Delhi District Court
Savoir Faire Manufacturing Company Pvt ... vs Ms Banita Swain on 12 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01-000806-2025
CS (COMM.) NO.66/2025
SAVOIR FAIRE MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT. LTD.
Office At:
12th Floor, Ring Road Pearls,
Omaxe Netaji Subhash Place,
New Delhi-110034
....Plaintiff
Versus
BANITA SWAIN
Prop. of M/s Swain Sanitation
Office at: Tirathabasi Swain,
Village - Dihudipur,
Block/Tehsil - Pattamundai,
Distt. Kendrapara, near LIC Office,
Odisha-754215
....Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.3,73,893/- (RUPEES THREE
LAKHS SEVENTY THREE EIGHT NINETY THREE ONLY)
ALONG WITH PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST AND
COSTS OF THE SUIT
Date of institution of suit : 27.01.2025
Date of hearing of final argument : 12.01.2026
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 12.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment (Ex-parte), I shall conscientiously adjudicate upon the Suit of plaintiff for Digitally CS (COMM.) No.66/2025 Page 1 of 15 PREETI GUPTA signed by AGRAWAL PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA recovery of Rs.3,73,893/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum till its realization and costs of the suit.
2. The concise facts of the case are being crystalised herein.
Plaintiff is a private limited company duly incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act. Plaintiff is engaged in manufacturing of Polypropylene Random Copolymer (PP-R) Pipes and having its registered office at 12th Floor, Ring Road Pearls, Omaxe Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi. The present suit has been filed through Sh. Rituraj Sharma, Authorized Representative of the plaintiff company, who is duly authorized to file, sign and represent the plaintiff company to effectively pursue the present Suit before this Court.
2.1 Defendant is the sole proprietor of Swain Sanitation and is engaged in the business of sanitary wares and plumbing services. It is averred in the plaint that plaintiff supplied the goods i.e. sanitary ware and CP fittings etc. to the defendant on credit basis with the understanding that defendant would pay the amount by cheque/RTGS/Cash. As per the agreed terms, defendant used to contact the plaintiff for supply of goods / consignment of articles and same were duly supplied by the plaintiff as per demand. It is further averred that defendant never raised any issue or complaint regarding quality and quantity of goods supplied by the plaintiff.
2.2 It is further the case of plaintiff that plaintiff raised various CS (COMM.) No.66/2025 Page 2 of 15 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA invoices for the goods supplied to the defendant. During course of business transactions, following consignments were supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant:
Date Particulars Amount (Rs.)
01.12.2017 Bill No.SFMC/DEL/0785 5,47,510/-
10.04.2018 Bill No.SFMC/DEL/050 5,93,729/-
24.05.2018 Bill No.SFMC/DEL/0299 1,29,398/-
TOTAL 12,70,637/-
2.3 As per the plaintiff, defendant made the following
payments against the supplies made to defendant:
Date Particulars Amount (Rs.)
