Delhi District Court
M/S Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd on 5 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-06
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSE01-010443-2024
CS (COMM) No.3763/2024
M/s Divulge Solutions Private Limited
B-32/46, A-1,
Saket Nagar,
Varanasi
Uttar Pradesh-221005.
... Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd.
1675/4, Ground Floor, Right Side
Gali No.2, Govindpuri,
South Delhi-110019.
....Defendant
Date of institution of the suit : 07.10.2024
Date on which judgment was reserved : 22.01.2026
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 05.02.2026
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
1. By way of this judgment, I shall decide the suit of the Plaintiff filed for recovery of Rs.14,40,630/- alongwith interest.
NEERA
2. The Plaintiff filed the present suit against two Defendants on BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 1 of 36 15:52:00 +0530 account of the fault on the part of the Defendants to clear the outstanding dues towards the Plaintiff i.e. beside the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff had also impleaded M/s SBGV Techmagnate Digital Pvt. Ltd. (Hereinafter referred to as 'Techmagnate').
3. The Plaintiff had submitted that the Defendant and Techmagnate are Private Limited Companies providing consultancy services for the purpose of promotion and development of the digital marketing campaign for its clients. Techmagnate approached the Plaintiff in the month of December 2021 and signed a Service and Non-Disclosure Agreement for digital marketing services with the Plaintiff.
4. Erstwhile Defendant No.1, i.e. Techmagnate, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC for its deletion and the same was allowed vide order dated 17.04.2025 wherein it was observed that the Service and Non-Disclosure Agreement presented by the Plaintiff does not bear the signatures of Techmagnate and therefore cannot be considered valid. In view of deletion of Techmagnate vide order dated 17.04.2025, the reference to erstwhile Defendant No.2 (which is now the sole Defendant) has been referred to as Defendant in this judgment.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS SET UP IN THE PLAINT
5. Brief facts of the case as stated by the Plaintiff in the plaint are that:
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 of 36 by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:52:11 +0530
a) Plaintiff is a Private Limited Company and is engaged in purchase, sell and installation of various medical equipment and machinery. The present suit has been filed through Shri Sudarshan Lahiry, Director / Authorized Representative of the Plaintiff who has been authorized vide Power of Attorney to file the present suit on behalf of the Plaintiff.
b) Techmagnate is a Private limited and it provides consultancy services for the purposes of promotion and development of the digital marketing campaign for its clients. Techmagnate had approached the Plaintiff in the month of December, 2021 and signed a "Service and Non-Disclosure Agreement" for Digital Marketing Services.
c) As per the terms outlined in the purchase orders, it was agreed that upon rendering the services, the payment would be made within 30 days from the date of respective invoices.
d) On 04.05.2022 & 01.06.2022, purchase orders were issued by Defendant through e-mail 16.05.2022 & 29.08.2022 respectively from [email protected] to the Plaintiff for the sum of the total amount of Rs.15,01,500/- for 429 FTD (First-time-Deposit) at a unit price of Rs.3,500/- each.
e) In lieu of the same, the Plaintiff raised invoices as mentioned below:-
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 36 by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:52:21 +0530 Sl. Invoice No. Date Amount (in Rupees) No. 1 DS-2022-019 04.05.2022 5,90,590/-
2 DS-2022-021 20.05.2022 1,94,105.28/-
3 DS-2022-033 02.06.2022 7,10,360/-
4 DS-2022-048 22.06.2022 1,03,250/-
5 DS-2022-050 30.06.2022 11,81,180/-
Total 27,79,485/-
Sl. Invoice No. Invoice Date Invoice Amount Payment GST Balance Due
No. Received
1 DS-2022-019 16.05.2022 Rs.5,90,590/- Rs.5,90,590/- Rs.90,090/- Nil.
2 DS-2022-021 20.05.2022 Rs.1,94,105.28/- Rs.1,64,496/- Rs.26,609.28 Rs.26,609.28
3 DS-2022-033 02.06.2022 Rs.7,10,360/- Rs.6,02,000/- Rs.1,08,360/- Rs.1,08,360/-
4 DS-2022-048 22.06.2022 Rs.1,03,250/- Nil Rs.15,750/- Rs.1,03,250/-
5 DS-2022-050 30.06.2022 Rs.11,81,180/- Nil Rs.1,80,180/- Rs.11,81,180/-
f) Total due balance - Rs.14,40,630/-.
g) The Plaintiff has already paid Goods and Services Tax at the
rate of 18% on the invoices raised against the Defendant as under:-
Sl. Invoice No. Date Amount (in GST Paid
No. Rupees)
1 DS-2022-019 04.05.2022 5,90,590/- 90,090/-
2 DS-2022-021 20.05.2022 1,94,105.28/- 29,609.28/-
3 DS-2022-033 02.06.2022 7,10,360/- 1,08,360/-
4 DS-2022-048 22.06.2022 1,03,250/- 15,750/-
5 DS-2022-050 30.06.2022 11,81,180/- 1,80,180/-
Total 27,79,485/-
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 of 36
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date:
2026.02.05
15:53:05 +0530
h) Several representations were made from the Plaintiff to
Defendant through, e-mail, WhatsApp, telephonic communications, but the Defendant paid no heed to the legal demand of the Plaintiff.
i) The Plaintiff issued legal notices to the Defendant to clear the outstanding amount. The first legal notice was sent on 16.09.2022 via Speed Post to Defendant. As per Plaintiff's Ledger Account for the year 2022-23, the Defendant had only made the payment of Rs.13,38,855/-. Hence, an outstanding dues of Rs.14,40,630/-
including interest is remaining to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.
j) Despite several reminders being sent to the Defendant, the Defendant neither contacted the Plaintiff nor paid any amount which is due towards Invoices. Since the Defendant was not forthcoming to clear its dues payable towards the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 09.06.2022 on the address of Defendant.
k) The Plaintiff had originally moved the Commercial Courts at Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh against the Defendant. However, after failure of the pre-institution mediation between the parties at Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, the Plaintiff preferred a Pre-litigation/Pre- Institution Mediation before the Competent Authority, i.e. SEDLSA, on 08.02.2022, however Defendant did not appear before the Competent Authority. Furthermore, the Non-Starter Report for NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 5 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date:
2026.02.05 15:53:13 +0530 the Pre-Institution Mediation was issued by the Competent Authority, SEDLSA, dated 15.03.2024.
6. Hence, the present suit was filed.
7. Vide order dated 17.04.2025, erstwhile Defendant No.1/ Techmagnate was deleted from memo of parties and therefore, Written Statement filed on behalf of Defendant No.2 alone will be considered in the present matter.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANT AS SET UP IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
8. Brief facts of the case as stated by the Defendant in the Written Statement are that:
a) The Defendant is a company duly registered under the Companies Act 2013, bearing CIN No. U72900DL2020PTC364665 and is engaged in the business of digital marketing campaign running across various regions with a clientele from across the globe.
b) The Defendant engaged third party consultants to provide digital marketing services to its clients and as such hired the consultancy services of erstwhile Defendant No.1/Techmagnate for the purpose of the promotion and development of the digital marketing campaign for one of Defendant's client.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 6 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:53:32 +0530
c) The Defendant has denied every allegation, averment and argument made by the Plaintiff in the present suit unless the same was specifically admitted and has stated that the present suit is absolutely frivolous as there is no outstanding payment, dues/amount owed to the Plaintiff by the Defendant.
Preliminary submissions on behalf of Defendant :
d) The Defendant has submitted that in the month of April 2022, the Defendant approached the Plaintiff through Techmagnate to provide services to Defendant's client. The services availed from the Plaintiff included and required the Plaintiff to upload details of the registration by the customers and the deposits made in lieu of such registrations on a digital platform. This digital platform is tracked in real-time by a software application which would allow the Defendant and the client to see the details of the customer registrations and deposit made therein, including details such as the time of registration and the IP address of such a registration.
e) A verbal agreement was entered into between the Plaintiff and Defendant, wherein the Plaintiff agreed to render such marketing services to the client of Defendant on a trial basis. It was explicitly understood between the parties that the conversion of this trial engagement into a permanent and ongoing business relationship would be contingent upon the outcome of the trial period, which would be evaluated based on the Plaintiff's performance (as tracked NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:53:47 +0530 on the tracking software application) and the results achieved by the Plaintiff during the trial period.
f) The Defendant made all requisite payments for the services provided by the Plaintiff during the trial period in a punctual and timely manner, adhering to the terms of the verbal agreement between the parties. The Defendant made an initial payment of Rs.2,27,500/- on 20.05.2022. Thereafter, the Defendant made the payment for an amount of Rs.1,61,206/- on 02.06.2022 and finally a payment for an amount of Rs.9,50,149/- on 15.06.2022. Thus, the total payment made by Defendant to the Plaintiff for the services during the trial period was Rs.13,38,855/-. The above-mentioned payments made by Defendant to the Plaintiff are mentioned in the chart below:
S. No. Date of Payment Amount in Rs.
1 20.05.2022 2,27,500/-
2 02.06.2022 1,61,206/-
3 15.06.2022 9,50,149/-
Total 13,38,885/-
g) The Despite making timely payments, the Plaintiff failed to
perform the services to the satisfaction of Defendant and its client.
Rather than fulfilling the obligations under the agreement, the Plaintiff provided substandard services, engaged in fraudulent activities, failing to meet the expected standards and cutting corners in execution. The client, upon noticing such fraud on part of the NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 8 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:53:54 +0530 Plaintiff, immediately informed Defendant of the same and terminated the verbal agreement alongwith the trial period.
h) The registration of a single customer requires a minimum of ten minutes, as the user is obligated to provide various details, followed by the deposit process. Additionally, each customer registration is associated with a unique and distinct IP address. Upon conducting a thorough review of the tracking software application, it was discovered that several customer registrations were made within a very short span of time, often just a few minutes apart, all originating from the same IP address. These instances raised significant concerns, as it is highly improbable for genuine customers to complete the registration process, which requires at least ten minutes, within such a brief time frame. Given that the registration process inherently takes a minimum of ten minutes to complete, it is highly unusual for multiple registrations to be made from the same IP address in such rapid succession. The absence of deposits, combined with the fact that these registrations occurred within a matter of minutes of each other, strongly suggested fraudulent activity on part of the Plaintiff whilst registering such users. These registrations, characterized by identical IP addresses, lack of deposits, and suspicious timing, are therefore clearly indicative of fake registrations and potential abuse of the system for fraudulent purposes by the Plaintiff.
i) Thus, upon discovering the fraudulent activities of the NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 9 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:54:01 +0530 Plaintiff and the gross breach of the verbal agreement between the Parties, Defendant terminated the said trial period on 20.06.2022.
j) The Plaintiff's inadequate performance, fraudulent activities and failure to meet the agreed scope of work led to the client's decision to terminate its engagement not only with the Plaintiff but also with Defendant. As a result, the Defendant suffered significant financial losses, in addition to damage to its professional reputation and goodwill, which were directly attributable to the Plaintiff's unsatisfactory performance.
k) The Defendant, despite having made all required timely payments and despite disbursing a total of Rs.13,38,885/- to the Plaintiff in exchange for its services, nonetheless, suffered significant financial and reputation losses due to the fraudulent activities committed by the Plaintiff. As a result of these actions, the client of Defendant refused to remit payment to Defendant and Defendant was compelled to withhold the GST payments on the invoices dated 20.05.2022 (Invoice No.DS-2022-021) and 02.06.2022 (Invoice No.DS-2-22-033). Defendant did not withhold the full amount of either the invoice or the GST for the invoice dated 20.05.2022. This was done in response to a request from the Plaintiff to allow time for rectification of the issues. In an effort to provide the Plaintiff an opportunity to address the situation, Defendant withheld only Rs.7,170/- from the GST amount associated with the invoice dated 20.05.2022. However, when the NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 10 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:54:10 +0530 fraudulent activities of the Plaintiff were fully uncovered and the client subsequently terminated the trial period with Defendant, Defendant was left with no viable alternative but to withhold the remaining payment, specifically the GST amount for the invoice dated 02.06.2022, which amounted to Rs.1,08,360/-.
l) At the time of assigning the trial campaign to the Plaintiff, it was also a part of the verbal agreement that in the event any registration or deposit is found to be dubious/fraudulent, the Defendant would not be liable to pay any consideration to the Plaintiff and that in fact it would be the Plaintiff who would be penalized with an amount not below Rs.5,00,000/-.
m) The Plaintiff was fully aware of the nature of the engagement, which was expressly agreed to be a trial period, as well as the fact that any continuation of the business relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was contingent upon the satisfactory performance of the Plaintiff during this trial phase. The Plaintiff was fully cognizant of the terms of the trial period and was aware that, should the client express dissatisfaction with the Plaintiff's services, the engagement would be discontinued, and the trial would not be converted into a permanent or ongoing contractual arrangement. Therefore, upon the termination of the Plaintiff's services by the client due to unsatisfactory performance and fraud, it was evident that the client no longer wished to avail themselves of the Plaintiff's services, and that the trial arrangement had conclusively ended.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 11 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:54:18 +0530
n) The Defendant has further stated that the Plaintiff instituted the present suit, wherein the Plaintiff is making wrongful claims and seeking unjustified payment from Defendant.
o) The Plaintiff's claim for payment under the present suit is both baseless and frivolous. Defendant, as the intermediary between the Plaintiff and the client, acted in good faith throughout the course of the trial arrangement. Defendant made all payments to the Plaintiff for services rendered in accordance with the agreed-upon terms during the trial period. The Plaintiff's failure to meet the expected standards of performance was entirely within the Plaintiff's control and responsibility, and it is unjust for the Plaintiff to seek compensation for services that were not rendered in accordance with the contractual expectations.
p) The Plaintiff's claim for additional payment from Defendant after the termination of the trail period and despite its fraudulent conduct, is without merit. The legal principle of unjust enrichment dictates that a party should not be allowed to retain money or benefit at the expense of another where no valid or enforceable contract or agreement justifies such a claim. In this case, the Plaintiff is attempting to retain sums for services that were not provided in good faith or in accordance with the agreed terms. Such a claim is not only legally unsustainable but also contrary to principles of fairness and justice.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date:
2026.02.05 15:54:25 +0530 Para-wise reply :-
q) The Defendant denied the submissions made by the Plaintiff in the Plaint. The Defendant admitted that purchase orders dated 04.05.2022 and 01.06.2022 were issued to the Plaintiff. The Purchase Order dated 04.05.2022 was for an amount of Rs.5,00,500/- and the Purchase Order dated 01.06.2022 was for an amount of Rs.10,01,000. The Defendant submitted that the Defendant had already made a total payment of Rs.13,38,885/- for services of the Plaintiff, which covered the invoices dated 04.05.2022, 20.05.2022 and 02.06.2022.
r) The Defendant has submitted that services of the Plaintiff and the trial period were terminated on 20.06.2022. Thus, any invoice raised by the Plaintiff after the said termination date is bogus, invalid and illegal and the Defendant is not liable to make payments for such frivolous invoices. The Plaintiff was made aware that the client does not wish to continue beyond the trial period and does not wish to transform the said temporary arrangement to a permanent one due to the fraudulent activities of the Plaintiff. The Defendant also did not issue any further purchase orders after such termination. The last purchase order issued by the Defendant was dated 01.06.2022. Therefore, it is unclear as to on what basis the Plaintiff raised any further invoices after the termination date and despite having committed fraud.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 13 of 36 by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:54:42 +0530
s) The Defendant has denied that any outstanding payment on behalf of the Defendant is due to the Plaintiff. The Defendant has made all payments due to the Plaintiff in a timely manner and there are no outstanding payments owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.
9. Relying on the said averment, the Defendant has submitted that there is no merit in the present suit, and it deserves to be dismissed.
REPLICATION OF THE PLAINTIFF
10. Replication has been filed by the Plaintiff, wherein the Plaintiff has denied the contents of the Written Statement and reiterated the contents of the plaint and also made submissions in rebuttal to contentions of Defendant about the alleged fraudulent practices stated to have been adopted by the Plaintiff.
FRAMING OF ISSUES
11. Vide order dated 29.04.2025, on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the suit amount? If yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP (3) Cost.
(4) Relief NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Digitally signed
by NEERA
CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 14 of 36 BHARIHOKE
Date:
2026.02.05
15:54:51 +0530
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
12. On 17.09.2025, Plaintiff examined PW-1 Shri Sudarshan Lahiry. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW-1/A. He reiterated the contents of the plaint and relied upon the following documents: -
(1) Copy of agreement dated 21.12.2021 as Ex.PW-1/1.
(2) Copy of purchase order dated 04.05.2022 as Ex.PW-1/2.
(3) Copy of purchase order dated 01.06.2022 as Ex.PW-1/3.
(4) Invoices dated 04.05.2022 as Ex.PW-1/4 (Colly.).
(5) Bank account statement of plaintiff from 01.05.2022 to 31.07.2022 as Ex.PW-1/5.
(6) Copy of annual tax statement 2022-23 as Ex.PW-1/6.
(7) GST returns paid for May (Quarter), 2022-23 as Ex.PW-1/7.
(8) Legal notice sent to defendant as Ex.PW-1/8.
(9) Non-Starter Report of District Legal Service Authority Mediation Centre Varanasi dated 15.03.2024 as Ex.PW-1/9. (10) Copy of email trails/communication through whatsapp as Ex.PW-
1/10.
(11) Copy of reply cum counterclaim to the Pre-Institution Mediation as Ex.PW-1/11.
(12) Copy of tracking report as Ex.PW-1/12.
(13) Copy of ledger account maintained by plaintiff as Ex.PW-1/13.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 15 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:55:12 +0530 (14) Copy of email trail communication dated 16.05.2022 between the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to non-disclosure agreement as Ex.PW-1/14.
(15) Copy of email trail communication dated 17.05.2025 as Ex.PW-
1/15.
(16) PW-1 also tendered his affidavit of certificate under Section 63 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam as Ex.PW-1/16.
(17) PW-1 also tendered his additional affidavit of certificate under Section 63 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam as Ex.PW-1/17.
13. PW-1 was cross examined by learned Counsel for Defendant and discharged on 17.09.2025.
14. On 24.09.2025, the Plaintiff has also examined PW-2 Sh. Ankit Tripathi. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW-2/A. He relied upon the following documents: -
(1) Printed copy of screenshot of LindedIN Profile of Mr. Rohit Kumar as Ex.PW-2/1.
(2) Printed copy of screenshot of Techmagnate's LinkedIN Profile as Ex.PW-2/2.
(3) Printed copy of the offer letter via email dated 22.09.2021 as Ex.PW-2/3.
(4) M/s Gamix Digital Private Limited Particulars on MCA website as Ex.PW-2/4.
(5) A printed copy of FNF email dated 05.06.2023 as Ex.PW-2/5. NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:55:31 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 16 of 36 (6) PW-1 also tendered his additional affidavit of certificate under Section 63 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam as Ex.PW-1/17.
15. PW-2 was cross examined by learned Counsel for Defendant on 24.09.2025 and discharged. On the same day, the Plaintiff's Evidence was closed on the statement of learned Counsel for the Plaintiff.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
16. The Defendant examined DW-1 Shri Bal Krishan Tripathi on 09.12.2025. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. DW- 1/A. He reiterated the contents of the Written Statement and relied upon the following documents: -
i. Copy of the company registration details from the MCA website as Ex. DW-1/3.
ii. Copies of the Bank Statement and the Instrument Debit Report reflecting the payments made to the Plaintiff by Defendant as Ex. DW-2/2 (Colly).
iii. Copy of the report of the tracking software as Ex. DW-3/3. iv. DW-1 also tendered Certificate u/s 63 BSA as Ex. DW-1/4.
17. It was observed that the exhibit number of documents were wrongly mentioned as Ex. DW-1/3, Ex. DW-2/2 (Colly) and Ex. DW-3/3 in the evidence by way affidavit and the same were corrected as Ex. DW-1/1, Ex.
DW-1/2 (colly.) and Ex. DW-1/3 (Colly.) respectively. Ex. DW-1/4 i.e. Certificate u/s 63 BSA was not mentioned in the evidence by way of affidavit and the same was allowed to be exhibited.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 17 of 36 by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:55:44 +0530
18. DW-1 was cross-examined by learned Counsel for Plaintiff on 09.12.2025 and discharged. On the same day, DW-1 was discharged on the statement of Authorized Representative of the Defendant and the matter was adjourned for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
19. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff argued that the Defendant admittedly availed the services of Plaintiff for providing digital marketing services. The Defendant has admitted the placing of purchase orders and also made payment of Rs.13,38,855/- to the Plaintiff out of total sum recoverable under 5 invoices raised by the Plaintiff for a sum of Rs.27,79,485/-. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff argued that the Plaintiff has paid GST on all these five invoices which are reflected in the GSTR of Plaintiff filed with the Plaint and prayed for decreeing the suit of the Plaintiff for remaining amount of Rs.14,40,630/-.
20. Per contra, learned Counsel for Defendant has denied the submissions made on behalf of Plaintiff and submitted that Defendant had placed 2 purchase orders on the Plaintiff in lieu of which three invoices were raised by the Plaintiff. Learned Counsel for Defendant submitted that Defendant made part payment of those invoices by withholding the GST amount on two of these invoices because of fraudulent practices adopted by the Plaintiff. Learned Counsel for Defendant also argued that there was NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 18 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:55:58 +0530 no Written Agreement between the parties and the arrangement between the parties was on a trial basis which the Defendant terminated on account of the fraudulent practices adopted by the Plaintiff. Learned Counsel for Defendant prayed for dismissal of the present suit.
21. In rebuttal, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff denied the submissions made by learned Counsel for Defendant and reiterated its submissions and prayed for decreeing the suit.
22. Rival submissions of the parties considered and perused the record very carefully.
FINDINGS
23. My issue-wise findings are given as under:-
Issue No.1 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount?
The onus to prove this Issue was placed on the Plaintiff.
24. The Plaintiff received purchase orders dated 04.05.2022 and 01.06.2022 for a sum of Rs.15,01,500/- for 429 FTD (First Time Deposit) through Techmagnate on behalf of Defendant. The Plaintiff issued invoices for the same amounting to Rs.27,79,485/-. The Defendant paid Rs.13,38,855/- and the total amount of Rs.14,40,630/- remained unpaid. Since the Defendant did not pay the said amount despite reminders, the present suit was filed.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 19 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:56:13 +0530
25. The suit amount claimed by the Plaintiff is based on 2 purchase orders dated 04.05. 2022 (read as 16.05.2022) and 01.06.2022 for which the Plaintiff raised 5 invoices dated 04.05.2022, 20.05.2022, 02.06.2022, 22.06.2022 and 30.06.2022.
26. The Defendant admitted the 2 purchase orders dated 04.05.2022 (read as 16.05.2022)and 01.06.2022 and same were exhibited as Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 respectively.
27. Out of five invoices, the Defendant admitted 3 invoices dated 04.05.2022, 20.05.2022 and 02.06.2022 and denied other 2 invoices. The admitted 3 invoices were exhibited as Ex. P-3 (Colly).
28. Service and Non-Disclosure Agreement dated 21.12.2021 was stated to be governing the scope of work, confidentiality obligations, payment terms and other commercial terms and conditions.
29. At the stage of leading evidence, PW-1 tendered the same as Ex. PW-1/1 in his examination in chief. It was admitted by PW-1 during his cross-examination that no formal agreement was executed between Plaintiff and Defendant. Service and Non-Disclosure Agreement dated 21.12.2021 was relied upon by Plaintiff but since the same was admittedly not signed even by Techmagnate and therefore terms and conditions mentioned therein cannot be taken into consideration.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 20 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:56:24 +0530
30. The Defendant has admitted that it approached the Plaintiff through the erstwhile Defendant No.1/Techmagnate to provide services which included and required the Plaintiff to upload details of the registration by the customers and the deposits made in lieu of such registration on a digital platform. The Defendant has submitted that digital platform is tracked in a real time by a software application which would allow the Defendant and the client to see the details of the customer registrations then deposit made therein, including details such as the time of registration and the IP address of such a registration.
31. The Defendant has denied its liability for invoices which have not been admitted by Defendant by submitting that there was no written agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and that the relationship between the parties was governed solely by an oral agreement for a trial period which was limited in both duration and scope. The Defendant has further submitted that the arrangement was only a trial engagement and subject to performance results. Defendant has submitted that it was explicitly understood between the parties that the conversion of this trial engagement into a permanent and ongoing business relationship would be contingent upon the outcome of the trial period which would be evaluated based on performance of Plaintiff as trapped on the tracking software application and the results achieved by the Plaintiff during the trial. The Defendant has submitted that accordingly, payments were made strictly with reference to this limited arrangement.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 21 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:56:33 +0530
32. The Defendant has contended that despite making timely payments, the Plaintiff failed to perform the services to the satisfaction of Defendant and its client. Rather than fulfilling the obligations under the agreement, the Plaintiff provided substandard services, engaged in fraudulent activities, failing to meet the expected standards and cutting corners in execution. The Defendant has further submitted that the client, upon noticing such fraud on part of the Plaintiff immediately informed Defendant of the same and terminated the verbal agreement along with the trial period. The Defendant is stated to have suffered significant financial and reputation losses due to the fraudulent activities committed by the Plaintiff.
33. The Defendant has stated that upon discovering the fraudulent activities of the Plaintiff and the gross breach of the verbal agreement between the parties, Defendant terminated the said trial period on 20.06.2022. The Defendant has submitted that Defendant did not withhold the full amount of either the invoice or the GST for the invoice dated 04.05.2022. However, due to these circumstances, it was compelled to withhold the GST payments on the invoices dated 20.05.2022 and 02.06.2022 The Defendant has submitted that it was so done in response to a request from the Plaintiff to allow time for rectification of the issues.
34. The Defendant has submitted that at the time of assigning the trial campaign to the Plaintiff, it was also part of the verbal agreement that in the event any registration or deposit it's found to be dubious/fraudulent, NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 22 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:56:40 +0530 Defendant would not be liable to pay any consideration to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff would be penalized with an amount not below Rs.5,00,000/-.
35. In its Replication, the Plaintiff has denied the submissions made by the Defendant and has submitted that every IP address counts as a different one and IP addresses of the Defendant did not match as per the reports. The Plaintiff denied about any such verbal agreement to be existing between the Plaintiff and Defendant. The Plaintiff has submitted that the entire understanding between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and Techmagnate was documented by means of a Service and Non-Disclosure Agreement dated 21.12.2021 and no services are provided by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on trial basis. The Plaintiff has submitted that no trial period system exists in the entire affiliate of the digital marketing services industry. Plaintiff has also denied about existence of any verbal understanding between the Plaintiff and Defendant or the alleged verbal termination of trial period as alleged by Defendant.
36. The Plaintiff relied upon the trail mails in support of its submission that the relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant was professional with respect to rendering their digital marketing services. The Plaintiff has also submitted that services rendered by the Plaintiff with respect to digital marketing services were praised by Defendant and that Defendant has raised frivolous grounds to deprive Plaintiff of its legitimate dues.
37. It is noticed that the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant for providing Digital Marketing services has not been denied by the NEERA CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 23 of 36 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:56:48 +0530 Defendant. PW-1 has been cross-examined in detail in respect of Service and Non-Disclosure Agreement dated 21.12.2021 and execution thereof. Since PW-1 admitted that there was no formal agreement between the parties, a question was put to PW-1 that if there was no formal agreement between the parties, was there any verbal agreement between the parties. PW-1 denied and volunteered that all POs were always given in the name of Defendant, and the payment was also received from the Defendant. Therefore, PW-1 denied verbal agreement and relied on purchase orders as a formal agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant.
38. The Defendant has admitted the Purchase Orders dated 04.05.2022, Ex. P-1 and 01.06.2022, Ex.P-2 having been placed upon the Plaintiff.
39. The purchase order contains detailed terms and conditions enumerated below:-
"1.Any changes in the schedule of the activity shall be effective only with prior written approval.
Campaign KPl, validation and date changes can be done se per email communication with respective campaigns.
2. The above cost is for the contracted delivery, however payment will be made on the basis of the actual delivery on submission of proof of delivery as approved by the client.
3 Invoices for campaigns/activities ended during the month should be sent to Gamix Digital Private Ltd. maximum by 6th of the following month. Any Invoices received after that date will be considered in the subsequent month. Nonetheless the agreed upon credit period begins only from the actual date of receipt of the invoices.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 24 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:57:03 +0530
4. Invoice to be submitted in original alongwith:-
a. Log report of campaign delivery & screenshots of the campaign.
b. Billing will be as per the approved numbers by the client.
5. Gamix Digital Private Limited will not release payments in case the client refuses to pay because of poor performance.
6. Numbers received and validated by the client and Gamix Digital Private Limited will be final for all billing purposes.
7. The publisher/Affiliate/Network under no circumstance will not approach any client of Gamix Digital Private limited directly.
8. The invoice to be raised in INR to the address as mentioned at the top.
9. Fraudulent Clicks and conversions to be checked and verified by Fraud tool by Gamix Digital Private Limited, final numbers to be received by client.
10. The payment will be done within 30 days post submission of the bills and post the payment receipt from the client.
11.Kindly acknowledge and then take the campaign LIVE, without Gamix Digital Private Limited approval, campaigns cannot go live."
40. Had the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant been verbal and/or on trial basis, same would have been one of the terms and conditions of purchase order. Terms and conditions mentioned in the admitted Purchase Orders also do not provide for any penalty clause as alleged by Defendant.
41. PW-1 denied the alleged termination of services of Plaintiff on NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 25 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:57:17 +0530 20.06.2022. During his cross examination, PW-1 denied that after placing of purchase order by the Defendant, the Plaintiff used to issue invoices pursuant thereto and volunteered that it was not necessary and it was up to the client. Sometimes they used to issue purchase order and sometimes they did not. On being asked to show any formal agreement of the practice regarding the purchase orders as mentioned by him, PW-1 stated that such agreements are not formulated in general practice of the nature of business of Plaintiff. On being shown the court record, PW-1 showed the last purchase order issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff dated 01.06.2022. PW-1 denied that purchase order dated 01.06.2022 was the last purchase order placed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff and volunteered that it was the last purchase order in writing. However, the Defendant placed verbal purchase orders even after that. PW-1 denied the suggestion that there was no formal legal agreement executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and that the relationship was under trial arrangement. He volunteered that there is no system of trial arrangement in the line of business of Plaintiff. PW1 denied that the invoices raised by the Plaintiff after the termination date of 20.06.2022 are bogus and invalid. No suggestion was put to PW-1 that his volunteered statements were incorrect.
42. It is the contention of the Defendant that the Plaintiff failed to perform the services to the satisfaction of Defendant and its client and rather than fulfilling the obligations under the agreement, the Plaintiff provided substandard services, engaged in fraudulent activities, failing to meet the expected standards and cutting corners in execution. The Defendant has further submitted that the client, upon noticing such fraud NEERA CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 26 of 36 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:57:24 +0530 on part of the Plaintiff immediately informed Defendant of the same and terminated the verbal agreement along with the trial period. The Plaintiff has denied that it used fraudulent purposes in order to achieve registration on the portal.
43. The fraudulent practice contended to have been adopted by Plaintiff has been elaborated by Defendant in its written statement as:
"The registration of a single customer requires a minimum of ten minutes, as the user is obligated to provide various details, followed by the deposit process. Additionally, each customer registration is associated with a unique and distinct IP address. Upon conducting a thorough review of the tracking software application, it was discovered that several customer registrations were made within a very short span of time, often just a few minutes apart, all originating from the same IP address. These instances raised significant concerns, as it is highly improbable for genuine customers to complete the registration process, which requires at least ten minutes, within such a brief time frame. Given that the registration process inherently takes a minimum of ten minutes to complete, it is highly unusual for multiple registrations to be made from the same IP address in such rapid succession. The absence of deposits, combined with the fact that these registrations occurred within a matter of minutes of each other, strongly suggested fraudulent activity on part of the Plaintiff whilst registering such users. These registrations, characterized by identical IP addresses, lack of deposits, and suspicious timing, are therefore clearly indicative of fake registrations and potential abuse of the system for fraudulent purposes by the Plaintiff."
44. The Plaintiff has submitted that no such criteria exist to keep a review through the tracking software application and no such criteria was part of the details of the campaign.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 27 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:57:31 +0530
45. During his cross-examination, a question was put to PW-1 if the services involved getting registration of customers for the Defendant and PW-1 admitted that and volunteered that registration of customers for getting first time deposit FTDs. PW-1 was asked to describe the procedure for the same and he mentioned the steps as:
"1. User clicks on the link.
2. User fills the form.
3. There's some cases OTP verification is required."
46. A further question was put to PW-1 as to what happens after the customer registration process. PW-1 replied that the user does the FTD (first-time deposit) and plays games. FTD is done through various methods such as UPI, Credit Cards etc.
47. PW-1 was asked if the registration process and FTD would take about 5 to 10 minutes to complete the process and he replied that it can even take 2-3 minutes. No suggestion was put to him that registration process and FTD cannot be completed in 2-3 minutes.
48. By referring to replication, a question was put to PW-1 during his cross examination that in part 10 of the replication, it has been stated that the majority of the IP Of the tracking report are of click IP-R6 category and that the same is evident from the reports. PW-1 was asked if he could show any document from the record which supports the said averment of Plaintiff. He stated that it was not on record and volunteered that it is not IP-R6 but IP-V6. PW-1 also stated that at the time of filing of the suit, his NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 28 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:57:48 +0530 counsel did not file the same and that he was carrying documents even on that day (i.e. on 17.09.2025, date of his cross-examination) from which he could show that the said averment is supported by those documents. However, learned counsel for Defendant did not ask him to show the same or to place the same on court record or for putting questions/seek clarifications from PW-1 on basis of those documents. Therefore, adverse inference is drawn against the Defendant under Section 119 (g) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
49. It is the defence of the Defendant that Plaintiff made fraudulent registrations since several customer registrations were made within a very short span of time, often just a few minutes apart, all originating from the same IP address. These instances raised significant concerns, as it is highly improbable for genuine customers to complete the registration process, which requires at least ten minutes, within such a brief time frame. In support of said submission of Defendant, Defendant has relied on copy of report of tracking software tendered by DW-1 as Ex. DW-3/3 which was corrected as Ex. DW-1/3 (Colly) during his examination in chief. DW-1 has deposed that this report reveals that the registrations, characterized by identical IP addresses, lack of deposits and suspicious timing are therefore clearly indicative of fake registrations and potential abuse of the system for fraudulent purposes by the Plaintiff.
50. No document has been brought on record by the Defendant to show that the registrations and deposits reflected in the report were not so deposited in its bank account. The onus was on the Defendant to prove the NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 29 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:57:56 +0530 alleged fake registrations and potential abuse of the system for fraudulent purposes by the Plaintiff since the same has been alleged to be the cause of terminating the oral agreement with the Plaintiff.
51. During this cross examination, DW-1 was asked the real time tracking software which was used to track the registration and deposits made in lieu of such registrations on the digital platform to which he answered Pay Per Click (PPC). A further question was put to him whether there was any fraud detection tool in the real time tracking software. DW-1 answered "Yes. The entire data collected is tracked in the said software.
52. Question was put to DW-1 that as per paragraph eight of the evidence affidavit of DW-1, is there any evidence of Plaintiff being involved in rendering substandard services and getting engaged in any fraudulent services and if he could show that from the records. The witness showed Tracking Report, Ex. DW-1/3(Colly).
53. However, one being put questions in respect of the said report, DW- 1 was unable to answer all of them. The portion of cross examination of DW-1 pertaining to Ex. DW-1/3(Colly) is reproduced below:
"Q:19 Are you aware as to what is Conversion IP, Click IP and Post Back IP? Can you state the difference among these IP's? Ans.: I am not aware about these technical details.
Q:20 Can the Plaintiff Company and the Defendant Company have the same Conversion, Click and Post Back IP? If yes then show it from the records?
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 30 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:58:02 +0530 Ans.: I am not aware about these technical details.
Q:23 Can you show it from the records that there was a lack of deposits and suspicious timing?
Ans.: When a customer registers and deposits, it takes about 5-10 minutes, but in the tracking report, the registration has been made from the same IP within the matter of seconds. It is on the records which are Ex. DW-1/3 (Colly.).
Q:25 As per Ex. DW-1/3 (Colly), can you explain which IP version is used for Click IP? Which IP version is used for Conversion IP?
Ans.: I cannot answer this question because it is technical.
Q:26 Can you state from the records that the Conversion IP and the Click IP should be the same for Plaintiff tracking platform and the Defendant tracking platform?
Ans.: I cannot answer this question because it is technical.
Q:27 Can you state from the records, which IP is used for registration events and FTD events?
Ans.: I cannot answer this question because it is technical.
Q: 28 Can the FTD and registration IP be the same for the single user?
Ans.: I cannot answer this question because it is technical."
54. Therefore DW-1 failed to prove that Tracking Report, Ex. DW- 1/3(Colly) reveals/establishes that alleged fake registrations and potential abuse of the system for fraudulent purposes by the Plaintiff. In response to question put to DW-1 during his cross-examination i.e. "Did the Plaintiff company ever make an attempt to extort money from the Defendant company except the raised invoices?" DW-1 answered 'No'.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 31 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:58:08 +0530
55. The witness of Defendant admitted that services were rendered to the Plaintiff company by the Plaintiff company. He also admitted that the Defendant company never provided the Plaintiff company with the written instructions to stop rendering the services. He did not volunteer that the said instructions were given by the Defendant to the Plaintiff verbally or telephonically.
56. The Defendant has submitted in its written statement that Defendant, despite having made all required timely payments and despite disbursing a total of Rs.13,38,885/- to the Plaintiff in exchange for its services, nonetheless, suffered significant financial and reputational losses due to the fraudulent activities committed by the Plaintiff. As a result of these actions, the client of Defendant refused to remit payment to Defendant. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, Defendant was compelled to withhold the GST payments on the invoices dated 20.05.2022 (Invoice No. DS-2022-021) and 02.06.2022 (Invoice No. DS-2-22-033). This was done in response to a request from the Plaintiff to allow time for rectification of the issues. In an effort to provide the Plaintiff an opportunity to address the situation, Defendant withheld only Rs.7,170/- from the GST amount associated with the invoice dated 20.05.2022. However, when the fraudulent activities of the Plaintiff were fully uncovered and the client subsequently terminated the trial period with Defendant, Defendant was left with no viable alternative but to withhold the remaining payment, specifically the GST amount for the invoice dated 02.06.2022, which amounted to Rs.1,08,360/-.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 32 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:58:16 +0530
57. However, the Defendant did not produce on record any document reflecting Defendant having suffered financial and reputational losses due to the fraudulent activities committed by the Plaintiff or as a result of these actions, the client of Defendant refused to remit payment to Defendant. No such client was examined by the Defendant. On the other hand, the Plaintiff in its replication has denied these submissions made by the Defendant and has submitted that Defendant used to withhold GST and clear the outstanding dues.
58. During his cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that Defendant had withheld the amount towards GST. He denied the suggestion which was put to him that it was withheld by the Defendant to resolve the discrepancies in the tracking report.
59. The Defendant has alleged verbal agreement between the parties for providing digital services and verbal termination of the same by Defendant on 20.06.2022. The said submission of Defendant is not sustainable in view of detailed and specific terms and conditions mentioned on purchase orders which contain some clauses of restraint on Plaintiff as well as some clauses governing relationship of Plaintiff vis-a-vis satisfaction of clients of Defendant regulating/deciding terms of payment to be made to Plaintiff subject to the same. The terms and conditions mentioned in the purchase order do not provide for oral termination of the agreement or understanding between the parties nor does it mention that the purchase order was placed on Plaintiff on trial basis or was temporary arrangement. The Defendant has failed to prove that there was verbal agreement NEERA CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 33 of 36 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:58:22 +0530 between the parties for providing digital services and verbal termination of the same by Defendant on 20.06.2022.
60. On the other hand, by help of its evidence and by way of cross- examination of DW-2, Plaintiff has proved that the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant was neither verbal nor on basis of any verbal understanding or any verbal arrangement between the parties nor was there any trial period between the parties dependent on performance of Plaintiff.
61. Learned Counsel for Defendant has submitted that the payments made by the Defendant was an advance payment. The said submission is incorrect as the payments by the Defendant were made on 20.05.2022, 02.06.2022 and 15.06.2022 i.e. one payment after issuance of Purchase Order dated 04.05.2022 and two payments were made after issuance of Purchase Order dated 01.06.2022. Further, the payments were adjusted by the Plaintiff in the manner stated by the Defendant i.e. not adjusting the payment made by Defendant towards GST in respect of Invoices dated 20.05.2022 and 02.06.2022. Therefore, the Defendant had not made payment as an advance payment to the Plaintiff.
62. Defendant has admitted placing of order on Plaintiff for providing digital marketing services to the Defendant. The Defendant has failed to prove that the verbal termination of services of Plaintiff by Defendant on 20.06.2022. On the other hand, the Plaintiff has placed on record the invoices, Ex. PW-1/4 (Colly) for the services provided by Plaintiff to Defendant. The invoices have been raised for a sum of Rs.27,79,485/-
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 34 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:58:34 +0530 inclusive of GST on which the Plaintiff has paid GST @ 18% and has tendered its GSTR as Ex. PW-1/7 which clearly reflect that Plaintiff has paid GST on all invoices for which the present suit has been filed. GSTR corroborates and proves the validity of invoices raised by the Plaintiff towards the digital marketing services provided by Plaintiff to Defendant.
63. Since, admittedly, the Defendant has paid a sum of Rs.13,38,855/- towards the said invoices but has not paid the remaining amount, the Plaintiff is entitled to receive remaining amount of Rs.14,40,360/- from the Defendant. Therefore, Issue No.1 is decided in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendant and it is held that Defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.14,40,360/- to the Plaintiff.
Issue No.2 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the suit amount? If yes, at what rate and for which period?
The onus to prove this Issue was placed on the Plaintiff.
64. The Plaintiff has suffered at hands of Defendant and non payment of its dues by the Defendant compelled Plaintiff to file the present suit. Therefore, Plaintiff is held entitled to claim interest on the amount of Rs.14,40,360/-. Plaintiff has prayed for pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum on the said amount. In view of findings given on Issue No.1, the Plaintiff is held entitled to pendente lite and future interest @ 18% on the amount of Rs.14,40,360/-. Therefore, Issue No.2 is decided in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendant and it is held that Defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.14,40,360/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 18% till realization to the Plaintiff.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 35 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.02.05 15:58:43 +0530 RELIEF
65. In view of my findings given on Issue No.1 and 2, the present case is decreed in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendant for the sum of Rs.14,40,630/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum till realization. Defendant is also directed to pay to Plaintiff the cost of the suit which shall include pleader's fee and the other costs on the scale provided under section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure as substituted by Commercial Courts Act. If the payment is not made within thirty days, the cost shall also carry simple interest @ 6% per annum.
66. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKEAnnounced in the open NEERA
BHARIHOKE Date:
2026.02.05
Court on 05.02.2026 15:59:10
+0530
(Dr. Neera Bharihoke)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-06
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
05.02.2026
Certified that this judgment contains 36 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Digitally signed by (Dr. Neera Bharihoke) NEERA NEERA BHARIHOKE District Judge (Commercial Court)-06 BHARIHOKE Date:
2026.02.05 South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi 15:59:16 +0530 05.02.2026 CS (COMM) No. 3763/2024 M/s Divulge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gamix Digital Pvt. Ltd. Page 36 of 36