Delhi District Court
M/S Berlia Steels Private Limited vs Simran on 14 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER : NORTH DISTRICT : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
PRESIDED BY : MS. AKRITI MAHENDRU
Berlia Steels Private Limited
Through its AR/ Director
Sh. Vikas Berlia
Office at: 59, SSI Co-Operative Indl. Estate
G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi - 110033 .....Plaintiff
Versus
Simran
Proprietor of M/s. Asian Automatic Conveyor System
Dholak Wale, Mehfooz Nagar, Ali Garh
Uttar Pradesh -2020001 .....Defendant
E X - PAR T E J U D G M E N T
CNR No. DLNT 0300-1989-2024
Case No. 1241/2024
Suit seeking recovery of Rs.
1,53,526/- (rupees one lac fifty
three thousand five hundred and
Under Section
twenty six only) along with
pendente lite & Future interest @
18% per annum.
Date of Institution 19.11.2024
Date of Reserving Order 07.01.2026
Date of Final Order 14.03.2026
Final Order Suit Decreed
CS No. 1241/2024 Berlia Steels Private Limited Vs. Simran Page 1 of 8
Digitally
signed by
AKRITI
AKRITI MAHENDRU
MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.14
16:47:33
+0530
1.The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff seeking recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,53,526/- (rupees one lac fifty three thousand five hundred and twenty six only) along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum.
2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act 1956 in the name of M/s Berlia Steels Private Limited, engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of ceiling fan, exhaust fan and other electrical goods whereas, the defendant is a proprietorship firm in the name of M/s Asian Automatic Conveyor System engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of machinery items like escalators, conveyors etc. In the month of July, 2023, the defendant through its proprietor namely Ms. Simran, approached the plaintiff at their office and after several meetings the defendant purchased 03 ceiling fans from the plaintiff vide invoice No. BSPL/23-24/231 dated 29.07.2023 in the amount of Rs. 3,526/- (rupees three thousand five hundred and twenty six only) for her factory, which were handed over to the defendant at the spot itself however, the defendant requested the plaintiff that she would adjust the amount due towards the invoice whenever plaintiff would require any goods from the defendant. Thereafter, in the month of August 2023, plaintiff approached the defendant to supply conveyors and after negotiation of price of goods, the plaintiff placed the order but the defendant asked the plaintiff to make advance payment and in furtherance of the request the plaintiff transferred an amount of Rs.
CS No. 1241/2024 Berlia Steels Private Limited Vs. Simran Page 2 of 8Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.14 16:47:41 +0530 25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) to the bank account of defendant on 04.08.2023. Despite receipt of the advance payment, the defendant did not supply the goods to the plaintiff. Thereafter, plaintiff again approached the defendant and defendant stated that the advance payment made by the plaintiff was not sufficient, therefore, plaintiff further transferred an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- (rupees one Lac twenty five thousand only) in the bank account of defendant on 11.08.2023 towards advance payment, however, defendant neither delivered the goods nor returned the money which was paid in advance by the plaintiff. Despite repeated requests, the defendant neither refunded the amount of advance payment made nor delivered the goods, consequently, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,53,526/- (rupees one lac fifty three thousand five hundred and twenty six only) along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum from the defendant.
3. Summons were served upon the defendant on 04.12.2024 through WhatsApp. Defendant neither appeared in the court nor filed any Written Statement, therefore, defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 15.04.2025 and right of the defendant to file the written statement was closed.
4. Sh. Vikas Berlia, AR/Director of the plaintiff firm, examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex. PW1/A wherein he reiterated the contents of his plaint and relied upon the following documents :-
CS No. 1241/2024 Berlia Steels Private Limited Vs. Simran Page 3 of 8Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.14 16:47:45 +0530 SERIAL DOCUMENTS EXHIBIT No. 1 Certificate of Incorporation of plaintiff PW-1/1 company.
2 Board Resolution dated 04.11.2024. PW-1/2 3 Computer printout of GST Registration of Mark- A defendant.
4 Invoice no. BSP1/23-24/231 dated 29.07.2023 PW-1/3 issued by plaintiff to defendant. 5 Bank statement of bank account of plaintiff. PW-1/4 6 Ledger account of defendant maintained by PW-1/5 plaintiff.
7 Certificate of 63 of BSA PW1/6
5. The witness was not cross-examined as the defendant remained ex-parte during trial. No other witness was examined and PE was closed vide order dated 26.11.2025.