01.04.2017 NEFT transfer received on 1,00,000/-
18.03.2017
18.08.2017 Amount deposited through NEFT 1,00,000/-
in HDFC Bank 20.10.2017 Amount deposited in HDFC Bank 2,03,000/-
through RTGS 09.02.2018 Amount deposited in HDFC Bank 10,000/-
through NEFT 12.02.2018 Cash received 8,000/-
03.04.2018 Amount deposited through NEFT 60,000/- 11.07.2018 Amount deposited through NEFT 40,000/- 17.07.2018 Amount deposited through NEFT 25,000/- 16.08.2018 Amount deposited through NEFT 1,05,000/- 23.08.2018 Amount deposited through NEFT 1,00,000/- 31.08.2018 Amount deposited through NEFT 30,000/- 06.09.2018 Amount deposited through NEFT 25,000/- 07.09.2018 Amount deposited through NEFT 20,000/- 09.10.2018 Amount deposited through NEFT 50,000/- 29.12.2018 Amount deposited through NEFT 20,000/- 31.12.2018 Amount deposited through NEFT 20,000/- 09.07.2019 Amount deposited through NEFT 18,000/- 29.10.2021 Return of goods by the defendant 61,716/-
to the plaintiff at its office vide Tax Invoices bearing No.339 and Digitally PREETI signed by CS (COMM.) No.66/2025 Page 3 of 15 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA 340 TOTAL 9,95,716/-
2.4 It is further averred that as per Ledger Account, an amount of Rs.3,36,637/- was outstanding and payable by the defendant as on 09.07.2019. Defendant had issued a cheque bearing No.011280 dated 26.12.2019 drawn on IDBI Bank for a sum of Rs. 3,36,637/- in favour of plaintiff but on its presentation by the plaintiff, the same got dishonoured due to the reason "fund insufficient". Consequently, plaintiff filed a complaint case under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the defendant on 13.03.2020. After filing the said complaint, defendant returned some goods worth Rs. 61,716/- to the plaintiff on 29.10.2021, which were supplied by the plaintiff vide invoice Nos. 339 and 340 dated 29.10.2021. Thereafter, plaintiff issued a credit note on account of short material sent back by the defendant and after adjusting the same, a principal amount of Rs. 2,74,921/- along with interest @ 12% per annum became due and payable by the defendant.
2.5 It was further averred that plaintiff sent a legal notice u/s 138 of N.I. Act which was neither replied to nor complied with by the defendant. Despite constant requests and reminders, defendant failed to make the payment of outstanding amount. The Plaintiff Company exhausted the remedy of pre-institution mediation, wherein, the defendant failed to participate in pre-institution mediation despite notice.
Digitally PREETI signed by CS (COMM.) No.66/2025 Page 4 of 15 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA 2.6 The Cause of Action to file the present Suit has been claimed when plaintiff supplied the goods/consignment to the defendant on credit. It further arose when plaintiff raised various invoices and also on 31.08.2019, when plaintiff duly communicated regarding outstanding amount due and payable by the defendant. The cause of action further arose when defendant had issued aforestated cheque and same was dishonoured. The cause of action further arose when plaintiff sent a legal notice on 29.01.2020 to the defendant and also on 29.10.2021, when plaintiff received back goods/ consignment which were returned by the defendant. It also arose on 28.11.2024, when plaintiff received Non-Starter Report. The cause of action is still continuing. Hence, the present Suit.
3. Summons for settlement of issues, in respect of the present Suit were sent to the defendant, which were received back with refusal report. Thereafter, defendant neither appeared nor filed written statement, consequently, defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.08.2025 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this court.
4. Plaintiff in support of its case got examined only one witness i.e. Authorised Representation of plaintiff company Mr. Rituraj Sharma as PW1.
4.1 PW1/Rituraj Sharma, AR of plaintiff has reiterated the contents of the plaint 'On Oath' and has deposed that he is authorised to depose before the Court and he was duly authorized and well acquainted with the facts and Digitally CS (COMM.) No.66/2025 Page 5 of 15 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA circumstances of the case vide Board Resolution Ex. PW1/1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at Point A and Point B. 4.2 PW1 further deposed and tendered the following documents in evidence:-
