Delhi District Court
M/S Freight Systems Pvt Ltd vs Rashmi Arora on 20 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF Sh. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL
District Judge (Commercial Court) -02,
Central, Tis Hazari
DLCT010139712024
CS (COMM.) No. 972/2024
CNR NO.DLCT010139712024
M/s. Freight Systems(I) Pvt. Ltd.
[an agent of M/s. Vanguard Logistics Services]
Room No. 208, 2nd Floor, Admn. Building
Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad
New Delhi-110001
Through Manish Kumar Jha
Assistant Manager (Credit Control) ...Plaintiff
Versus
Ms. Rashmi Arora
Prop.M/s. Kanishka Cargo Service
198, First Floor, Office Complex Cycle Market,
Jhandewalan, Central Delhi
Delhi-110055 ......Defendant
Date of filing of suit : 06.09.2024
Date of Final Arguments : 13.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 20.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the Digitally signed present suit for recovery of Rs. 10,10,874/- (Rs Ten RAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
2026.01.20 Lakhs Ten Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy GOEL 12:49:22 Four only) filed by the plaintiff M/s Freight Systems +0530 M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 1 of 28 ) (I) Pvt. Ltd through his attorney Assistant Manager Manish Kumar Jha (hereinafter referred to as "plaintiff company") against the defendant.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the plaint are that plaintiff company is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956; Mr. Manish Kumar Jha vide board resolution dated 15.4.2024, has been duly authorised to sign and institute the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff company; plaintiff company is engaged in the business of freight forwarding, logistics and provide logistics and transportation services across the world .
3. It is the case of the plaintiff company that defendant approached the plaintiff company and placed various orders for transportation of shipments and accordingly House Bill of Lading were raised which are as follows:-
Sr. House Bill of Dated Port of Port of No. Lading No. Loadin Destinatio g n
1. 320110006435 09.12.2020 Mundra Dakar-
-India Senegal
2. 320110006318 17.10.2020 Mundra Conakry-
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.20
-India Guinea
GOEL 12:49:26
+0530 3. 320110008224 20.12.2020 Nhava Niamey-
Sheva Niger
M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 2 of 28 ) India
4. 320110006437 21.10.2020 Mundra Lome-
-India Togo
5. 320110006433 20.12.2020 Mundra Pointe
- India Noire-
Congo
6. 320110006431 09.12.2020 Mundra Cotonou-
- India Benin
7. 320110008225 20.12.2020 Nhava Niamey-
Sheva Niger
India
8. 320110006434 09.12.2020 Mundra lvory-
- India Coast
9. 320110008223 20.12.2020 Nhava Bamako-
Sheva Mali
India
10. 320110006436 20.12.2020 Mundra Ouagadou
- India gou
Burkina
Faso
11. 320110006430 09.12.2020 Mundra Yaounde-
- India Cameroon
12. 320110007119 09.12.2020 Mundra Douala-
- India Cameroon
4. It is the case of the plaintiff company that plaintiff company fulfilled its obligation as a carrier by delivering the goods to the named consignee at the agreed place of delivery; plaintiff company raised invoices in respect of the aforesaid services ; as per the Statement of Account/Ledger, maintained by the plaintiff company in the ordinary course of its business, as on 31.03.2024 principle amount of Rs. 6,88,985/- is due and outstanding from the Digitally signed by RAJESH defendant. The plaintiff company has also claimed RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.01.20 interest @15 % p.a in the sum of Rs 3,21,889/- to 12:49:30 +0530 M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 3 of 28 ) reach the suit amount of Rs 10,10,874/-.
5. It is the further case of the plaintiff company that despite repeated requests, the defendant neglected to pay the outstanding dues; a legal demand notice dated 15.7.2022 was sent to the defendant but despite service, the defendant did not make any payment. Hence, the present suit is filed.
