Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

M/S Dtdc Express Ltd vs M/S Fenda Audio India Pvt Ltd And Ors on 11 April, 2026

         IN THE COURT OF MS GOMA DABAS GUPTA:
            DISTRICT JUDGE-06 : WEST DISTRICT :
                TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI

CS No. 533/21
CNR No.DLWT01-001772-2018

M/s DTDC Express Ltd
D-19/1, Okhla Phase-I
New Delhi-110020
Registered office at
DTDC House No.3, Victoria Road
Bangluru-560047

Also at
Office No.51,52,53,
Opposite Maruti Udyog Ltd
Gate No.2, Palam- Gurgaon Road
Gurgaon, Haryana-122001
                                                        ..........Plaintiff
                                Versus
1. M/s Fenda Audio India Pvt Ltd
Through its authorized signatory
registered office at
8/41, Second Floor
Kirti Nagar, New Delhi

2. Sh Krishan Kumar Bansal
Managing Director of
M/s Fenda Audio India Pvt Ltd
at 8/41, Secondo Floor,
Kirti Nagar, New Delhi

Also at:
3066/7B/3, Ranjit Nagar
Delhi-110008


 CS No.533/21 M/s DTDC Express Ltd Vs M/s Fenda Audio India ltd Page 1/7
 3. Sh Rajesh Bansal
Director of M/s Fenda Audio India Pvt Ltd
at 8/41, second Floor,
Kirti Nagar, New Delhi

Also at
3066/7B/3, Ranjit Nagar
Delhi-110008
                                                     ..........Defendants

                                         Date of Institution:26/02/2018
                               Date reserved for Judgment:11/02/2026
                                         Date of Judgment:11/04/2026

                             JUDGMENT

1. Vide this judgement, I shall decide suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.8,55,104.05 alongwith pendente lite and future interest.

2. Brief facts, as per the plaintiff's case are that the plaintiff is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of The Companies Act 1956. The defendant no.1 is a private limited company, defendant No. 2 is the Managing Director of defendant no.1 and defendant No. 3 is the director of the defendant no.1 company. The plaintiff's company delivered goods at various locations in India on the instructions of the defendants. The plaintiffs have raised various invoices upon the defendants against the delivery charges and defendants also made various part payments towards the delivery/shipment CS No.533/21 M/s DTDC Express Ltd Vs M/s Fenda Audio India ltd Page 2/7 charges to the plaintiff. That an amount of Rs 8,55,104.05 is due upon the defendants. Despite various requests by the plaintiff to clear the outstanding amount, the defendant company has not paid the said outstanding amount and hence, the present suit has been filed for recovery of money.

3. The Written Statement was filed on behalf of defendant no.1 to 3 praying for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit. The defendants have averred that the plaintiff has failed to furnish true and correct accounts to the defendants and have falsified books of accounts. It is further submitted that the defendants have made timely payments towards the delivery/shipment services rendered by the plaintiff. The defendants have denied any outstanding amount payable to the plaintiff. The defendants have further averred that as per their ledger account, no amount is payable towards the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendants have prayed for dismissal of the present suit.

4. Replication has not been filed by the plaintiff.

5. Vide order dated 28/09/2022, the following issues were framed for adjudication:

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 8,55,104.05 from defendant? OPP

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate?

OPP

3. Relief.

Plaintiff's evidence

6. In support of the case, plaintiff examined Sh Sita Ram Prasad Sah as PW-1 by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He has relied the following documents:-

           Sr No.             Document             Exhibit
              1 Board         resolution    dated EX.PW1/
                  08.02.2018                      1

2 Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian EX.PW1/ Evidence Act 2 3 Copy of E-mail dated EX.PW1/ 25.03.2017 3 4 Copy of ledger account EX.PW1/ maintained by plaintiff 4 5 Copy of bills EX.PW1/ 5

7. Thereafter, PE was closed.

8. No evidence was led on behalf of defendant despite opportunities granted. Hence, vide order dated 14.08.2025 DE was closed.

9. I have heard arguments advanced by counsel for plaintiff. Despite opportunity, no arguments advanced on behalf of CS No.533/21 M/s DTDC Express Ltd Vs M/s Fenda Audio India ltd Page 4/7 defendants. I have also perused the written submissions filed by plaintiff.

My issue-wise findings is as hereunder:-

10.Issue No.1 and 2 Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 8,55,104.05 from defendant? OPP and Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate? OPP

11.Since issues no.1 and 2 are connected with each other, same are dealt together. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed on behalf of PW-1, Sh Sita Ram Prasad Sah, AR of the plaintiff. He has filed his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A. He has stated on affidavit that the defendants have not made payment to the plaintiff company despite demands. He has further deposed that the defendant vide E-mail dated 25/03/2017 stated that the account of the plaintiff will be settled before 31/03/2017 and thus, the defendant has accepted and acknowledged its debt towards the plaintiff.

12.During his cross-examination, the PW-1 has stated that it is correct that invoices dated 02/12/2013, 19/02/2014, 15/03/2014, 15/07/2014, 19/08/2014, 01/09/2014, 04/11/2014, 01/05/2015 CS No.533/21 M/s DTDC Express Ltd Vs M/s Fenda Audio India ltd Page 5/7 which are part of Ex.PW1/5 are not mentioned/included in the statement of account Ex.PW1/4 (colly). During the course of arguments, the counsel for plaintiff has submitted that even though the said invoices are not mentioned in the statement of account, however, the closing balance as shown in the statement of account is the same, i.e., Rs.8,55,104.05. Further no questions have been put to the witness to prove that the said amount is not liable to be paid by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff have sufficiently proved by documents that an outstanding amount of Rs.8,55,104.05 remains pending against defendant.

13.I have perused the E-mail dated 25/03/2017 which is Ex.PW1/3. In the said E-mail, it is categorically mentioned by the defendant that "your account will be settled before 31 st March". No question in the cross-examination has been put to the PW-1 on this in the cross-examination. Thus, there is an admission by the defendant that there exists an outstanding amount in favour of the plaintiff. Further, defendants have not denied business relations between the plaintiff and defendants.

14.The defendant has not led evidence in the present matter and hence, the case of the defendant remains not proved. In view of the above discussion, issue no.1 and 2 are decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

Relief.

15.In view of the above discussion, the suit filed by plaintiff stands decreed. Plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 8,55,104.05 from the defendants alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.

16.Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed off accordingly.

17.File be consigned to record room as per rules.

Digitally signed by GOMA GOMA GUPTA DABAS DABAS Date:

Announced in the open court GUPTA 2026.04.11 16:04:14 +0530 on 11/04/2026 (Goma Dabas Gupta) District Judge-06 West District, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi/11/04/2026 CS No.533/21 M/s DTDC Express Ltd Vs M/s Fenda Audio India ltd Page 7/7