1. Certified copies of invoices raised by plaintiff and transport receipts as Ex. PW 1/2 (colly);
2. Certified copy of Ledger/Statement of Account as Ex. PW1/3;
3. Certified copy of cheque bearing No. 011280 dated 26.12.2019 amounting to Rs. 3,36,637/- as Ex. PW1/4;
4. Certified copy of Cheque Returning Memo as Ex. PW1/5;
5. Certified copy of complaint case bearing No. 1851/2020, u/s 138 of N.I. Act filed against defendant as Ex. PW1/6;
6. Copy of Purchase Invoices for the goods returned to the plaintiff by the defendant as Ex. PW1/7;
7. Three credit notes in respect of goods returned as Ex. PW1/8 (colly);
8. Complete Statement of Account as Ex. PW1/9;
9. Non-starter report issued by DLSA/W Ex. PW1/10.
4.3 PW1 further testified that defendant used to contact the plaintiff for supply of goods/consignment and same were duly supplied by the plaintiff as per demand and communication of defendant vide invoices Ex.PW1/2 (colly). He further deposed that defendant used to make payments to the plaintiff as per separate Ledger Account (Ex. PW1/9) maintained by the plaintiff qua defendant. It is also deposed that defendant issued a cheque bearing No. 011280 dated 26.12.2019 amounting to Rs. 3,36,637/-
(certified copy Ex. PW1/4) but the same was dishonoured due to "fund insufficient" and consequently, plaintiff filed a complaint case under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the defendant. He further deposed that defendant also returned Digitally CS (COMM.) No.66/2025 Page 6 of 15 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA some goods worth Rs. 61,716/- for which credit note was issued by the plaintiff and after adjusting the same, an amount of Rs. 2,74,921/- was due and payable by the defendant as on 29.10.2021. PW1 further deposed that defendant is also liable to pay interest amount of Rs.98,972/- calculated @ 12% per annum upto September 2024, on the outstanding amount of Rs.2,74,921/- which comes to a total amount of Rs. 3,73,893/-.
4.4 PW-1 further deposed that despite constant demands and reminders made by the plaintiff, defendant failed to clear the dues. Therefore, plaintiff pursued Pre-Institution Mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, but the defendant failed to participate in the settlement process. As a result, a Non-Starter Report (Ex. PW1/10) was issued on 28.11.2024 by DLSA, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Thereafter, plaintiff was constrained to file the present Suit for Recovery.
4.5 The Plaintiff did not examine any other witness and the plaintiff's evidence was closed vide order dated 19.11.2025.
5. I have heard Sh. Sumit Rajput, Ld. counsel for plaintiff and perused the entire record including the pleadings, documents and testimony of PW1. As the defendant has remained ex-parte and has not cross-examined the plaintiff's witness, the testimony of PW1 remains unrebutted and unchallenged. However, Court is to examine the entire case of the plaintiff in light of the Digitally CS (COMM.) No.66/2025 Page 7 of 15 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA evidence, both oral and documentary, to determine if the plaintiff has been able to discharge the onus to prove its entitlement to the claimed amount, relying upon standard of proof by way of 'preponderance of probabilities', as per law.
6. At the outset, the Court shall first take up the aspect of Limitation which is a legal issue. The present case is based upon number of invoices for the period from 2017 to 2018, from the date of first invoice of Rs.5,47,510/- dated 01.12.2017 and last invoice of Rs. 1,29,398/- dated 24.05.2018. It is the case of the plaintiff that a running account was being maintained in respect of business transactions with the defendant. However, it is an admitted fact that the account was maintained as a running account by the plaintiff but the same is not running and mutual for the purpose of computing the limitation. Accordingly, the date of each invoice shall be relevant for covering the limitation qua each pending out and recoverable against the invoices. As per the facts of the case, only part and on account payments were made by the defendant as per the debit entries vide Statement of Account (Ex. PW1/3) relied upon by the plaintiff. It is further considered that total outstanding balance of Rs. 2,74,921/- is stated to be due and payable by the defendant against the supplies made by the plaintiff for which the defendant issued cheque (Ex. PW1/4) for Rs. 3,36,637/- which was dishonoured on presentation on 30.12.2019. It is further considered that a credit note and return of goods dated 29.10.2021 was issued by the plaintiff vide Ex. PW1/7 and Ex. PW1/8.
Digitally CS (COMM.) No.66/2025 Page 8 of 15 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA 6.1 It is further the case of the plaintiff that a sum of Rs.2,74,921/- remained outstanding and payable by the defendant after adjusting the returned goods vide credit note (Ex. PW1/7 and Ex. PW1/8) for which the suit has been filed before this court after computing accruing interest thereupon to claim a total outstanding amount of Rs. 3,36,637/- as on the date of filing of the suit i.e. 27.01.2025.
6.2 For the purpose of Limitation, the first date of invoice i.e. 01.12.2017 may be relevant within period of three years of which the cheque (Ex. PW1/4) for a sum of Rs. 3,36,637/- was issued by the defendant. The case is squarely covered within the meaning and ambit of Section 19 of the Limitation Act as the liability of Rs. 3,36,673/- as on 26.12.2019 which has been acknowledged by the defendant through the cheque issued by him in favour of the plaintiff. The said cheque was dishonoured on 30.12.2019 accruing fresh cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
6.3 Court has examined the legal position prevalent for the relevant time. As per the binding authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Misc. Application no. 21 of 2022, Misc. Application no. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition © No. 3 of 2020, passed on 10.01.2022, it is held :
"....it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings...".
Digitally CS (COMM.) No.66/2025 Page 9 of 15 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA 6.4 This ruling of Apex Court was strictly followed in the subsequent ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India itself, in case titled 'Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne & Anr. Vs. Pyrotek India Private Limited & Ors', in SLP No. 2522/2022, vide pronouncement dated 9th May, 2022 wherein it was held that :
'...the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall have to be excluded for the purposes of limitation...........the said order shall also be applicable with respect to the limitation period prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 also...' 6.5 The legal position has been further guided by way of binding precedent of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Arif Azim Co. Ltd. Vs. Aptech Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine 2015, wherein it was held as under:-
"89. The effect of the above-referred order of this Court in the facts of the present case is that the balance limitation left on 15.03.2020 would become available w.e.f. 01.03.2022. The balance period of limitation remaining on 15.03.2020 can be calculation by computing the number of days between 15.03.2020 and 27.03.2021, which is the day when the limitation period would have come to an end under ordinary circumstances. The balance period thus comes to 1 year 13 days. This period of 1 year 13 days becomes available to the Petitioner from 01.03.2022, thereby meaning that the limitation period available to the Petitioner for invoking arbitration proceedings would have come to an end on 13.03.2023."
6.6 In view of the above-referred order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the facts of the present case is that the balance limitation left on 15.03.2020 would become available w.e.f. 01.03.2022. The balance period of limitation Digitally CS (COMM.) No.66/2025 Page 10 of 15 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA remaining on 15.03.2020 can be calculated by computing the number of days between 15.03.2020 and 30.12.2022, which is the day when the limitation period would have come to an end under ordinary circumstances. The balance period thus comes to 2 years 9 months 15days. This period of 2 years 9 months 15 days becomes available to the plaintiff from 01.03.2022.
6.7 It is needless to examine that the plaintiff would also be entitled to additional exclusion for the period spent during pre-institution mediation from 04.10.2024 to 28.11.2024, as per facts of the present case, which is necessary as the suit has been filed within limitation, excluding the Covid period. The legal position has been dealt with by our own Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS(COMM) 582/2022 & I.As.13529-32/2022 titled as 'BOLT Technology OU Vs. Ujoy Technology Private Limited & Anr.' vide orders dated 29.08.2022. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi considered the ruling of Bombay High Court in Deepak Raheja Vs. Ganga Taro Vazirani; 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3124, wherein it was held that:-
"14...The period of pre-institution mediation shall not be computed for the purpose of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963, and Section 12A(3) excludes the period taken for mediation from the limitation period for filing the suit."
Accordingly, as per law, plaintiff shall be also entitled to exclusion of the period spent during pre-institution mediation ie. from 04.10.2024 to 28.11.2024. The present suit which was filed on 27.01.2025 is well within the limitation in view of the above-discussed laws and after CS (COMM.) No.66/2025 Page 11 of 15 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA granting benefit of aforementioned legal exclusions in the period of limitation.
7. The Court shall now examine the aspect of territorial jurisdiction of this Court. As per facts of the present case, plaintiff has its registered office at 12th Floor, Ring Road Pearls, Omaxe Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi. The defendant approached the plaintiff at its aforementioned office where discussions / negotiations took place. Further, plaintiff supplied the goods vide duly proved invoices (Ex. PW1/2 colly), which remained uncontroverted, specifically mention one of the terms and conditions that 'Subject to Delhi Jurisdiction only'. Moreover, defendant made part payments time to time in the bank account of plaintiff which is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The present suit has been filed before this Court, as the appropriate Court of territorial jurisdiction from where the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Section 20(c) of Civil Procedure Code, clearly provides that a Court within whose local limits the cause of action, "wholly or in part", arises, would have territorial jurisdiction to try the Suit. The averments in the pleadings and the supporting testimony of the plaintiff's witness have duly proved the case in favour of the plaintiff that the cause of action arose in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant, within jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit.