6. Since, the subject matter of the suit is a commercial dispute, therefore, the plaintiff company is said to have approached Central DLSA in terms of section 12 (A) of the Commercial Court Act, 2015 and the Central DLSA has released a non- starter report dated 01.03.2024 in pre-institution mediation process.
7. On the summons being served, the defendant put appearance through Ld. Counsel on 3.1.2025. Record would indicate that in the present case defendant was served on 16.11.2024 but the written statement was not filed on behalf of the defendant; the right of the defendant to file the written statement was closed and the defence of the defendant was struck off vide order dated Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL 12.02.2025; subsequently, on 20.03.2025, defendant KUMAR Date:
GOEL moved an application under section 151 CPC for 2026.01.20 12:49:35 +0530 M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 4 of 28 ) recalling the order dated 12.2.2025 whereby the defence of the defendant was struck off and another application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement. Record would further indicate that on 20.03.2025, taking into consideration the no objection from the side of the plaintiff company, both the aforesaid applications were allowed whereby the order dated 12.2.2025 was recalled and the delay in filing the written statement was condoned and the written statement filed by the defendant was taken on record.
Filing of Written Statements:
8. In the written statement defendant has taken various objections i.e the present suit of the plaintiff company is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff company and against the defendant for filing the present suit; suit is bad for on-joinder of parties as it has not been filed by the authorized representative of the plaintiff company; suit being devoid of merit and for concealment of material Digitally signed by facts is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
the the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff 2026.01.20 12:49:40 +0530 M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 5 of 28 ) company having its registered office at Chennai but the alleged Board of Resolution was passed on 15.04.2024; plaintiff company has failed to bring on record the bill of lading in support of its case showing that defendant had approached the plaintiff company for transportation of shipments to various goods of Impact Healthcare Pvt. Ltd to the various ports of Africa; the plaintiff company has failed to implead the consignee in the present suit which could confirm if the goods have been successfully delivered at the port of discharge, if at all; plaint is silent as to on what date the goods reached to the port of discharge.
9. It is further submitted that defendant happens to be a freight and forwarding agent; freight charges are always paid by the consignee; in the present case, the goods of the Impact Healthcare were shipped by the Vanguard Logistics between 24.10.2020 and 29.10.2020 which were to be delivered at the port of discharge at Africa; the goods never reached to its destination for which Impact Health Care Pvt. Ltd never paid the charges of the defendant; the plaintiff company has no Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH locus to claim any amount from the defendant as KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.01.20 12:49:45 +0530 M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 6 of 28 ) firstly the invoices annexed with the plaint are of Vanguard Logistics and secondly the goods of Impact Healthcare Private Limited as shipped by the defendant through Vanguard Logistics never reached to its destination. All other averments have been denied by the defendant and it is prayed that the suit being devoid of merits may be dismissed.
Settlement of issues and Fixing the Schedule for Second Case Management Hearing.
10. From the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 16.04.2025 following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court :
1. Whether the present suit has not been instituted by a competent and an authorized person? ( Ref: Para 1 of Written Statement- reply on merits) (OPD)
2. Whether there is no cause of action against the defendant to file the present suit? ( ref: Para 3 of written statement- preliminary objections) (OPD)
3. Whether the present suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? ( Ref: Para 4 of the written statement-preliminary objections) (OPD)
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the Rs 10,10,874/-, as prayed for ? (OPP)
5. In case the issue no.4 is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the Digitally signed by RAJESH interest? If so, at what rate and for what RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL period? (OPP) Date:
GOEL 2026.01.20
12:49:49 6. Relief.
+0530
M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 7 of 28 )
11. Thereafter, the Schedule of Second Case Management Hearing and evidence of both the parties were recorded subsequently.