6. Ex-parte final argument were advanced on behalf of the plaintiff.
7. In view of the arguments advanced as well as the material placed on record during the course of the evidence on behalf of plaintiff, this court is of the view that PW-1 has duly proved the contents of the plaint as well as the documents relied upon by him. His CS No. 1241/2024 Berlia Steels Private Limited Vs. Simran Page 4 of 8 Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.14 16:47:49 +0530 testimony to the effect that the plaintiff had supplied goods worth Rs. 1,53,526/- (rupees one lac fifty three thousand five hundred twenty six only) but defendant did not pay the due amount has gone unrebutted and uncontested in the absence of any cross-examination by the defendant to this effect. The uncontroverted testimony of the witness is duly corroborated by plethora of documents including invoice no.
BSP1/23-24/231 dated 29.07.2023 issued by plaintiff to defendant. Ex. PW1/3, statement of bank account of plaintiff Ex. PW1/4 and ledger account of defendant maintained by plaintiff Ex. PW1/5 along with certificate of 63 of BSA Ex. PW1/6 placed on record. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the same. The unrebutted testimony of PW-1 stands proved, insofar as, the amount for which recovery has been sought is concerned, as the same is reflected in the ledger account statement, Ex. PW1/5 duly coroborrated by the invoice dated 29.07.2023 Ex. PW1/3 and statement of bank account of plaintiff Ex.
PW1/48. Now, this court shall deal with the interest claimed by plaintiff. In this regard, reference may be made to the observation of The Hon'ble Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Pt. Munshi Ram &Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. DDA, 2010 SCC Online Del 2444 where it was held that higher rates of interest, which are against public policy, can be struck down by the Court by finding such rates of interest to be against the public policy. Any Contract, which is against the public policy, is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The said Judgment was also relied upon by the CS No. 1241/2024 Berlia Steels Private Limited Vs. Simran Page 5 of 8 Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.14 16:47:54 +0530 Hon'ble Single Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in case bearing R.F.A. No. 823 of 2004, titled as Shri Sanjay Mittal Versus Sunil Jain decided on 07/12/2018. The Hon'ble Single Bench has granted 9% p.a. interest instead of 24% per annum.
8.1 In the matter of M/S. Tommorrowland Limited vs Housing And Urban Development, Arising out of SLP (C) No. 34338 OF 2016 vide latest judgment dated 13.02.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme held as under:
"9. It is trite law that under Section 34 of the CPC, the award of interest is a discretionary exercise steeped in equitable considerations. The law in this regard has been succinctly discussed in the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra & Ors.; (2002) 1 SCC 367, which states:
"Award of interest pendente lite or post-decree is discretionary with the Court as it is essentially governed by Section 34 of the CPC de hors the contract between the parties. In a given case if the Court finds that in the principal sum adjudged on the date of the suit, the component of interest is disproportionate with the component of the principal sum actually advanced, the Court may exercise its discretion in awarding interest pendente lite and post- decree interest at a lower rate or may even decline to award such interest. The discretion shall be exercised fairly, judiciously, and for not arbitrary or fanciful reasons."
50. There is no gainsaying that the power to award interest ought to be exercised judiciously, aligning with equitable considerations and also ensuring neither undue enrichment nor unfair deprivation. Courts are duty-bound to assess the facts and circumstances of each case, applying the principles of fairness and justice. This discretion must reflect a balanced approach, grounded in reason, and guided by the overarching objective of equity."
CS No. 1241/2024 Berlia Steels Private Limited Vs. Simran Page 6 of 8Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.14 16:47:58 +0530 8.2. It would be appropriate to refer to Section 34 of the CPC at this stage. Section 34 of the CPC reads as under:
"34. Interest .-
(1)Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent. per annum, as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit:
Provided 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 or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions. Explanation.-In this sub-section, "nationalised bank"
means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970). Explanation II.-For the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability.
9 Upon due circumspection of the totality of foregoing facts and circumstances, including but not limited to scrutiny of material available on record in the adumbral of the legal position governing the field, this Court is of the considered opinion that the the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 1,53,526/- (rupees one lac fifty CS No. 1241/2024 Berlia Steels Private Limited Vs. Simran Page 7 of 8 Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.14 16:48:03 +0530 three thousand five hundred and twenty six only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of suit till its realisation from the defendant.
10. In view of the aforementioned observation, a decree for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,53,526/- (rupees one lac fifty three thousand five hundred twenty six only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from filing of suit till its realization is passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
11. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favor of the plaintiff.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
(Announced in the open Court AKRITI
AKRITI
MAHENDRU
on 14.03.2026) MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.14
16:48:23
+0530
(Akriti Mahendru)
SCJ / RC / North
Rohini Court / Delhi
14.03.2026
CS No. 1241/2024 Berlia Steels Private Limited Vs. Simran Page 8 of 8