Delhi District Court
Paritosh Jain vs House Of Diagnostic Health Care Pvt Ltd on 5 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. BRIJESH KUMAR GARG
DISTRICT JUDGE COMMERCIAL COURT-01, SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 424/24
CNR No. DLSH01-004895-2023
PARITOSH JAIN
S/o Late Sh. S.K. Jain
1463, ATS Village,
Sector- 93 A, Noida,
Uttar Pradesh- 201304.
.....Plaintiff
Versus
M/S HOUSE OF DIAGNOSTICS HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.
Through Its Director- Dr. Shubham Sogani,
Having Its Registered Office- Ground Floor,
15, Hargovind Enclave, Vikas Marg,
Delhi-110092.
E. Mail.Id- [email protected]
Also At:-
World Trade Tower.
Sector- 16,
Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301.
.....Defendant
Date of filing of the case : 03.08.2024
Date of conclusion of the final arguments : 20.05.2025
Date of judgment : 05.06.2025
JUDGMENT
The present commercial suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,51,163/-, along with pendentelite and future interest @18% per annum, has been filed, on behalf of the plaintiff, wherein, it is stated that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of leasing BRIJESH Digitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.06.05 GARG CS (Comm.) No.424/24 page 1 of 16 GARG 15:25:01 +0530 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi consultancy of all types of commercial properties in NCR, in the name & style of M/s P J / Paritosh Jain and the defendant had approached the plaintiff for finding out an appropriate property, on rent, for its business purposes.
2. It is further stated in the plaint that Sh. Sanjay Tyagi, AGM, is the authorized signatory of the defendant and the defendant agreed, on oral terms, to pay one month rent, to the plaintiff, as commission/brokerage charges, after the registration of the lease deed in the name of the defendant.
3. It is further stated in the plaint that after showing several properties/options to the defendant, over a period of nine months, the defendant got the property of M/s Amar Medical Centre, B-183, Sector-19, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, U.P., on rent, for its business purposes, for 12 years w.e.f. 01.10.2023, with a starting monthly rent of Rs.4,75,000/- +GST. The lease agreement for the same was duly registered at the office of the Registrar, Sector-33, Noida, on 26.08.2023, and the plaintiff and his associate Sh.Pradeep Kumar, became the witnesses to the said lease deed.
4. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendant agreed to pay one month rent as brokerage charges, to the plaintiff. But, the brokerage charges, including applicable GST, amounting to Rs.5,60,500/- has not been paid by the defendant, to the plaintiff, till date.
5. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff sent the invoice, dated 27.08.2023, to the defendant, through email on BRIJESH Digitally by BRIJESH signed KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.06.05 GARG 15:25:09 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.424/24 page 2 of 16 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi 31.08.2023, towards his brokerage charges and allied services, and requested the defendant to fulfill his demand, by paying the brokerage charges to him. But, no payment was made by the defendant.
6. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendant never raised any dispute regarding the brokerage charges, for more than four months, and on repeated requests of the plaintiff to release the pending payment, Sh.Sanjay Tyagi, Manager of the defendant, sent an email to the plaintiff, on 01.01.2024, whereby, the defendant refused to make the payment to the plaintiff, by making false excuses that the brokerage charges only for a period of 15 days was mutually decided between the parties, and raising further objection that the brokerage charges were payable only after completion of miscellaneous work in the property.
7. It is further stated in the plaint that a legal demand notice, dated 12.02.2024, was also served upon the defendant, through email, as well as by registered post, on 13.02.2024. But, despite service of the legal notice, no payment has been made by the defendant to the plaintiff, till date, and hence, the present suit. It is further stated that the defendant is also liable to pay interest @18% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,60,500/-, w.e.f. 27.08.2023 till 29.07.2024. It has been prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may be decreed for a total amount of Rs.6,51,163/-, alongwith pendentelite and future interest @18% per annum.
8. After filing of the present suit, the summons of the suit for settlement of issues were duly served upon the defendant, and BRIJESH Digitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.06.05 CS (Comm.) No.424/24 page 3 of 16 GARG D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi 15:25:17 +0530 in compliance, written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant, wherein, it is stated that the plaintiff is not a party to the lease agreement, dated 26.08.2023, and therefore, the plaintiff cannot derive any right under the said agreement. It is further stated that the plaintiff has raised a baseless demand for brokerage charges by fabricating the invoice, on which, no GST has been paid by the plaintiff.
