Delhi District Court
Nippon Express India Pvt Ltd vs Rvr Technologies Ltd on 9 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. VINEETA GOYAL, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT)-02, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS
EXTENSION BLOCK, DELHI
DLWT010079272022
CS (COMM) NO.662/2022
NIPPON EXPRESS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
OFFICE AT:
PLOT NO.442, UDYOG VIHAR, PHASE III,
GURUGRAM,
HARYANA-122016
......PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
AT: 3/14, PAL MOHAN APPT.
NWA PUNJABI BAGH (WEST)
NEW DELHI-110026
......DEFENDANT
Date of institution : 16.08.2022
Date of assignment : 17.08.2022
Date of conclusion of arguments : 07.07.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 09.07.2025
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1.The present commercial suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking recovery of principal amount of Rs.9,74,755/- along with pendente lite and future interest Digitally CS (Comm) No.662/2022 Page 1 of 11 signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.09 16:51:12 +0530 @ 18% per annum on the decretal amount from the date of institution of present suit till actual realization.
2. At the outset, it is relevant to mention here that in original plaint, details of transactions between the plaintiff and defendant were not reflected, consequently, the plaintiff moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was allowed by my Learned Predecessor vide order dated 20.12.2022, accordingly, amended plaint was taken on record.
3. Facts as epitomized in the amended plaint are that plaintiff is a private limited company duly registered under The Companies Act, 2013 and is engaged in the business of international freight forwarding and transportation of cargo to different destinations worldwide. Plaintiff acts as an agent of various airlines/shipping lines/ carries and facilitates a smooth transaction between the shipper and the airlines/shipping lines/carriers by helping in required documentation and completion of necessary formalities etc. 3.1 It is averred that present plaint is being filed and instituted, on behalf of plaintiff and the plaintiff is represented by its Authorised Representative Sh. Chamel Singh Thakur working as Deputy General Manager, Finance and Admn., duly empowered and authorised by virtue of Board Resolution dated 08.03.2019 passed in his favour by plaintiff.
Digitally signed by VINEETA CS (Comm) No.662/2022 Page 2 of 11 VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.09 16:51:19 +0530 3.2 It is further averred that defendant is also a registered company and is engaged in the business of repairing of luxury bus, boat etc. 3.3 It is further averred that defendant being in the need of services of freight forwarding agent for delivering the consignment, approached the plaintiff and availed its services with the understanding that the plaintiff would act and co-ordinate between the shipper, the defendant and airline/ shipping line i.e. the carrier in the capacity of an agent, arrange for the freight forwarding and pay the requisite freight/charges/expenses to the concerned carrier/ airlines and government authorities on behalf of defendant.
It was further agreed between the parties that each of such transaction, the plaintiff shall raise its invoice against defendant and in case of default of payment, an interest @ 18% per annum shall be payable by the defendant on all overdue payments as per standard business terms. Defendant accordingly availed the services of the plaintiff for freight forwarding of various air/sea export consignments on credit basis. For all the consignments, the plaintiff rendered the desired services and arranged freight forwarding as per instructions given to it and to the complete satisfaction of the defendant and paid on behalf of defendant, the incidental air/sea freight and other expenses to the airlines/shipping lines. As per the plaintiff, the consignments were duly delivered by the airlines/ shipping lines at the desired destination and the said consignments were delivered to the consignee. As per the Ledger account maintained by the plaintiff, an amount of Digitally signed by VINEETA CS (Comm) No.662/2022 Page 3 of 11 VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.09 16:51:26 +0530 Rs. 9,74,755/- became due and payable by the defendant as on 25.09.2019.
3.4 It is further averred that despite several reminders, when defendant did not pay the outstanding amount, plaintiff got issued a legal demand notice to the defendant which was neither replied to nor complied with by the defendant.
3.5 It is further averred that defendant is liable to make payment @ 18% per annum on the delayed payment as per the terms and conditions on the unpaid value of invoices from the date of filing of present suit till the date of passing of decree along with future and pendente lite interest.
3.6 It is further averred that transactions entered with the defendant are commercial in nature as the dispute is arising out of export of air/sea consignment / shipment and carriage of goods as specified under Section 2(1)(c)(ii) and
(v) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff as per Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 instituted the pre-mediation application but defendant did not appear. Consequently, non-starter report was made by Delhi Legal Services Authority, New Delhi.
3.7 It is further averred that cause of action for filing of the present suit arose when the defendant approached the plaintiff. The plaintiff provided its services to the defendant and when the invoices were raised and further when defendant made last payment on 01.10.2019 against the total outstanding amount. It also arose when legal Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No.662/2022 Page 4 of 11 VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.09 16:51:35 +0530 notice was issued to the defendant. The cause of action is still subsisting and continuing. The defendant is residing and carrying on its business within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. The present suit is being filed within the period of limitation in terms of orders passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020. Hence, the suit for recovery.
4. On assignment of present suit, vide order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Learned Predecessor of this court, summons to the defendant were issued. However, defendant could not be served because defendant had left the given address. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.02.2023, defendant was also served through electronic mode. Despite service through WhatsApp and email on 21.03.2023, neither defendant appeared nor filed written statement. Consequently, vide order dated 27.04.2023, defendant was proceeded ex-parte and matter was listed for ex-parte plaintiff's evidence.
5. In support of its claim, plaintiff examined Chamel Singh Thakur, Authorised Representative as PW1 and thereafter closed its evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that plaintiff on 22.04.2025 moved an application to lead additional evidence and after considering the submission, PW1 tendered his additional evidence by way of additional affidavit.
6. I have heard Sh. Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No.662/2022 Page 5 of 11 VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.09 16:51:44 +0530 plaintiff and have gone through the written submissions as well as court record with utmost care.
7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that defendant being in the need of services of freight forwarding agent, approached the plaintiff and the plaintiff on being approached by the defendant, provided the services for forwarding of consignments /shipment and paid incidental trade and other charges on behalf of defendant. The plaintiff raised invoices (Ex. PW1/2 colly and Ex. PW1/11) upon the defendant claiming thereby payment of unpaid invoices and other charges. The defendant, however, had evaded the payment despite reminders and email communication (Ex. PW1/9) from the plaintiff. Due to non-payment of various invoices, there was a debit balance of Rs. 9,74,755/- standing payable by the defendant. The plaintiff issued a notice dated 29.03.2021 (Ex. PW1/6) imploring the defendant to discharge its liability and pay the remaining dues. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application for pre-institution mediation with Delhi Legal Services Authority and the defendant was called upon. The defendant did not appear. Consequently, non-starter report was issued.
8. Learned counsel for plaintiff further submitted that the defendant despite service, did not appear and preferred to proceed ex-parte for the reason best known to it, therefore, from the unrebutted and uncontroverted documents on record, it is established that the defendant failed to clear outstanding amount of Rs. 9,74,755/- to the plaintiff and Digitally signed by VINEETA CS (Comm) No.662/2022 Page 6 of 11 VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.09 16:51:54 +0530 the suit of the plaintiff, therefore, deserves to be decreed.
9. The plaintiff, to establish its case, examined PW1/Chamel Singh Thakur, who in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) and additional affidavit (Ex. PW1/B), reiterated the averments made in the plaint and relied upon the following relevant documents:-
1. Certified true copy of Board Resolution dated 08.03.2019 (Ex. PW1/1);
2. Computer generated invoices (Ex. PW1/2 colly.) and airway bills and bills of lading (Ex. PW1/3 colly.);
3. Statement of Account (Ex. PW1/4) and Ledger Statement (Ex. PW1/5);
4. Copy of legal demand notice dated 29.03.2021; postal receipts (Ex. PW1/7 colly.);
5. Tracking reports (Ex. PW1/8 colly.);
6. Computer generated email (Ex. PW1/9);
7. Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act (Ex. PW1/10);
8. Computer generated invoices (Ex. PW1/11 colly);
9. Computer generated Ledger Account /Statement of Account (Ex. PW1/12).
10. By way of deposition of PW1 and documents placed on record, the plaintiff has presented a detailed account of invoices (Ex. PW1/2 colly. and Ex. PW1/11 colly) totalling Rs. 9,74,955/- and computer generated airway bills/bill of lading (Ex. PW1/3) reflecting the comprehensive scope of services of freight forwarding rendered to the defendant. The plaintiff raised the following invoices, details of which are as under:-
S.No Invoice Number Invoice Date Invoice Amount Balance due 1 301-18639 20.08.2019 78,305 36,525 2 301-18729 30.08.2019 1,36,885 1,36,885 3 301-18730 30.08.2019 1,47,382 1,47,382 4 301-18912 18.09.2019 78,444 78,444 5 301-19108 19.10.2019 1,57,165 157165 Digitally signed by VINEETA CS (Comm) No.662/2022 Page 7 of 11 VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.09 16:52:25 +0530 6 301-19124 22.10.2019 1,12,056 1,12,056 7 323-A0124 29.08.2019 72,414 72,414 8 323-A0125 29.08.2019 72,414 72,414 9 323-A0142 25.09.2019 80,372.28 80,372.28 (80,372) 10 323-A0143 25.09.2019 81,096.96 81,096.96 (81,097) TOTAL 9,74,755
11. Further, the computer generated Ledger Statement/ Statement of Account (Ex. PW1/12) corroborates that a principal amount of Rs. 9,74,955/- remains unpaid. The legal notice dated 29.03.2021 (Ex. PW1/6) sent by a post and acknowledgment through postal receipt (Ex. PW1/7) and tracking report (Ex. PW1/8), email communication (Ex. PW1/9) further evidences the plaintiff's efforts to recover the dues which the defendant failed to comply with. The documents collectively prove that the defendant has consistently failed its responsibility to honour its financial obligation.
12. So far as the issue of limitation is concerned, it is the claim of plaintiff that the present suit has been filed within the period of limitation in terms of Order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court after taking suo motu cognizance of the difficulties faced by the litigants in filing suit/applications/ appeals/petitions and other proceedings due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 in IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION, issued following directions:-
"1. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, Digitally appeal, application or proceeding, the period from signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL CS (Comm) No.662/2022 Page 8 of 11 GOYAL Date:
2025.07.09 16:52:31 +0530 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021.
2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings."
13. In the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION in SMW(C) No. 3/2020, the period starting from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall be excluded in calculation of period of limitation. As per Section 12A of The Commercial Courts Act, the period spent in pre-institution mediation i.e. 22.03.2022 to 05.05.2022 shall also be excluded. The instant suit has been filed on 16.08.2022. As per Statement of Account (Ex. PW1/5), the plaintiff had received last payment of Rs. 2,01,000/- on 03.10.2019. On that date, the right to sue accrues in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant, therefore, in my considered opinion, the suit of the plaintiff is well within limitation.
14. The version of PW1/Chamel Singh Thakur remained Digitally signed by VINEETA CS (Comm) No.662/2022 Page 9 of 11 VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.09 16:52:38 +0530 unrebutted as none appeared on behalf of defendant to rebut the claim of plaintiff by cross-examining PW1. Hence, as per the documentary evidence coupled with oral deposition of PW1, it is established that defendant availed the services of plaintiff worth Rs. 9,74,755/- but failed to make the payment of the same despite service of legal demand notice (Ex. PW1/6). Thus, an amount of Rs. 9,74,755/- became due and payable by the defendant which is evident from the Ledger (Ex. PW1/12) duly supported with an affidavit in terms of Order XI Rule 6(A) of Commercial Courts Act and certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act (now Section 63 of Bhartiya Shakshya Adhiniyam). Hence, plaintiff is held entitled to recovery of principal amount of Rs. 9,74,755/- from defendant.
15. The plaintiff has also claimed for grant of pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum on the aforesaid amount, the rate of interest appears to be on higher side. The interest of justice would meet, if the plaintiff is awarded simple interest @ 6% per annum on the principal amount from the date of institution of the present suit till realization.
RELIEF
16. In view of aforesaid discussion, present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a principal amount of Rs. 9,74,755/-. The plaintiff is also entitled for pendente lite and future simple interest @ 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 9,74,755/- from Digitally signed by VINEETA CS (Comm) No.662/2022 Page 10 of 11 VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.09 16:52:45 +0530 the date of institution of the present suit till realization. Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff.
Pre-institution mediation fees, if any, be also added to the cost. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT signed by
VINEETA
ON 9th JULY, 2025 VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.09
16:52:51
+0530
(VINEETA GOYAL)
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02 WEST/TIS HAZARI COURTS EXTN. BLOCK, DELHI $ CS (Comm) No.662/2022 Page 11 of 11