Evidence led by the parties
12. In support of its case the plaintiff company has examined its AR Manish Kumar Jha as PW1 who filed his evidence by way of an affidavit ExPW1/A. PW1 Manish Kumar Jha has deposed on the lines of the averments made in the plaint in his evidence filed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He also relied upon the following documents:-
Sl.No Document Exhibit
1. certificate of incorporation of ExPW1/1
plaintiff company
2. Extract of the board resolution dated ExPW1/2
15.04.2024
3. copy of registration certificate of ExPW1/3
defendant
4. copies of invoices ExPW1/4
(colly)
5. Statement of account ExPW1/5
(colly)
6. copies of email ExPW1/6
(colly),
7. copy of legal notice dated 15.7.2022 ExPW1/7 alongwith postal receipts (colly), RAJESH by Digitally signed RAJESH KUMAR GOEL
8. Non Starter report dated 01.03.2024 ExPW1/8 KUMAR Date:
2026.01.20 GOEL 12:49:53 +0530
9. Certificate u/s 65 B of the then ExPW1/9 Indian Evidence Act M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 8 of 28 )
10. certified copy of order dated ExPW1/10 31.05.2024
11. case history of the present case ExPW1/11.
13. PW1 was cross examined on behalf of the defendant.
14. Thereafter, plaintiff evidence was closed and the case was adjourned for defendant evidence.
15. Pertinent to mention here that at the time when the case was fixed for defendant evidence, submissions were made by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant that the defendant does not want to lead any evidence and is closing DE. In view of the submissions made, vide order dated 26.05.2025 DE was closed and the case was adjourned for final arguments.
16. Thereafter, written synopsis of arguments on behalf of the plaintiff company and the defendant filed.
Arguments made by the Ld. Counsels:
17. The written synopsis filed on behalf of the parties and in addition to that the oral arguments Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.01.20 made on behalf of the Ld. Counsels for the parties 12:49:58 +0530 M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 9 of 28 ) were nothing but reiteration of their respective stand as taken by them in their pleadings. Thus, for the sake of brevity the same is not being reproduced again however, the same have been considered.
18. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff company has placed the reliance on :-
i. Adivekka & ORs Vs Hyanmava Kom Venkateshy & Anr, AIR 2007 SC 2025 ii. Vidhyadhar Vs Manikrao & Anr, AIR 1999 SC 1441
19. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements:
i. State Bank of Travancore v. Kingston Computers (I) (P)Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 524.
ii. Nibro Ltd. V. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (1991) 70 Comp Cas 388 iii. D. Sornam V. State of Madras, 1968 SCC OnLine Mad 170 iv. Kasturi V. Iyyamperumal, (2005) 6 SCC 733 v. Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd V. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd., (2010) 7 SCC 417
20. I have gone through the material available on record and heard the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff RAJESH by RAJESH company and the defendant and have also gone Digitally signed KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 12:50:03 +0530through the judicial pronouncements as relied upon 2026.01.20 M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 10 of 28 ) by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant. Discussion and Finding on Issues:-
21. My issue wise findings are as under:-
Issue no.1 Whether the present suit has not been instituted by a competent and an authorized person? ( Ref:
Para 1 of Written Statement-reply on merits) (OPD)
22. The onus /burden to prove this issue was on the defendant but the defendant has not led any evidence.Thus the defendant has failed to establish that the present suit has not been instituted by a competent and an authorized person. Even otherwise, the plaintiff company has been able to establish that the present suit has been instituted by a competent and authorised person. When I say that the plaintiff company has been able to establish the aforesaid fact, it does not mean that the present suit is maintainable on merits also.
23. In the plaint, it has been categorically pleaded that the plaintiff company is incorporated under the Companies Act,1956 having its registered office at Olympia Cyberspace, 5th Floor, No. 21/22, Alandur Digitally signed by Road, Amlayiammarpet, 2nd Street, Gundy, RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date: Chennai-600032 and its Branch office amongst 2026.01.20 12:50:09 +0530 M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 11 of 28 ) other place at Room no.208, 2nd Floor, Admn. Building, Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi 110020 and Mr. Manish Kumar Jha, Assistant Manager (Credit Control), who is conversant with the facts of the case, in his official capacity is competent to sign and institute the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff company. It is further stated that said Manish Kumar Jha has been duly authorised to sign, institute and prosecute the suit vide Board Resolution dated 15.04.2024, which has further authorised him to file the present suit and to appear before the court on behalf of the plaintiff company.
24. The said Manish Kumar Jha appeared as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff company and has examined himself as PW1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit ExPW1/A.
25. In his evidence filed by way of affidavit ExPW1/A, PW1 Manish Kumar Jha has reiterated the facts to the effect that he has been authorised to Digitally sign, institute and prosecute the suit on behalf of the signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date: plaintiff company vide Board of Resolution dated GOEL 2026.01.20 12:50:13 15.04.2024 ExPW1/2. During his cross examination +0530 PW1 replied that he had signed and filed the M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 12 of 28 ) affidavit ExPW1/A after going through the same; although, he has not placed on record any document indicating that he was working as Assistant Manager (Credit Control) in the plaintiff company but he is carrying his I card; admitted that he has filed the extract of board resolution ExPW1/2 and it is not the complete board resolution; he has not placed on record the complete board resolution and minutes of the said meeting. He further replied that the said extract of board resolution ExPW1/2 was not signed in his presence and he was not present in the board meeting dated 15.04.2024.
26. The said board resolution ExPW1/2 is on the record which appears to have been passed in the presence of five directors, whose names have been mentioned therein, whereby PW1 Manish Kumar Jha has been authorised on behalf of the plaintiff company to institute the present suit against the present defendant. It is also mentioned therein that Manish Kumar Jha is working as Assistant Manager (Credit Control) in the plaintiff company. The said extract appears to be on the letter head of the Digitally signed by plaintiff company duly signed by one of the RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.01.20 Directors.
12:50:18 +0530 M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 13 of 28 )
27. I could not see any reason to doubt the veracity of the said resolution ExPW1/2 in the background of the fact that the defendant has chosen not to lead any evidence when the burden to prove this issue was on the defendant. I have also gone through the judgments as relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant. There is no doubt about the proposition of law as laid down by Hon'ble Courts and the observations made therein but the same would not be of any help to the defendant being distinguishable on facts. Thus, it stands established that the present suit has been instituted by a competent and authorised person on behalf of the plaintiff company. Hence, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff company and against the defendant.
Issue no.2 Whether there is no cause of action against the defendant to file the present suit? ( ref: Para 3 of written statement- preliminary objections) (OPD) & Issue no.3 Whether the present suit of the plaintiff is bad for non- joinder of necessary party? ( Ref: Para 4 of the written Digitally statement-preliminary objections) (OPD) signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL & GOEL Date:
2026.01.20 12:50:22 +0530 Issue no.4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the Rs 10,10,874/-, as prayed for ? (OPP) M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 14 of 28 )
28. The decision on the issues regarding existence of cause of action in favour of the plaintiff company and non-joinder of necessary parties would go to the root of the matter and ultimately would be a guiding factor for giving the findings on the main issue, whereby a money decree has been prayed. Thus, all these issues are interconnected, therefore, the same are being taken up together.
29. In the present case, as far as quality or even the quantity of the evidence is concerned, the testimony of PW1 Manish Kumar Jha is the only evidence led by the plaintiff company that is available on record. Except testimony of PW1 and the documents as referred to by him, there is no other evidence on record. The decision on the entire controversy between the parties would depend upon the appreciation of the said evidence only brought on record by the plaintiff company by examining PW1 Manish Kumar Jha.
30. As far as examination in chief of PW1 Manish Kumar Jha is concerned, it has been filed by way of affidavit ExPW1/A, which is nothing but Digitally reproduction of the averments as made in the plaint. signed by The cross examination of PW1 is a crucial piece of RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.01.20 12:50:27 +0530 M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 15 of 28 ) evidence, which is not so lengthy therefore, the same is being reproduced as under:-
" XXXX by Sh. Soumitra Chatterjee, Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
I have signed and filed my affidavit Ex.PW1/A after going the same.
I have not placed any document on record indicating that I am working as a assistant manager in the plaintiff company. Vol. I am carrying my ID Card today.
I have filed the extract of board resolution and it is not the complete board resolution. I have also not placed on record the minutes of the said meeting. The said extract does not indicate the date when it was prepared.
It is correct that the said extract Ex.PW1/2 was not signed in my presence.
I was not present in the Board Meeting dated 15.04.2024.
It is wrong to suggest that since no such board meeting held on 15.04.2024 at Dubai, hence the relevant and supporting documents pertaining to the same have not been placed on record along with the present suit.
I have not placed on record any document indicating that plaintiff company is an agent of M/s Vangaurd Logistic Services. Vol. In GST certificate, it is there.
Digitally signed by It is correct that I have not placed on record RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR any document indicating that defendant had KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.01.20 approached the plaintiff company and placed various orders for transportation of shipments. 12:50:31 +0530 M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 16 of 28 ) I have not placed on record any document indicating that Vanguard Logistic Services has authorized the plaintiff company to file the present suit.
It is wrong to suggest that there is no invoice raised by the plaintiff company in the name of defendant.
At this stage, the witness is confronted with the invoices Ex.PW1/4 (colly) and the witness is asked that all the aforesaid invoices have been raised by Vanguard Logistic Services and not by the plaintiff company, what he has to say ?
After going through the same, the witness says that in the terms and conditions it is mentioned that "Vanguard Logistic Service is a unit of Freight Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., which is the GST registrant".
I have not placed on record any such document from where it can be inferred that Vanguard Logistic Services is an unit of Freight Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. having the same GST registration. Vol. I have brought the GST certificate today.
Neither in my plaint nor in my affidavit, it has been mentioned that as to when exactly the goods were delivered and where the goods were delivered. Vol. it is mentioned in the invoices.
It is correct that I have not placed on record the bill of lading.
Question: I put to you that there is no such document and / or material available on the Digitally signed by judicial record from where it can be inferred RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR that the plaintiff company has raised any such KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date: invoice to the defendant claiming an amount of 2026.01.20 12:50:35 +0530 Rs.6,88,985/-, what do you have to say?
M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 17 of 28 ) Answer: The statement of account and the invoices are there.
At this stage, the witness is confronted with the statement of account Ex.PW1/5 (colly) and the witness is asked whether it is correct that the same has been issued by Vanguard Logistic Services or not ?
After going through the same the witness says that it is correct that it is issued by Vanguard Logistic Services.
The said statement of account might have been shared with the defendant prior to filing the suit through mail.
I have placed on record the said mail which are already Ex.PW1/6 (colly).
At this stage, the witness is confronted with the document Ex.PW1/6 (colly) and the witness is put to a suggestion that the same are not copies of e-mail.
After going through the same, the witness says that it is wrong to suggest that the aforesaid document Ex.PW1/6 (colly) is not the copies of the e-mail as it is not indicating certain details like when it was sent, to whom it was sent and by whom it was sent.
It is correct that in the said document, it is mentioned that it is "customer outstanding statement".
It is correct that only the account number of Vanguard Logistic Services have been referred to in the said document Ex.PW1/6 (colly) and not that of the plaintiff company.
I have claimed the interest at the rate of 15% Digitally signed by per annum as deposed by me in para 11 of my RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL affidavit as in the invoice the rate of interest KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.01.20
12:50:40
has been claimed at the rate of 21% per annum. +0530 M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 18 of 28 ) Despite the fact that in the invoice the rate of interest has been mentioned as 21% per annum but in the present suit the interest at the rate of 15% has been claimed because as per the government policy, in case of MSME, the interest is charged at the rate of 15% in case there is a delay of payment more than 45 days.
It is correct that the plaintiff company is not registered as MSME.
It is correct that neither the plaintiff company nor Vanguard Logistic Services is registered as MSME.
The GST number as mentioned in the invoices belong to the plaintiff company also as Vanguard Logistic Services and the plaintiff company having the same GST number.
Vanguard Logistic Services is another trade name of the plaintiff company and as such Vanguard Logistic Services has no separate nomenclature.
It is correct that I have not placed on record any document indicating that Vanguard Logistic Services is another trade name of plaintiff company and neither it has been pleaded in the plaint.
It is incorrect to suggest that the plaintiff company does not have any cause of action against the defendant.
It is further wrong to suggest that I have deposed falsely in this matter.
31. If the aforesaid testimony of PW1 Manish Kumar Jha coupled with the documents as relied Digitally upon by him and pleadings of the parties are put to signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.01.20 12:50:45 +0530 M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 19 of 28 ) close scrutiny, the irresistible conclusion would be as under:-
(a) In the memo of parties, filed along with the plaint, an impression has been given that the plaintiff company is an agent of M/s Vanguard Logistics Services and the same has been reiterated in para no.1 of the plaint also. Except this, there are no further pleadings with regard to the fact that as to when the plaintiff company had been appointed as an agent of Vanguard Logistics Services? What is the status of the M/s Vanguard Logistics Services i.e whether it is a proprietorship or a partnership firm or a company ? By which documents the plaintiff company had been appointed as an agent of Vanguard Logistics Services and what was the scope of the agency? These all essential and material facts remained unanswered.
(b) During cross examination, PW1 Manish Kumar Jha admitted that he has not placed on record any document indicating that the plaintiff company is an agent of Vanguard Logistics Services and he has not placed on record any document indicating that Vanguard Logistics Services had authorised the plaintiff company to file the present suit.
Meaning thereby, the requisite authority which the plaintiff company was claiming to have on behalf of Vanguard Logistics Services, has not seen the light of the day. In the absence of the same, the locus of the plaintiff company to institute the proceedings against the defendant on behalf of the Vanguard Logistics Services has become seriously Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL doubtful.
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.01.20 12:50:49 +0530 M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 20 of 28 )
(c) In the plaint, it is pleaded that the defendant had approached the plaintiff company and placed various orders for transportation of shipments and accordingly the House Bill of Lading was raised.
It is further pleaded that the plaintiff company raised invoices in respect of the services rendered to the defendant and the said invoices were shared with the defendant from time to time but during cross examination, PW1 Manish Kumar Jha admitted that he has not placed on record any document indicating that the defendant had approached the plaintiff company and had placed various orders for transportation of shipment.
(d) Regarding the invoices, PW1 initially denied the suggestion that there is no invoice raised by the plaintiff company in the name of the defendant but when he was confronted with the invoice ExPW1/4 (colly) and the witness is asked that all the aforesaid invoices have been raised by M/s Vanguard Logistics Services and not by the plaintiff company, PW1 Manish Kumar Jha after going through the same stated that in the terms and conditions it is mentioned that Vanguard Logistic Service is a unit of Freight Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., which is the GST registrant. Thus, PW1 Manish Kumar Jha admitted that the invoices have been raised by Vanguard Logistic Service and not by the plaintiff company. Even the invoices ExPW1/4(colly), which have been placed on record, are admittedly have been raised by Vanguard Logistic Service and not by the plaintiff company.
Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL (e) Although, it was claimed that Vanguard Logistic GOEL Date:
2026.01.20 12:50:54 Services is a unit of the plaintiff company but +0530 M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 21 of 28 ) again PW1 Manish Kumar Jha admitted that the plaintiff company has not placed on record any document from where it can be inferred that the Vanguard Logistic Services is a unit of plaintiff company having same GST registration number as that of plaintiff company.
(f) In his cross examination, PW1 Manish Kumar Jha tried to give an impression that GST as mentioned in the invoices belong to the plaintiff company and the same is also belonging to the Vanguard Logistic Services but no such documentary proof has been placed on record.