8. The onus to prove the averments and claim of the plaintiff CS (COMM.) No.66/2025 Page 12 of 15 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA rests entirely upon the plaintiff, who has to discharge the burden of proof to establish its case, as per law. In civil litigation, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to discharge the burden laid upon it successfully, if the plaintiff is able to prove its case by preponderance of probabilities. It is the law of land as re-affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Adiveppa V. Bhimappa (2017) 9 SCC 586. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Adiveppa (supra) was pleased to uphold that:
"It is a settled principle of law that the initial burden is always on the plaintiff to prove his case by proper pleadings and adequate evidence (oral and documentary) in support thereof."
Thus, the burden to prove the case as per law entirely lies upon the plaintiff, by way of documentary and oral evidence.
9. It is considered that the case of the plaintiff is based on outstanding amount shown in the Ledger/Statement Account statement (Ex. PW1/9) showing an outstanding balance of Rs. 3,36,637/-. The plaintiff has put forward the claim by way of the present suit claiming that the entire afore stated amount is due and payable against the defendant, which is supported by the affidavit under Order XI Rule 6(3) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in support of electronic record i.e. Ledger/Statement of Account. The bills/invoices along with transport receipts proved as Ex. PW1/2 (colly) have been duly corroborated with the respective entries in the Ledger Account (Ex. PW1/9) maintained by the plaintiff in respect of business transactions with the defendant and is duly proved on Digitally PREETI signed by CS (COMM.) No.66/2025 Page 13 of 15 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA record. The Court has meticulously examined the entire Ledger Account which shows entries pertaining to the business account of the defendant maintained by the plaintiff. The bills / invoices are duly proved as Ex. PW1/2 (colly) and all payments made by the defendant against supplies are duly credited towards the defendant vide Ledger Account (Ex. PW1/9). The claimed amount in the present suit is duly supported by Ledger Account (Ex. PW1/9), being admissible in evidence with supporting affidavit under Order XI Rule 6(3) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as applicable at the relevant time of deposition. The entries have been made in the ordinary course of business in support of Ledger Account.
10. The testimony of the plaintiff's witness has remained unrebutted and unchallenged and there is no reason for the Court to disbelieve the evidence relied upon by the plaintiff, both oral and documentary. The plaintiff has been successful in establishing its case by way of the law of the land under which, the plaintiff has duly discharged its onus to prove its case by way of the standard of proof required in Civil cases i.e. proving its case by way of preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, plaintiff has discharged the onus placed upon it by law to prove its case in its favour, as per law.
11. In light of the above discussions, plaintiff has been successful in proving its entitlement for seeking recovery of principal amount of Rs.2,74,921/-, which remains outstanding and recoverable against the defendant, as per Digitally CS (COMM.) No.66/2025 Page 14 of 15 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA law.
12. The plaintiff has further claimed recovery of amount of Rs. 98,972/- towards interest calculated @ 12% upto September 2024, which is less than the agreed rate of interest @ 18% per annum as mentioned on the duly proved invoices (Ex. PW 2/1 colly). It is considered that the rate of interest claimed by the plaintiff is just and reasonable. Hence, plaintiff is entitled to the interest amount of Rs. 98,972/- as claimed in the suit.
13. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 3,73,893/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff is further allowed to recover pendente lite and future interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing till its realization, which is just & fair and in synchrony with the prevailing rate of interests in business market.
Plaintiff shall be entitled to claim the costs of the Suit. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room, after due completion.
Announced in the open Court today on this 12th day of January, 2026 PREETI AGRAWAL Digitally signed by PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi CS (COMM.) No.66/2025 Page 15 of 15