9. It is further stated in the written statement that there was no pre-understanding between the parties for payment of brokerage charges for one month rent. It is further stated that vide email, dated 01.01.2024, the defendant had categorically denied the brokerage charges of one month rent.
10. It is further stated in the written statement that the email dated 31.08.2023, was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant, by considering the fact that the management of the defendant shall give the approval for the same. But, there was no pre- understanding between the parties for payment of brokerage charges for a period of one month. It has been prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be therefore, dismissed with costs.
11. Replication to the written statement of the defendant was also filed, on behalf of the plaintiff, wherein, the contents of the written statement have been denied and the contents of the plaint have been reiterated and reaffirmed, as correct.
12. After completion of pleadings, First Case Management hearing was conducted on 27.03.2025 and from the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed, as under:
BRIJESH Digitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.06.05 GARG 15:25:25 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.424/24 page 4 of 16 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim/recover the amount of Rs.6,51,163/-, from the defendant, as claimed in the plaint ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest from the defendant? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
3. Relief.
13. During trial, the plaintiff has examined himself, as PW-1, and has also examined his associate Sh. Pradeep Kumar, as PW-2. Whereas, the defendant has examined its' AR Sh. Sanjay Tyagi, as DW-1.
14. After completion of trial, final arguments were addressed by Ms. Babita, Advocate, for the Plaintiff and Sh.Rakesh Sharma, Advocate, for the defendant, on 20.05.2025.
15. During the course of arguments, it was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant has admitted the entire facts of the case and has admitted that the plaintiff has arranged the facility for tracing the ideal commercial property for the use of the defendant, and accordingly, the lease agreement of the commercial property, dated 26.08.2023, was also executed between the landlord and the defendant. She has further argued that the execution of the lease deed, dated 26.08.2023, is also not disputed.
16. It was further argued by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that vide email dated 31.08.2023, the plaintiff served a copy of the invoice dated 27.08.2023, on the defendant. But, the defendant had failed to make any payment to the plaintiff and no Digitally signed by BRIJESH BRIJESH KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.06.05 GARG 15:25:33 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.424/24 page 5 of 16 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi reply to the email of the plaintiff was given by the defendant. She has further argued that during the trial, the defendant has taken a vague stand of oral agreement of payment of brokerage charges of a period of only 15 days rent. But, no such plea was taken by the defendant in its' written statement. She has further argued that the defendant has also failed to file any affidavit of admission or denial of the documents, with its' written statement, and has also failed to produce the minutes book, to prove the board resolution in favour of its AR Sh. Sanjay Tyagi, and therefore, the deposition of DW-1, wherein, a contrary stand of oral agreement for paying the brokerage charges for 15 days only was agreed between the parties, cannot be read in evidence of the defendant. She has prayed that the emails of the plaintiff have been duly proved on record, and therefore, the suit of the plaintiff may be decreed with interest and costs.
17. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that there was an oral agreement between the parties for payment of brokerage charges for only 15 days rent, and this fact was duly informed to the plaintiff, vide email dated 01.01.2024. He has further argued that the plaintiff has disclosed about his brokerage charges only after execution of the lease deed dated 26.08.2023, and the brokerage charges for one month was never agreed by the defendant. He has further argued that DW-1 Sh.Sanjay Tyagi, AR of the defendant was competent to depose on behalf of the defendant company and this witness has proved the oral agreement between the parties, during his evidence. However, he has admitted that no payment has been made by the BRIJESH Digitally by BRIJESH signed KUMAR Date: 2025.06.05 KUMAR GARG GARG 15:25:40 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.424/24 page 6 of 16 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi defendant to the plaintiff towards any brokerage charges, till date. It has been prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be therefore, dismissed with costs. The Ld. Counsel for the defendant has relied upon the following judgments, in support of his contentions :
(i) 'United Bank of India vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors,', reported as, '1997 AIR (SC) 3', and
(ii) Escorts Limited vs. Sai Autos', reported as, '1990 Legal Eagle 179'.
