been pleased to hold that in the absence of any covenant in the agreement settling a place of payment, the debtor must seek the creditor to pay at the place where the creditor is located. Suffice to say that in present case in the first preliminary submission in written statement itself there is admission that Manufacturing shop is in Chattarpur and a factory office is in Bawana Industrial Area.
77. Perusal of record shows that Annexure A, filed by the defendant, shows balance of Rs.5,43,327/- which shows that jurisdiction of the court is admitted as invoices are not disputed containing jurisdiction clause of Delhi. Balance amount is duly acknowledged in Annexure 'A', filed by the defendants.
78. Part payments were received and appropriated in Bawana office (para 17 of plaint). In examination in chief affidavit of PW1 - Sh.
CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 29/31Sunil Kumar in para 8 specifically averred qua factum of part payments made by defendants. It is not suggested in cross examination or elicited from PW1 - Sh.Sunil Kumar that part payments were not received in Bawana Office. Same amounts to an admission. Thus cause of action has arisen in Bawana office. Section 20 (c) CPC confers jurisdiction upon this Court.
79. Their is no dispute with the proposition of law relied by defendants in case titled as Patel Roadways Limited Bombay vs Prasad Trading Company decided by Hon'ble supreme Court of India on 6 August, 1991wherein it was held that parties can not confer jurisdiction at place where no cause of action arises. However in present case admittedly factory office of plaintiff is in Bawana Industrial Area. Principle of 'debtor must seek creditor' applies. Part payments were received by plaintiff. So this judgment does not aid defendants.
80. To sum up : Invoices (PW 1/C colly) confer jurisdiction in Delhi. Admittedly factory office of plaintiff is in Bawana Industrial Area. Principle of 'debtor must seek creditor' applies. Part payments were received by plaintiff. so this Court has jurisdiction.
81. Issue no. 5 is decided against defendant.
RELIEF
82. In view of the findings on issue no. 1 to 5, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs:
CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 30/31a) Plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.22,98,714/-
and against the Defendants;
b) Plaintiff is entitled to decree in the nature of mandatory injunction by directing the Defendants to provide the requisite C Form for an amount of Rs.8,01,812/-;
c) Plaintiff is entitled to decree in the nature of mandatory injunction by directing the Defendants to provide the TDS Certificate on the amount deducted by them on the payments made against the hire charges;
d) Plaintiff is entitled to decree to pendent-lite and future interest @ 24% per annum till realization of the amount;
83. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly after recovery of balance Court fees, if any. File be consigned to Record-Room.
Digitally signed by VIKRAMVIKRAM BALI BALI Date:
2026.01.03 16:46:28 +0530 Announced in the open Court on (Vikram Bali) this 03 day of January, 2026 District Judge-02, North, Rohini Court Complex, Rohini, Delhi CS DJ No. 383/2017 Sunil Kumar vs. M. G. Buildtech India & Ors. Page No. 31/31