Delhi District Court
Nawal Khanna vs Bhupesh Gupta on 11 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. SUGANDHA AGGARWAL,
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 55637/2016
CNR No: DLND010001652015
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mr. Nawal Khanna (deceased)
Through Legal Heirs
1A. Mrs. Sangeeta Khanna
W/o Late Sh. Nawal Khanna,
R/o B-76, 4th Floor, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi - 110057
1B. Mr. Namit Khanna
S/o Late Sh. Nawal Khanna,
R/o B-76, 4th Floor, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi - 110057
1C. Ms. Suhana Manchanda
D/o Late Sh. Nawal Khanna,
R/o A-12/5, 2nd Floor, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi - 110057
...Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Mr. Bhupesh Gupta,
S/o Subhash Gupta,
City Square Mall, Dogra Chownk,
Jammu, J & K 180001
CS No. 55637/16 Nawal Khanna Vs. Bhupesh Gupta Page 1 of 13
2. Sh. Subhash Gupta
City Square Mall, Dogra Chownk,
Jammu, J & K 180001
...Defendants
Date of filing the suit : 23.09.2015
Date when reserved for order : 09.04.2026
Date of Order : 11.04.2026
Decision : Decreed
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide the suit for recovery of sum of Rs. 13,68,268/- towards compensation for loss/damages caused by breach of contract by the defendants.
Pleadings
2. The facts as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff Mr. Naval Khanna was an architect, he was engaged in the business of sale and purchase of video games, bowling alleys and setting up Family Entertainment centres under the name and style of M/s Indesign International. The defendant claimed to be co-owners of City Square Mall in Jammu and proposed to set up a Family Entertainment centre there.
3. It is contended that in September 2014, both the defendants visited the office of plaintiff in Delhi and expressed their willingness to purchase Family Entertainment equipments such as video games, bowling alley etc. from the plaintiff. It is further contended that the defendants shared the "AutoCAD"
CS No. 55637/16 Nawal Khanna Vs. Bhupesh Gupta Page 2 of 13drawings of the proposed site with the plaintiff and after studying the drawings, the plaintiff prepared a proposal for setting up the amusement centre along with photographs of the video games and other equipments. He also prepared a proforma invoice totaling to a sum of Rs. 98,63,313/- as the cost at which he would sell the goods to the defendants. All these documents were sent to the defendants on 14.10.2014.
4. It is further stated that defendants suggested certain changes and after incorporating those changes on 22.10.2014, the plaintiff issued two proforma invoices; one amounting to Rs. 1,16,84,063/- and another amounting to Rs. 79,63,500/- so that the defendants can have a choice and decide and finalize one out of these. Defendants expressed their satisfaction with respect to proforma invoice and visited the office of plaintiff on 29.10.2014 to place the order. In this meeting, the defendants further suggested some changes which were incorporated and final proforma invoice was generated amounting to sum of Rs. 92,15,212/-. As per the terms and conditions of the proforma invoice, 50% payment was to be made in advance and 50% at the time of shipment of the goods.
5. It is further contended that the defendants could not arrange the 50% amount to be paid in advance as per the proforma invoice which was finalized on 29.10.2014. At request of the defendants, plaintiff accepted Rs. 2,00,000/- as token money to finalize the order believing on the assurance of the defendants that the balance amount of the 50% advance amount shall be paid within seven days.
CS No. 55637/16 Nawal Khanna Vs. Bhupesh Gupta Page 3 of 136. After receiving confirmation from the defendants on 29.10.2014, the plaintiff prepared a layout plan and the same was sent to the defendants on 03.11.2014. On 05.11.2014, plaintiff visited the office of the defendants at Jammu after giving prior intimation for the site inspection as decided earlier. During this inspection visit, the plaintiff reminded the defendants that they had promised to give 50% advance. However, during this meeting, the defendants had shown their inability to continue with the proforma invoice as decided due to financial commitments and requested to reduce the number of games thereby reducing the order value.
7. It is further contended that the plaintiff had shown his displeasure on the same but after negotiations on 05.11.2014, the final value was decided as Rs. 76,21,200/-. Due to paucity of time, the earlier proforma invoice dated 29.10.2014 was rectified and a printout was taken in the office of the defendants which was signed by the defendant no. 1 and plaintiff. It is further contended that as per the understanding between the parties, defendant no. 2 was equally liable for the terms of proforma invoice being the son of defendant no. 1.
8. Despite finalizing all these details, the defendants failed to pay the 50% advance amount of Rs. 38,10,600/- and paid only a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- through RTGS in the plaintiff's bank. However, as the defendants had entered into a written agreement with the plaintiff, there was a binding contract between the parties. The plaintiff proceeded to purchase all the necessary games, equipments and accessories as ordered by the defendants and incurred CS No. 55637/16 Nawal Khanna Vs. Bhupesh Gupta Page 4 of 13 huge expenses on the same. The equipments purchased by the plaintiff has been detailed in paragraph no. 18 of the plaint and as per the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has purchased articles worth Rs. 13, 88,094/- and further incurred expenses on the execution of the project.
9. It is further contended that after 10.11.2014 plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendants to arrange for delivery of articles and make the balance payment as per the terms of contract entered between the parties. However on 25.11.2014, the defendants visited the office of the plaintiff with one Mr. Virender Saluja and stated that they want to cancel the order. The plaintiff did not agree for the same and also tried to make the defendants understand that he has already incurred expenses in executing the order. Vide email dated 28.11.2014, the plaintiff informed the defendants that the order cannot be cancelled. Further vide email dated 03.12.2014, the plaintiff reiterated that 90% of goods have already been purchased and are ready to be delivered and order cannot be cancelled because it will amount to huge monetary loss to the plaintiff. It is further contended that despite trying to convince the defendants they did not adhere to terms and on 24.12.2014 they had sent an email stating that the order placed by them stands cancelled. The email was replied by the plaintiff on 27.12.2014. It is further contended that plaintiff has also sent a legal notice to the defendants dated 07.01.2025 however, the defendants failed to honour their commitments.
10. It is further contended that all the equipments were already purchased and were customized. In order to minimize the loss, plaintiff was forced to sell all these goods at a loss to alternate buyers. As per the case of plaintiff, CS No. 55637/16 Nawal Khanna Vs. Bhupesh Gupta Page 5 of 13 the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 12,96,651/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from April 2015 till September 2015 totaling to Rs. 13,68,268/- from the defendants for the damages and loss suffered by the plaintiff due to termination of the agreement by the defendants. Hence, the present suit was filed.
11. Both the defendants were duly served but failed to file the written statement within stipulated time period. Consequently, their defence was struck off vide order dated 18.02.2016. Subsequently, on an application by the defendants moved under Section 151 CPC their written statement was taken on record after condoning the delay subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- vide order dated 04.07.2019. However, as per the record, defendants were not regularly appearing and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 11.01.2024. As per the record, defendant has not paid the cost of Rs. 5,000/- subject to which written statement was to be taken on record, therefore, the written statements filed by the defendants cannot be considered.
Issues
12. After completion of the pleadings and from material on record, following issues were framed on 18.02.2016:-
Issue no. 1: Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 13,68,268/- along with interest @12% p.a.? OPP.
Issue no. 2: Relief.
13. After deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 10 & 11 (d) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, the Ld. Predecessor had framed CS No. 55637/16 Nawal Khanna Vs. Bhupesh Gupta Page 6 of 13 one additional issue vide order dated 04.07.2019:-
Issue no. 3: Whether this court has any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit nor any cause of action has arisen before its jurisdiction? OPD.
Plaintiff's Evidence
14. In order to prove the case, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. He has filed his evidence by way of affidavit in examination-in-chief which is Ex. PW1/A wherein he has reiterated the contents of plaint on oath. PW-1 has relied upon various documents i.e. (1) E ticket is Ex. PW1/A. (2) Original proforma invoice is Ex. PW1/B. (3) Original payment receipts of super amusement are Ex. PW1/C-1 to Ex. PW1/C-9.
(4) Original payment receipts issued by eternity international are Ex.PW1/D-1 and Ex. PW1/D-2.
(5) Original invoices of Shyamji Overseas are Ex.PW1/E-1 and E-2. (6) Original proforma invoice of Kraska Zone Mumbai is Ex.PW1/F. (7) E-mails exchanged between the parties is Ex.PW1/G (colly). (8) Letter dated 24.12.2014 issued by defendant is Ex.PW1/H. (9) Email dated 27.12.2014 is Ex.PW1/I. (10) Office copy of legal notice is Ex.PW1/J. (11) Original invoices dated 28.01.15, 04.03.15 and 25.03.15 are Ex.PW1/K-1 to Ex.PW1/K-3.
15. PW-1 could not be cross-examined on behalf of defendants due to his CS No. 55637/16 Nawal Khanna Vs. Bhupesh Gupta Page 7 of 13 demise.
16. Thereafter, Sh. Namit Khanna was examined as PW-2. He has also tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/1. PW-2 has relied upon the documents already exhibited as Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/J and Ex.PW1/K-1 to Ex.PW1/K-3 which were exhibited on 08.01.2020 during the recording of evidence of PW-1 Sh. Nawal Khanna, the deceased plaintiff. PW-2 was not cross examined as defendants were proceeded ex-parte.
17. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff. Thereafter, PE was closed and matter was reserved for ex-parte final arguments vide order dated 11.01.2024.
Findings
18. I have considered the arguments made on behalf of the plaintiff and have perused the record. My issuewise findings is as follows:-
Issue no. 3: Whether this court has any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit nor any cause of action has arisen before its jurisdiction? OPD.
19. Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant, however, as defendant was proceeded ex-parte, no evidence has been lead by the defendants. Even their written statement could not be considered as the cost was not paid.
20. The issue regarding the jurisdiction being legal issue has to be decided by the court even in absence of any evidence raised by the defendant.
21. The plaintiff has averred in the plaint that he is the proprietor of M/s CS No. 55637/16 Nawal Khanna Vs. Bhupesh Gupta Page 8 of 13 Indesign International operating from 301, Vasant Plaza, Olof Palme Marg, New Delhi-110067. It is pleaded in the plaint that both the defendants visited the office of plaintiff on the above-mentioned address in September 2014 with an offer of the project in question. Thereafter, on 29.10.2014 again both the defendants visited the above-mentioned office of the plaintiff and finalized the proforma invoice for a sum of Rs. 92,15,212/-. As per the case of the plaintiff, the initial amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- which was paid as token money was also paid at the above-mentioned office by the defendants on 29.10.2014. All these facts have been duly testified by PW-2 Namit Khanna on oath. His testimony is unrebutted and unchallenged. These facts duly prove that a part of cause of action has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Hence, the present issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue no. 1: Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 13,68,268/- along with interest @12% p.a.? OPP.
22. Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. It is pleaded that both the defendants approached the plaintiff in September 2014 for setting up Family Entertainment centres at their mall in Jammu. After negotiations on 29.10.2014, proforma invoice was finalized amounting to Rs. 76,21,200/-. It is further pleaded that in pursuance of the agreement between the parties plaintiff purchased the gaming equipment from various vendors and incurred expenditure totaling to Rs. 39,15,096/-. However, the defendants did not accept the delivery of these articles and instead of this cancelled the CS No. 55637/16 Nawal Khanna Vs. Bhupesh Gupta Page 9 of 13 agreement between the parties. Owing to this plaintiff was compelled to sell all the purchased articles at a lower price to minimize his loss. It is also pleaded that the act of defendants caused mental agony to the plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff has claimed Rs. 12,96,651/-. Plaintiff has also given the break-up of amount claimed in affidavit of PW-2 Mr. Namit Khanna which is as follows:
a. Rs. 10,62,555/- (Towards Loss of Profit @15% on order of Rs. 70,83,700/- (without tax) b. Rs. 41,096/- (which is the amount arrived at by calculating the total advance given to suppliers i.e. Rs. 39,15,096/- less sale proceeds from sale of games at discounted rates Rs. 24,24,000/- less advance received from the defendant Rs. 15,00,000/-).
c. Rs. 12,000/- (towards direct expenses) d. Rs. 81,000/- (towards indirect expenses) e. Rs. 1,00,000/- (towards mental harassment)
23. All the above stated facts as pleaded in the plaint were initially testified by the plaintiff Sh. Nawal Khanna, however, he could not be cross-examined due to his demise therefore his affidavit cannot be considered.
24. Subsequently, his son namely Mr. Namit Khanna has been examined as PW-2. He has also filed his affidavit Ex. PW-2/1 and has testified the above-
mentioned facts on oath. The testimony of the witness is duly supported by the payment receipts issued by the vendors from which plaintiff has purchased the gaming equipments to be delivered to the defendants as per the agreement, the emails exchanged between the parties and the original CS No. 55637/16 Nawal Khanna Vs. Bhupesh Gupta Page 10 of 13 proforma invoices. Neither the testimony of the plaintiff nor the documents have been controverted by the defendants and hence gone unrebutted and unchallenged. Thus the plaintiff has proved the facts as pleaded in the plaint, however, the plaintiff cannot be awarded the entire amount as claimed.
(a) Rs. 10,62,555/- (Towards Loss of Profit @15% on order of Rs. 70,83,700/-(without tax)
25. It appears that this is the margin of profit which plaintiff kept for himself in the proposal given to defendants. Admittedly the agreement could not be concluded and the goods were never delivered to the defendants. Further, plaintiff has claimed the differential amount which he actually lost due to selling the purchased gaming equipments on a lower price under category (b). Therefore, in these circumstances, this amount of Rs. 10,62,555/- cannot be awarded to the plaintiff as this is not the actual loss suffered by the plaintiff.
(b) Rs. 41,096/- (which is the amount arrived at by calculating the total advance given to suppliers i.e. Rs. 39,15,096/- less sale proceeds from sale of games at discounted rates Rs. 24,24,000/- less advance received from the defendant Rs. 15,00,000/-).
26. As already discussed above, the plaintiff has duly proved that he has suffered this much of loss. Therefore, this amount is awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
CS No. 55637/16 Nawal Khanna Vs. Bhupesh Gupta Page 11 of 13c. Rs. 12,000/- (towards direct expenses) d. Rs. 81,000/- (towards indirect expenses)
27. The details regarding the expenses incurred have been given in the affidavit Ex. PW-2/1 which as stated above has not been controverted. Hence, duly proved and this amount is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
e. Rs. 1,00,000/- (towards mental harassment)
28. Plaintiff claimed that when the defendants have abruptly cancelled the order, he has suffered mental agony. From the pleadings in the plaint, it transpires that the said amount has been claimed only as personal injury caused to the plaintiff due to the conduct of the defendants and the claim is purely on the account of mental harassment suffered by the plaintiff. The claim does not in any manner relate or affect the estate of the plaintiff, thus, this claim is independent of financial loss suffered by the plaintiff in his business. Plaintiff has already expired and any personal relief claimed extinguish with the death of the party. Further, even the plaintiff has failed to disclose such facts which would have entitled him to this amount for mental harassment and only a vague plea has been taken in plaint to this effect. Therefore, in these circumstances, this amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- cannot be awarded to the plaintiff.
Issue no. 2: Relief.
29. In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is partly CS No. 55637/16 Nawal Khanna Vs. Bhupesh Gupta Page 12 of 13 decreed and held entitled for recovery of Rs. 1,34,096/- along with pendente lite and future interest @12% per annum against the defendants. Cost of litigation also awarded in favour of the plaintiffs.
30. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
31. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Dr. Sugandha Aggarwal) District Judge-04, Patiala House Court, New Delhi This judgment contains 13 pages and all pages have been duly signed by me.
(Announced in the open court on 11th April 2026) (Dr. Sugandha Aggarwal) District Judge-04, Patiala House Court, New Delhi CS No. 55637/16 Nawal Khanna Vs. Bhupesh Gupta Page 13 of 13