(g) A little ahead, PW1 stated that the Vanguard Logistic Services is another trade name of the plaintiff company and as such Vanguard Logistic Services has no separate nomenclature. PW1 Manish Kumar Jha who was examined by the plaintiff company was playing hot and cold at the same time. On the one hand, it was claimed that the plaintiff company was an agent of Vanguard Logistic Services but subsequently, it was claimed that the Vanguard Logistic Services is another trade name of the plaintiff company. This exhibits about contradictory stand as taken by the plaintiff company.
(h) If we look at the extract of the board resolution ExPW1/2, as relied upon by the plaintiff company, the stand of the plaintiff company is further liable to be rejected. The relevant averments made in the said resolution reads ".. Mr. Manu Raj Bhalla Digitally signed by RAJESH advised the other directors and presented the need RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL to grant AUTHORITY to Mr. Manish Kumar Jha-
Date:
GOEL 2026.01.20
12:50:59
Assistant Manager, Credit Control to represent +0530 M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 22 of 28 ) M/s Freight Systems India Private Limited ( as an agent of Vanguard Logistics Services (Hong Kong) Ltd.) for recovery of dues and to initiate appropriate suit against Rashmi Arora, Proprietor of M/s Kanishka Cargo Services.".
(i) From the said resolution, it is more than clear that Vanguard Logistic Services is a limited company which appears to have been registered in Hong Kong. If the plaintiff company and the Vanguard Logistic Services are two different corporate entities, how PW1 Manish Kumar Jha is claiming that Vanguard Logistic Services is another trade name of the plaintiff company. This further falsifies the claim of the plaintiff company to the effect that the plaintiff company is a unit/agent of Vanguard Logistic Services.
(j) It is true that there is no legal bar that a corporate entity can be an agent of another corporate entity as both are artificial legal persons but there has to be some document. It cannot be by a verbal statement. As stated herein above, the entire plaint in this regard is silent.
(k) The plaintiff company has also placed reliance on statement of account ExPW1/5 (colly), but during his cross examination, PW1 Manish Kumar Jha again reiterated that the said statement of account was issued by Vanguard Logistic Services and not by the plaintiff company and he was not sure whether the said statement of account ExPW1/5 (colly) was shared with the defendant prior to Digitally filing of the present suit or not. The said statement signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL of account ExPW1/5 (colly) , which is on the KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.01.20 12:51:03 record has been issued by the Vanguard Logistic +0530 M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 23 of 28 ) Services and not by the plaintiff company. It has not been explained as to how the plaintiff company came into picture even with regard to that statement of account ExPW1/5 (colly).
(l) PW1 Manish Kumar Jha during his cross examination was referring to certain documents as email ExPW1/6(colly). The said documents are on the record. By no stretch of imagination, the said documents can be treated as an email. The communications through email would have certain elements therein i.e email address of the sender and the recipient as well; date and time of sending/receiving email etc. All this vital information is missing in the said document and I could not understand on what basis the plaintiff company through PW1 Manish Kumar Jha was claiming the said document as an email. The title of the said document is "Customer Outstanding Statement" which appears to be some communication. This claim of the PW1 Manish Kumar Jha is also liable to be rejected, hence, stands rejected.
(m) Coming to the merits of the case, the plaintiff company is basically relying upon the invoices ExPW1/4(colly), Statement of Account ExPW1/5 (colly) and emails ExPW1/6 (colly). As far as invoices ExPW1/4 (colly) are concerned, as observed earlier, the same have been issued by Vanguard Logistic Services and not by the plaintiff company and the claim of the email has also been rejected. Further from the invoices Digitally signed ExPW1/4 (colly), it cannot be inferred that the RAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date: goods were delivered to the consignee at the GOEL 2026.01.20 12:51:09 +0530 requisite destination. PW1 Manish Kumar Jha M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 24 of 28 ) during his cross examination admitted that neither in his claim nor in his evidence affidavit it has been mentioned as to when the goods actually were delivered and where the goods were delivered.
(n) Further, PW1 has not placed on record the Bill Of Lading. In addition to that the aforesaid invoices ExPW1/4 (colly) and the statement of account ExPW1/5(colly), appears to be the photocopies of the printout which admittedly have been taken from the computer. Although, PW1 Manish Kumar Jha has placed on record certificate u/s 65 B of the then Evidence Act ExPW1/9, which is not in accordance with law.
(o) The said affidavit/certificate u/s 65 B of the then Indian Evidence Act ExPW1/9 reads as under:-
"..1. I say that I am working as Asstt. Manager (Credit Control) in Delhi Office of the Plaintiff Company and am duly authorised vide BR dated 15.04.2024 and as such conversant with the facts of the present case in my official capacity and hence competent to swear this affidavit.Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.01.20 12:51:14 +0530
2. I say that accompanying documents, namely Printout of Invoices, statement of Account and E-mails are exact replica of the data stored in my systems and the said date have not been tampered in any manner and the computer system was working normally at the relevant time and was under my possession and control."
(p) The aforesaid certificate has been given by PW1 Manish Kumar Jha who claimed that the printout M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 25 of 28 ) of the invoices, statement of account and emails are exact replica of the data stored in his system and the said data was never tampered with in any manner and the computer system was working normally at the relevant time.
(q) It has come on the record that the invoices ExPW1/4(colly) and the statement of account ExPW1/5(colly) are in the name of Vanguard Logistic Services and the same had been raised and issued by Vanguard Logistic Services and not by the plaintiff company. As per the extract of board resolution ExPW1/2, Manish Kumar Jha (PW1) is working as Assistant Manager ( Credit- Control) in the plaintiff company and not in the Vanguard Logistic Services. It has not been explained how PW1 Manish Kumar Jha could have access to the data in the form of invoices ExPW1/4(colly) and the statement of account ExPW1/5 (colly) belonging to another corporate entity namely Vanguard Logistic Services. Meaning thereby, the claim made by the PW1 Manish Kumar Jha in the said certificate ExPW1/9 is not genuine. The said certificate, ExPW1/9, is no certificate in the eyes of law. That being so, the invoices ExPW1/4 (colly) and the statement of Account ExPW1/5(colly), cannot be read in evidence.
32. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff company namely M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd. has failed to establish that it has a Digitally signed by RAJESH valid cause of action against the defendant; there RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.01.20 appears to be no privity of contract between the 12:51:20 +0530 M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 26 of 28 ) plaintiff company and the defendant; there may be contractual relationship between the defendant and the Vanguard Logistic Services but the present suit has not been filed by the Vanguard Logistic Services which was a necessary party to the present litigation; even if one of the terms and conditions, as mentioned in the invoices, reads as Vanguard Logistic Services is a unit of M/s Freight System (I) Pvt. Ltd. which has GST registrant, it would not be sufficient to accept that Vanguard Logistic Services which is admittedly a corporate entity, had given any authority to the plaintiff company to institute and file the present suit against the defendant. In these circumstances, issue no.2,3 and 4 are decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff company.
Issue no.5 In case the issue no.4 is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest? If so, at what rate and for what period? (OPP)
33. In view of my finding on issue no. 2,3 and 4, the question of awarding any interest does not arise. Hence, issue no.5 is answered accordingly.
Issue no.6 Relief Digitally signed
34. In view of my findings on issue no.2,3 4, & 5 , the RAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.01.20 12:51:24 +0530 present suit of the plaintiff company is hereby M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 27 of 28 ) dismissed.
35. There is no order as to costs.
36. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
37. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Digitally signedRAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.01.20 12:51:29 +0530 (Rajesh Kumar Goel) District Judge (Commercial)-02 Central, Tis Hazari Courts 20.1.2026 Announced in the Open Court today i.e: 20.01.2026 M/s Freight Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs Rashmi Arora Date of judgment 20.01.2026 Page 28 of 28 )