18. I have carefully perused the case file and I have also given my considered thoughts to the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsels for the parties. My findings on the various issues are as under:
Issue No. 1Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim/recover the amount of Rs.6,51,163/-, from the defendant, as claimed in the plaint ? OPP
19. The burden to prove this issue lies on the plaintiff and in support of his contentions, the plaintiff has examined himself, as PW-1. He has filed his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, wherein, he has reproduced the entire contents of the plaint. It is reiterated in the affidavit that the plaintiff is running a business of leasing consultancy in NCR and the defendant approached him for taking a suitable commercial property, on rent, for its business purposes and after various searches a commercial property was selected for business of the defendant, and accordingly, the said commercial property was taken on rent for a period of 12 years Digitally signed by BRIJESH BRIJESH KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.06.05 CS (Comm.) No.424/24 page 7 of 16 GARG D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi 15:25:49 +0530 w.e.f 01.10.2023 on starting rent of Rs.4,75,000/- per month, excluding the GST. The said lease deed was duly registered on 26.08.2023, and thereafter, the plaintiff sent invoice dated 27.08.2023 to the defendant, through email, whereby he demanded his brokerage charges.
20. It is further reiterated in the affidavit that for four months, the defendant raised no objection to his demand. But, on 01.01.2024, an email was sent by the defendant, whereby, it refused to make the payment to the plaintiff on the false excuse that it was decided between the parties that only 15 days' rent shall be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, after completion of some miscellaneous work in the property.
21. It is further reiterated in the affidavit that a legal demand notice dated 12.02.2024 was also served upon the defendant, to which, a reply was also given by the defendant on 03.04.2024. But, no payment has been made by the defendant till date.
22. During the trial, the plaintiff has also filed a certified copy of the registered lease deed dated 24.08.2022, (Ex.PW1/1), whereby, the commercial property was let out to the defendant, with the efforts of the plaintiff. It is relevant to note here that Sh. Pradeep Kumar (PW-2), an associate of the plaintiff has stood as a witness, at the time of registration of the said lease deed. The invoice dated 27.08.2023 has been placed on record as Ex.PW1/2. The copy of email dated 31.08.2023 has been placed on record as Ex.PW1/3. A copy of the legal notice dated 12.02.2024 has been placed on record as Ex.PW1/4. Its postal receipts have been placed on record as Ex.PW1/5.
BRIJESH
The tracking Digitally signed by
BRIJESH KUMAR
KUMAR GARG
Date: 2025.06.05
GARG 15:25:57 +0530
CS (Comm.) No.424/24 page 8 of 16 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
report from the Department of Posts, Govt. of India, has been placed on record as Ex.PW1/6. The reply to this notice, by the defendant, dated 03.04.2024, has been placed on record as Ex.PW1/7. The email dated 17.12.2023, sent by the plaintiff to the defendant, alongwith the email sent by the defendant on 01.01.2024, in reply to the email of the plaintiff dated 17.12.2023, have been placed on record as Ex.PW1/8 (Colly.). The execution of the lease deed, Ex.PW1/1, is not denied by the defendant and the lease deed, Ex.PW1/1, is an admitted document of the parties. The defendant has also not denied the invoice dated 27.08.2023, Ex.PW1/2, and the email dated 31.08.2023, Ex.PW1/3. The defendant has also not denied the receipt of the legal notice dated 12.02.2024, Ex.PW1/4. It is also admitted by the defendant that a reply to the legal notice dated 12.02.2024 was also sent by the defendant to the plaintiff on 03.04.2024, vide reply Ex.PW1/7. The defendant has also not denied the receipt of email dated 17.12.2023 and its' reply dated 01.01.2024, Ex.PW1/8 (Colly.).
23. During the trial, the plaintiff was also cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant, to establish the fact that there was an oral agreement between the parties to pay the commission/ brokerage charges only for 15 days' rent. There is no other dispute between the parties. During his cross- examination, it was specifically denied by the plaintiff that the defendant had raised oral objections, regarding payment of brokerage charges. However, he has admitted that the defendant had raised objections regarding the brokerage charges vide email BRIJESH Digitally by BRIJESH signed KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.06.05 GARG 15:26:04 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.424/24 page 9 of 16 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi dated 01.01.2024. During his cross-examination, he has further admitted that various meetings were held at the office of the defendant, on 3-4 occasions, regarding the payment of brokerage charges.
24. During the trial, the plaintiff has also examined his associate Sh.Pradeep Kumar as PW-2, who has also filed his affidavit as Ex.PW2/A. In his affidavit, PW-2 Sh.Pradeep Kumar has also reiterated the same facts. This witness was also cross- examined on behalf of the defendant. During his cross- examination, he has also denied the suggestion of the Ld. Counsel for the defendant that he never disclosed the fact that the brokerage charges for one month rent were required to be paid by the defendant, prior to execution and registration of the lease deed Ex.PW1/1. However, he has admitted that the fact of payment of brokerage charges of one month rent were disclosed to the defendant, only after registration of the lease deed Ex.PW1/1. He has denied the suggestion that the plaintiff was claiming brokerage charges for 30 days' rent only because no written agreement was executed between the parties, regarding payment of brokerage charges.
25. In order to substantiate his contention that brokerage charges, for 15 days' rent only, was required to be paid by the defendant, the defendant has examined one of his employees, Sh.Sanjay Tyagi, as DW-1. This witness has deposed that he was working with the defendant, as Assistant General Manager, Corporate Affairs, for the last seven years and has been authorized by the defendant to depose on its behalf, vide boardDigitally signed by BRIJESH BRIJESH KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.06.05 GARG 15:26:11 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.424/24 page 10 of 16 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi resolution dated 05.09.2024. During the trial, a copy of extract of board resolution dated 05.09.2024, was filed on record as Ex.DW1/A. But, the same could not be proved on record, in accordance with law, as no minute book was produced before the court, by this witness, at the time of his examination on 05.05.2025. Furthermore, this witness has also admitted the fact that he was not looking after the accounts of the defendant company.
26. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case titled as, 'S. Kesari Hanuman Goud vs Anjum Jehan & Ors.', reported as, '(2013) 12 SCC 64', as under :
"13. It is a settled legal proposition that the power of attorney holder cannot depose in place of the principal. Provisions of Order III, Rules 1 and 2 CPC empower the holder of the power of attorney to "act" on behalf of the principal. The word "acts" employed therein is confined only to "acts" done by the power-of-attorney holder, in exercise of the power granted to him by virtue of the instrument. The term "acts", would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In other words, if the power-of-attorney holder has preferred any "acts" in pursuance of the power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for acts done by the principal, and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of a matter, as regards which, only the principal can have personal knowledge and in respect of which, the principal is entitled to be cross-examined. (See: Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1441; Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217; M/s Shankar Finance and Investment vs. State of A.P. & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 422; and Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha, (2010) 10 SCC 512)."
(emphasis supplied)
27. In view of the above judgment, it is therefore, clear that BRIJESH Digitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.06.05 CS (Comm.) No.424/24 page 11 of 16 D.J.(CommercialGARG 15:26:19 +0530 Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi DW-1 Sh. Sanjay Tyagi, who was allegedly authorized to depose on behalf of the defendant, vide board resolution dated 05.09.2024, was not competent to depose on behalf of the defendant. It is also relevant to note that the present suit has been instituted on 06.08.2024. Therefore, it is clear that this witness was authorized only after institution of the present suit.
28. During the trial, this witness was also subjected to cross- examination on behalf of the plaintiff. During his cross- examination, this witness has admitted that PW-2 Sh. Pradeep Kumar, was an associate of the plaintiff and he used to work with the plaintiff. This witness has also admitted that the invoice for brokerage charges of 30 days of rent was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant. He has further admitted that the plaintiff and PW-2 Sh.Pradeep Kumar, had visited the office of the defendant on several occasions, for payment of brokerage charges, but no payment has been made by the defendant to the plaintiff.
29. DW-1 has also disclosed, during his cross-examination, that Dr.Shubham Sogani, was also present when meetings were held with the plaintiff, regarding payment of brokerage charges. Perusal of the extract of board resolution Ex.DW1/1, also indicates that Dr. Shubham Sogani is one of the directors of the defendant. But, during the trial, the defendant has deliberately and intentionally failed to examine Dr. Shubham Sogani or any other director of the defendant.
30. Perusal of the record further shows that the defendant had received the invoice dated 27.08.2023, Ex.PW1/2, vide email dated 31.08.2023, Ex.PW1/3. But, the defendant BRIJESH failed to make Digitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR GARG KUMAR Date: 2025.06.05 CS (Comm.) No.424/24 page 12 of 16 GARGCourt)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi D.J.(Commercial 15:26:27 +0530 the payment of brokerage charges and also failed to raise any objection regarding the amount of brokerage charges till 01.01.2024. The plaintiff has again demanded his brokerage charges for 30 days rent, vide email dated 17.12.2023, Ex.PW1/8. But still, no payment was made by the defendant. However, on 01.01.2024, the defendant raised objections to the payment of brokerage charges for 30 days, for the first time, on the pretext that brokerage charges equivalent to 15 days rent were agreed to be paid by the defendant. The defendant raised further objection to the payment of brokerage charges on the ground that few construction/ miscellaneous work were still required to be done by the owner/landlord of the property, and therefore, the brokerage charges shall be paid only after completion of pending work by the landlord.
31. From the testimonies of the parties and material on record, it is clear that the defendant is taking benefit of the fact that there was no written agreement between the parties, regarding payment of brokerage charges to the plaintiff. But, the testimonies of the witnesses of the plaintiff are more probable to establish that brokerage charges worth 30 days' rent were required to be paid by the defendant. The defendant cannot take the plea that no brokerage charges were disclosed by the plaintiff prior to execution of the lease deed Ex.PW1/1. It is was duty of the defendant and its' director/employees to ascertain the brokerage charges of the plaintiff, even prior to engaging the plaintiff, for his services.
32. From the testimony of the plaintiff, it is also clear that the BRIJESH by BRIJESH Digitally signed KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.06.05 CS (Comm.) No.424/24 page 13 of 16 GARG D.J.(Commercial 15:26:36 +0530 Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi plaintiff has not deposited the GST on brokerage charges of Rs.4,75,000/-, till date and there was also no agreement between the parties for payment of penal interest @18% per annum after the due date of payment. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim the amount of GST or the penal interest from the defendant. However, the plaintiff is entitled to claim brokerage charges of Rs.4,75,000/- from the defendant, being the amount of monthly rent.
This issue is decided accordingly, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. 2Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest from the defendant? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
33. The burden to prove this issue also lies on the plaintiff. In the plaint and in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, the plaintiff has claimed the penal interest @18% per annum on the invoice amount of Rs.5,60,500/- for the period w.e.f. 27.08.2023 to 29.07.2024, worth Rs.90,663/-. The plaintiff has also claimed pendentelite and furture interest on the total amount of Rs.6,51,163/- at the same rate of interest @18% per annum. But, during his cross- examination, the plaintiff has admitted that there was no such agreement for payment of any penal interest. Furthermore, the said penal interest also appears to be highly excessive. Even the provisions of Section 34 of the CPC, provide the rate of interest only at a maximum of 6% per annum. But, as per the proviso to Digitally signed by BRIJESH BRIJESH KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.06.05 GARG 15:26:42 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.424/24 page 14 of 16 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi Section 34 CPC, the said rate of interest can exceed 6%, in case of commercial transactions.
34. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in case titled as, 'Mrs. Veena Jain vs. Sunil Sood', passed in, 'CS (OS) No.1177/2003', on 23.07.2012, as under :
"8. I am however not agreeable to grant the huge rate of 24% interest as claimed by the plaintiff. The Supreme Court in the recent chain of judgments reported as Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority and others, 2005 (6) SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others, 2006 (11) SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G.Harischandra, 2007 (2) SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC) has mandated that Courts must reduce the high rates of interest on account of the consistent fall in the rates of interest in changed economic scenario. In my opinion, plaintiff will be thus entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the principal amount due of `27,84,947.50/-for the period prior to the filing of the suit i.e. from 10.5.2000 till the date of filing of the suit. Plaintiff will also be entitled to pendente lite and future interest till payment @ 9% per annum simple."
(emphasis supplied)
35. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is also entitled to claim interest @9% per annum on the due amount of Rs.4,75,000/- w.e.f. 27.08.2023, till the date of its realization.
This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Relief
36. In view of my findings on the various issues, as discussed above, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed, in his favour and BRIJESH Digitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR Date: 2025.06.05 KUMAR GARG CS (Comm.) No.424/24 page 15 of 16 GARG 15:27:02 +0530 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi against the defendant, and a money decree is passed for an amount of Rs.4,75,000/-, with interest @9% per annum, w.e.f. 27.08.2023, till the date of its realization.
Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
It is ordered accordingly.
The decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed
Announced in the open Court BRIJESH by BRIJESH
KUMAR GARG
on this 05th Day of June, 2025 KUMAR Date:
GARG 2025.06.05
15:27:07 +0530
BRIJESH KUMAR GARG
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
Shahdara Distt, KKD, Delhi
CS (Comm.) No.424/24 page 16 of 16 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi