Delhi District Court
Mohd Aazad vs Dheeraj Malhotra on 12 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. BRIJESH KUMAR GARG
DISTRICT JUDGE COMMERCIAL COURT-01, SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 496/24
CNR No. DLSH01-005857-2024
MOHD. AAZAD
Sole Proprietor of M/s. Mohabbe Ali Medals
Office at C-76, Street No. 4, C-Block, Mohanpuri,
Maujpur, North East, Delhi-110053.
Contact No. 9871454710.
.....Plaintiff
Versus
MR. DHEERAJ MALHOTRA,
Proprietor of M/s. Kunj Enterprises
Office at - Basement and Ground Floor,
12/52, Pioneer Complex, Site IV,
Industrial Area, Sahibabad,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-20 1010.
.....Defendant
Date of filing of the case : 18.09.2024
Date of conclusion of the final arguments : 02.06.2025
Date of judgment : 12.07.2025
JUDGMENT
The present commercial suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.90,79,630/-, 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 selling Cup, Trophy, Shields, Medals and Sports goods/items etc., and the defendant, who was having business relations with the plaintiff since the year 2011, used to place orders with the plaintiff for supply of aforesaid items on credit basis, by placing BRIJESH Digitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR GARG KUMAR Date: 2025.07.12 CS (Comm.) No.496/24 page 1 of 13 GARG D.J.(Commercial 15:30:50 +0530 Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi telephonic orders.
2. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendant also used to make payments to the plaintiff, during the normal course of business, and therefore, the plaintiff used to maintain a ledger account.
3. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff used to supply the ordered products to the defendant, from time to time, and used to issue tax invoices on credit basis, and most of the times, the employees of the defendant used to take the delivery of the goods from the plaintiff.
4. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendant was doing his business, initially, from his office at 194N/6/D1, Shri Ram Colony, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. But, after some time, he shifted his business to Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, and also got his GST number changed. It is further stated that in spite of shifting the office from Delhi to Uttar Pradesh, the defendant continued to place orders with the plaintiff and the plaintiff used to supply the goods to the defendant, as per his requirements/orders.
5. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff had lastly supplied the goods worth Rs.33,040/-, against bill No.089 on 25.03.2021, and thereafter, there was no business transaction with the defendant. It is further stated that on 14.12.2022, the defendant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/-, in the bank account of the plaintiff, through IMPS, in order to discharge his part liability, and thereafter, as per the ledger account maintained Digitally signed by BRIJESH BRIJESH KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.07.12 GARG 15:31:01 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.496/24 page 2 of 13 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi by the plaintiff, an amount of Rs.85,65,689/- was due and outstanding as on 14.12.2022, on which interest of Rs.5,13,941/- has also accrued @18% per annum, for the period w.e.f. April, 2024 till August, 2024. It is further stated that the plaintiff is therefore, entitled for recovery of a total amount of Rs.90,79,630/-, alongwith pendentelite and future interest @18% per annum, and hence, the present suit.
6. After filing of the present suit, the summons of the suit for settlement of issues were duly served upon the defendant, and on 13.11.2024, the written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant, wherein, it was stated that the defendant was running his business in the name and style of M/s Kunj Enterprises, from 194/N6/D/1, Shri Ram Colony, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, being its proprietor, and the said firm M/s Kunj Enterprises was closed w.e.f. 01.10.2020. It is further stated that the account between the said firm and the plaintiff was settled and stands paid in full.
7. It is further stated in the written statement that w.e.f. 18.09.2019, there were business transactions between M/s Kunj Enterprises, from its office, at 12/52, Pioneer Complex, Site-IV, Industrial Area, Shahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P., and last purchase was made by the defendant against Bill No.089 dated 25.03.2021, for an amount of Rs.33,040/-.
8. It is further stated in the written statement that the defendant continued to make payments to the defendant and as on 14.12.2022, only an amount of Rs.11,689/- was due or Digitally signed payable by the defendant. BRIJESH by BRIJESH KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.07.12 GARG 15:31:09 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.496/24 page 3 of 13 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
9. It is further stated in the written statement that the defendant was working from his office at Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P., and therefore, the present suit is not maintainable.
10. It is further stated that the plaintiff has mischievously claimed the amount of Rs.27,32,950/- attributable to M/s Kunj Enterprises, situated at Shri Ram Colony, Shahdara, Delhi. But, the said firm is extinct since September, 2019. It is further stated that the plaintiff has filed the ledger account. But, the said ledger account does not reflect any carry forward balance on the opening date, i.e., 18.09.2019. Therefore, the amount of Rs.27,32,950/- attributable to M/s Kunj Enterprises has been wrongly and mischievously claimed by the plaintiff in the present suit. It is further objected by the defendant that the suit of the plaintiff is also barred by limitation as no cause of action has arisen after 25.03.2021.
11. It is further stated in the written statement that the plaintiff has prepared a false ledger and has wrongly claimed the amount of Rs.85,29,000/- from the defendant. It is further stated that the payments made by the defendant, in cash, during the period w.e.f. 19.09.2019 to 13.12.2022, have not been posted or credited in the ledger account. The details of payments made by the defendant, to the plaintiff, in cash, worth Rs.43,79,000/- are also mentioned in the written statement.
12. It is further stated in the written statement that the defendant had already paid the substantial amount and only an amount of Rs.11,689/- remains payable by the defendant. It has been prayed that the suit of the plaintiffBRIJESH may therefore, be Digitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR GARG KUMAR Date: 2025.07.12 D.J.(CommercialGARG 15:31:19 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.496/24 page 4 of 13 Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi dismissed with costs.
13. Replication to the written statement of the defendant was also filed, on behalf of the plaintiff, wherein, the plaintiff has denied the contents of the written statement and has reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint, as correct.
14. After completion of pleadings, First Case Management hearing was conducted on 29.04.2025 and from the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed, as under:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim/recover the principal amount of Rs.85,68,689/-, 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.
15. After framing of issues, vide order dated 29.04.2025, with the consent of the parties, a local commissioner was also appointed to record the evidence of the parties and accordingly, the Ld. Local Commissioner recorded the evidence of the parties, and submitted her report, alongwith the complete record of evidence, in the court on 02.06.2025.
16. During the trial, the plaintiff has examined himself, as PW-1. Whereas, the defendant has examined his wife Kanchan Malhotra, as DW-1, and the officials from RBL Bank Ltd. and Axis Bank, as DW-2 and DW-3 respectively. It is relevant to note that the defendant has failed to examine himself, during the trial, despite ample opportunity and despite filing his affidavit of BRIJESH Digitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR Date: 2025.07.12 KUMAR GARG CS (Comm.) No.496/24 page 5 of 13 GARG 15:31:30 +0530 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi evidence.
17. After completion of trial, final arguments were addressed by Sh. Parvez Ahmad, Advocate, for the plaintiff and Sh. Vijay Sharma, Sh. Shantanu Bhardwaj and Ms. Avantika Kularri, Advocates, for the defendant, on 02.06.2025. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has also filed his written arguments.
18. During the course of arguments, it was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff has proved the various documents on record. The ledger account has been proved on record as Ex.PW1/4 and the various invoices have been proved on record as Ex.PW1/3. He has further argued that the defendant has never objected to the delivery of goods and as per the ledger account an amount of Rs.86,65,689/- was due and payable by the defendant. He has further argued that despite service of the legal notice, the defendant has not given any reply to the said notice and has failed to make any payment. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff may be decreed with interest and costs.
19. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case and it a settled legal proposition that the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and the deficiencies in the defence of the defendant cannot prove the case of the plaintiff. He has further argued that the plaintiff has failed to file any certificate or affidavit under Order XI Rule 6 CPC, as amended for the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, to prove his computer generated documents and the ledger account. He has further argued that the plaintiff has failed to give benefit of an amount of Rs.27,29,000/-, which was paid by the BRIJESH Digitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.07.12 CS (Comm.) No.496/24 page 6 of 13 GARG 15:31:39 +0530 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi defendant through his banker RBL Bank, to the plaintiff on various dates. He has further argued that the defendant has also made further payment of Rs.58,00,000/- to the plaintiff in cash against various vouchers, and therefore, the defendant had already paid a total amount of Rs.85,29,000/- and only an amount of Rs.11,689/- was due and payable by the defendant. He has prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be therefore, dismissed with costs. The Ld. Counsel for the defendant has also relied upon the following judgments, in support of his contentions:
(i) "P.D. Verma and Co. vs. Laxmi Builders", passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in 'RFA 359/2005' on 29.10.2014.
(ii) "Rangammal vs. Kupposwami & Anr.", reported as, 'AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2344';
(iii) "M/s J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. M/s Dynamic Cement Trader", passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in CS (OS) No.782/1998, on 13.09.2012.
20. 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. I have also perused the judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant, in support of his contentions. My findings on the various issues are as under:
Issue No. 1Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim/recover the principal amount of Rs.85,68,689/-, from the defendant, as claimed in the plaint ? OPP
21. The burden to prove this issue lies on the plaintiff and in support of his contentions, the plaintiff has examined himself, as BRIJESH Digitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.07.12 CS (Comm.) No.496/24 page 7 of 13 GARG 15:31:49 +0530 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi 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 supplied the goods to the defendant, as per his directions and the defendant also made part payments towards the amount of the goods supplied. It is further reiterated that as per the ledger account, an amount of Rs.85,65,689/- was due and payable by the defendant, as on 01.04.2024, on which, an amount of Rs.5,13,941/- had accrued as interest @18% per annum w.e.f. April, 2024 to August, 2024. It has been denied that the defendant made cash payments worth Rs.58,00,000/-, during the period w.e.f. 19.09.2019 to 13.12.2022. He has also denied that only an amount of Rs.11,689/- was due or payable by the defendant.
22. During the trial, the plaintiff was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination, on behalf of the defendant, wherein, the plaintiff has admitted various payments received from the defendant from time to time, through his banker. The plaintiff has admitted that a payment of Rs.1,00,000/- was received by him from the defendant, on 22.05.2020, through his banker Axis Bank. He has further admitted the receipt of Rs.2,00,000/-, on 21.09.2019; receipt of Rs.50,000/- on 27.09.2019; receipt of Rs.4,50,000/- on 30.09.2019; receipt of Rs.50,000/- 09.10.2019; receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- on 14.11.2019; Rs.2,00,000 on 10.02.2020; Rs.2,00,000 on 14.02.2020; Rs.50,000/- on 25.12.2020; Rs.2,00,000/- on 12.11.2020; and a sum of Rs.29,000/- on 27.08.2021, through his bank account at Axis Bank. The plaintiff has further admitted the receipt of BRIJESH Digitally by BRIJESH signed KUMAR Date: 2025.07.12 KUMAR GARG GARG 15:31:57 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.496/24 page 8 of 13 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi Rs.10,00,000/- from the defendant on 17.10.2019 through his banker RBL Bank Ltd. The aforementioned payments, which were admitted by the plaintiff during his cross-examination, comes to Rs.27,29,000/-. But, perusal of the ledger account of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/4 indicates that none of these payments are mentioned in this ledger account.
23. During the trial, the plaintiff was also confronted with the bank statement of the defendant from his RBL Bank Ltd. statement and the said bank statement was placed on record as Mark PW1/D1 (Collectively). All the aforesaid admitted payments are duly reflected in the bank statement Mark PW1/D1.
24. During the trial, in order to prove the aforesaid payments, through his banker RBL Bank Ltd. and Axis Bank, the defendant has also examined the banks officials of the aforesaid banks as DW2 and DW3 respectively. DW2 Amit Srivastava from RBL Bank Ltd. has proved the statement of bank account of the defendant M/s Kunj Enterprises for the period w.e.f. 19.09.2019 to 31.12.2022 (running into 62 pages), as Ex.DW2/1 (collectively). DW3 Bijay Thakur from Axis Bank, has proved the statement of bank account of the defendant M/s Kunj Enterprises for the period w.e.f. 19.09.2019 to 31.12.2022 (running into 29 pages), as Ex.DW3/1 (collectively).
25. From the deposition of the plaintiff, his cross-examination, his documents, including the ledger account and the bank statements, proved on record by the parties, it is clear that the plaintiff has failed to give the credit of bank payments, to the defendant, worth Rs.27,29,000/-, while preparing BRIJESH his ledger Digitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.07.12 GARG 15:32:06 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.496/24 page 9 of 13 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi account Ex.PW1/4.
26. During the trial, the defendant has not objected to the delivery of goods, at any point of time. However, he has taken a defence that he made additional payments to the plaintiff worth Rs.58,00,000/-, in cash. The defendant has also filed photocopies of the cash vouchers, allegedly containing the signatures of the plaintiff. But, during the trial, the original cash vouchers could not be produced by the defendant, and therefore, the cash vouchers, running into 23 pages, could not be proved by the defendant. It is also very relevant to note that despite ample opportunities, the defendant has failed to examine himself. The defendant has filed his affidavit, but, he failed to appear before the court for his examination, to prove his defence of making cash payments worth Rs.58,00,000/- to the plaintiff. The defendant has therefore, failed to produce the best available evidence, available with him, for the reasons best known to him.
27. During the trial, the defendant has examined his wife Smt.Kanchan Malhotra, as DW-1. But, perusal of her affidavit Ex.DW1/A and her testimony recorded by the ld. Local Commissioner on 27.05.2025, clearly indicate that DW-1 Kanchan Malhotra was not competent to depose on behalf of the defendant, for want of any authorization by the defendant.
28. 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. Digitally signed by BRIJESH BRIJESH KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.07.12 CS (Comm.) No.496/24 page 10 of 13 GARG D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi 15:32:16 +0530 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) Therefore, in view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the affidavit of DW1 Smt. Kanchan Malhotra and her testimony is of no benefit of the defendant.
29. From the material on record, it is therefore, clear that the defendant should have been given the benefit of payments worth Rs.27,29,000/-. But, no benefit can be given to him for the alleged cash payments worth Rs.58,00,000/-. Therefore, this issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to claim only an amount of Rs.58,36,689/-.
Issue No. 2Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest from the defendant? If so, at what rate and for which Digitally signed by BRIJESH BRIJESH KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.07.12 GARG 15:32:26 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.496/24 page 11 of 13 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi period? OPP
30. 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 interest @18% per annum. In the tax invoices filed on record, it is mentioned that an interest @24% p.a. will be charged on over due payments. But, no period of payment has been mentioned in the Invoices. Furthermore, the said 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 Section 34 CPC, the said rate of interest can exceed 6%, in case of commercial transactions.
31. 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) BRIJESH Digitally by BRIJESH signed KUMAR Date: 2025.07.12 KUMAR GARG GARG 15:32:33 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.496/24 page 12 of 13 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
32. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is also entitled to claim interest @9% per annum on the amount of Rs.58,36,689/- w.e.f. 01.01.2023, till the date of its realization.
This issue is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, accordingly.
Relief
33. In view of my findings on the various issues, as discussed above, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed, in his favour and against the defendant, and a money decree is passed for an amount of Rs.58,36,689/-, with interest @9% per annum, w.e.f. 01.01.2023, 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.
Announced in the open Court BRIJESH Digitally signed
by BRIJESH
on this 12th Day of July, 2025 KUMAR KUMAR GARG
Date: 2025.07.12
GARG 15:32:40 +0530
BRIJESH KUMAR GARG
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
Shahdara Distt, KKD, Delhi
CS (Comm.) No.496/24 page 13 of 13 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi