Delhi District Court
Santosh Kumar Rana vs Manoj Kumar Birla And Anr on 18 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH.RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-05,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM.) No.853/2024
(Santosh Kumar Rana vs. Manoj Kumar Birla And Others)
CNR No. DLWT01-008506-2024
Mr. Santosh Kumar Rana
S/o Sh. Mathura Rana
(Proprietor of Zahan Trading Company)
Office at:-
A-8/C, 2nd Floor,
White House, Vishwakarma Colony,
New Delhi-110 044.
........Plaintiff
Through:-Mr.Bhavneet Singh
along with Mr.Kumar Gaurav and
Mr.Harshit Bedi, advocates
Versus
1. Mr. Manoj Kumar Birla
S/o Sh.Mangat Ram
(Partner of M D Trading House)
.........Defendant no.1
2. Mr. Vansaj Birla
S/o Sh.Manoj Kumar Birla
(Partner of M D Trading House)
.........Defendant no.2
Both R/o
C-85, 1st Floor,
Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110 064.
3. M.D. Trading House
C-85, 1st Floor,
Raj
Kumar Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110 064.
Tripathi .........Defendant no.3
Digitally signed
(Defendants)
by Raj Kumar
Tripathi
Through:- Mr. N.Sagar Varma along
Date: 2026.02.18
13:09:24 +0530
CS (COMM.) No.853/2024
(Santosh Kumar Rana vs. Manoj Kumar Birla & Others) Page 1 of 22
with Mr.N. Sourabh Soni, advocates
Date of filing of suit : 30.09.2024
Arguments heard on : 12.01.2026 and 29.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 18.02.2026
JUDGMENT:
1.1 Plaintiff has filed the present suit against defendants for seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.13,15,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Fifteen Thousand only) as principal outstanding amount along with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum. He has further prayed for grant of Rs.6,00,000/- towards loss and damages and Rs.3,00,000/- towards physical and mental harassment.
Brief facts of the case:-
2.1 In March, 2024, defendants approached for meeting in the plaintiff's office and claimed that they were engaged in Fast Moving Consumer Goods (in short 'FMCG') products, spices, fruits and vegetable export/import business from many years and having branch office at Dubai as well as Amsterdam. They further claimed that they were looking after business in Dubai and having large volume of global business and the turn over of the company is huge.
2.2 Plaintiff avers that defendants told him that it was very beginning of mango season and there was huge demand of 'Alphonso' mango in Dubai market at high profitable price. They Raj also told that the goods will be shipped by special equipment i.e. Kumar Tripathi refrigerated container, so that the quality of goods may preserve Digitally signed by Raj Kumar and enable the sale of goods in distant markets.
Tripathi Date: 2026.02.18 13:09:30 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.853/2024 (Santosh Kumar Rana vs. Manoj Kumar Birla & Others) Page 2 of 222.3 As per plaintiff, defendants told him that Indian Alphonso mango is best in the market and they will buy it from one of their well known person at Mumbai, who had already dealt in with them earlier. They also assured that because of mango beginning season, they will get 40% to 45% of profits except capital investment. They further assured that complete amount will be returned back with profit in plaintiff's account within 15 days considering the transit time of vessel from Mumbai to Dubai of approximately four to five days only. They also said that they have already talked to mango buyer at Dubai to purchase the goods immediately after reaching at Dubai. 2.4 Plaintiff further avers that defendants gave the visiting card and address of their offices at New Delhi, Dubai and Amsterdam. They also gave format of Partnership Agreement and asked him to arrange the same.
2.5 An agreement dated 21.03.2024 was executed between the parties, wherein, bank account of defendant no.3 M.D. Trading House i.e. A/c No.946555602, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Vishal Enclave, Block-C, New Delhi-17 was mentioned for future transactions.
2.6 Plaintiff claims to have taken loan of Rs.15,00,000/- from Bajaj Finance Limited for the said business and thereafter, he paid an amount of Rs.13,15,000/-to defendants in their abovesaid account.
2.7 Plaintiff avers that defendants purchased mango from Raj Mumbai through one of their well known and familiar person, Kumar Tripathi although the price of mango was higher than the market price.
Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2026.02.1813:09:36 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.853/2024 (Santosh Kumar Rana vs. Manoj Kumar Birla & Others) Page 3 of 22 They also chose their own choice of logistics and shipping agent. They told that the logistic agent is good service provider in the market. At initial discussion, it was agreed between the parties that the goods will be stuffed and shipped through the container carrier, who has good reputation and one of the top most carriers in the shipping trade i.e. MAERK LINE, but defendants arbitrarily chose container of ordinary shipping agent namely CORDELIA SHIPPING. Plaintiff claims to have objected for the changes, however, defendants told him that both shipping companies' container and service are similar and there was no difference between them.
2.8 Plaintiff submits that defendants firstly asked him to transfer Rs.9,75,000/- on the pretext of purchase of goods as per the terms and conditions of agreement, which was duly transferred by him in the bank account of defendant no.3. After including same amount from the defendants, the total cost of goods was to be Rs.19,50,000/-(Nineteen lakhs fifty thousands only).
2.9 After few days, plaintiff got document of shipping bill issued by Government of India i.e. Indian Customs and as per the said documents of shipping bill, the value of goods was mentioned as only Rs.7,00,000/-(Rupees Seven lakhs only) instead of Rs.19,50,000/-(Rupees Nineteen Lakh Fifty Thousand Only). Thus, plaintiff claims that defendant has grabbed much higher amount from him. He further submits that defendant Raj Kumar neither gave purchase bill, tax invoice, payment transfer details or Tripathi any supporting documents (UTR, NEFT, RTGS, E-receipt or Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2026.02.18 13:09:41 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.853/2024 (Santosh Kumar Rana vs. Manoj Kumar Birla & Others) Page 4 of 22 Bank Statement ) of actual expenses on purchasing goods. 2.10 Thereafter, defendant asked plaintiff to transfer Rs.1,80,000/-(Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) in respect of logistics and shipping charges for the shipping from port of Mumbai, which was duly transferred by him in their account. After including same amount from the defendants, the total cost was to be of Rs.3,60,000/-(Rupees three lakhs six thousands) but later on the defendants gave the invoice of Rs.1,80,000/-(Rupees one lakh eight thousand only) instead of Rs.3,60,000/-. 2.11 The defendants again asked to transfer Rs.1,60,000/- in respect of custom clearance, custom duty, shipping company's delivery order charges in the port of Dubai, which was duly transferred by plaintiff. After including the same amount from the defendants, the total amount was to be of Rs.3,20,000/- (Rupees three lakhs twenty thousand only), but defendants did not give any bill, tax invoice and other details of authentic payment, bill of entry copy of Dubai port or any supporting evidence in this regard.
2.12 On 03.04.2024, the goods were shipped on Board from Mumbai port on the vessel namely MV Grasmere Maersk Voy 414W against shipping Bill No.8803634 dated 01.04.2024, BL No.CSX24NSAJEA017818 Refrigerated Container Number CDRU1056822/40 RFR. The goods were shipped through defendants' own company namely M. D. Trading House, New Raj Delhi as Shipper and their own company namely ABEER Kumar ALSHARQ VEGETABLE AND FRUITS TRADING LLC as Tripathi Digitally signed by Raj Kumar buyer at Dubai.
Tripathi Date: 2026.02.18 13:09:48 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.853/2024 (Santosh Kumar Rana vs. Manoj Kumar Birla & Others) Page 5 of 222.13 Plaintiff avers that defendants have used his money only for the said business but did not invest their capital as per the terms and conditions. Hence, they have violated the terms and conditions of agreement entered into between the parties. 2.14 It is submitted that as per customs authorized documents, standard destination charges prevailing in the Dubai port, and from the vendors, who are involved in same activities regularly, the complete amount comes to around Rs.11 lakhs but defendants received Rs.13,15,000/- from plaintiff. 2.15 Plaintiff alleges that after reaching the container in Dubai port, defendants did not update latest movement at all and after few days, they informed that mangoes were not in good condition and were not in a position to sell in good price in the market.
2.16 He further alleged that defendants did not give any concrete evidence about the condition of goods and they have also not provided purchased bills/invoice/expenses bill/details of selling price/date/billing details/insurance claim payment and all other complete documents of export invoice/tax invoices of expenses.
2.17 The plaintiff, after 15 days upon reaching the mangoes at destination port of Dubai, contacted the defendants to inquire about the invested money, who did not pick his calls. After few days, defendants called back and told that they were busy in purchasing new office, house or celebrating parties and Raj some times, they called and told that they are busy in shifting to Kumar Tripathi new premises and they will call back, once they get suitable time.
Digitally signed by Raj Kumar TripathiDate: 2026.02.18 CS (COMM.) No.853/2024 13:09:54 +0530 (Santosh Kumar Rana vs. Manoj Kumar Birla & Others) Page 6 of 22 2.18 It was agreed between the parties that each party will maintain fair deal in an equitable manner, professional behaviour, prepare fair calculation sheet after each job or so but defendants failed to do so and acted in an arbitrary manner. 2.19 Plaintiff claims that the goods were insured by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited under policy Number:20240402151522 dated 02.04.2024 as insurance was essential for business to safeguard against unforeseen circumstances, risks, natural disaster, natural calamity, supply chain disruption, damage due to geopolitical circumstances and technical failure in refrigerated container for transit from the place of origin to destination place of delivery. 2.20 Plaintiff lodged a complaint on 13.06.2024 against defendants, who after receiving the information, through their mediator, told the plaintiff to meet for discussion. The plaintiff reached at the given address of defendants to settle the matter amicably but the defendants did not provide any authentic documents pertaining to the case. Thus, the dispute between the parties could not be resolved.
2.21 Constrained by the acts of defendants, plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 10.07.2024, who after receiving the same agreed to settle the matter amicably but they did not provide any document to him.
2.22 Finding no other option, plaintiff filed an application for Pre-Institution Mediation on 05.08.2024 before West District Raj Kumar Legal Services Authority, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in compliance Tripathi of section 12A of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015. However, Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2026.02.18 13:09:59 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.853/2024 (Santosh Kumar Rana vs. Manoj Kumar Birla & Others) Page 7 of 22 despite service of notices, defendants did not give their consent or willingness to participate in mediation proceedings scheduled for hearing on 17.08.2024 and 31.08.2024. Consequently, the process of mediation was treated as non-starter vide Report dated 31.08.2024.
Defence of defendants 3.1 In response to the summons issued to defendants, they have contested the suit by way of filing written statement. 3.2 In the written statement, the defendants contended that the suit of plaintiff as framed is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Plaintiff has not come before the Court with clean hands and guilty of suggestio-falsi and supressio-varie, hence, not entitled for any relief as falsely claimed in the present suit. Plaintiff has filed the present suit entirely on fabricated, manipulated and concocted facts and documents against the defendants and is liable to be prosecuted for perjury and forgery. 3.3 As per defendants, the money of Rs.13,15,000/- was invested in the business itself by the plaintiff without any force. The said invested amount includes all payments to logistics, shipment, custom charges, custom clearance, custom duty etc. 3.4 Defendants have admitted that plaintiff transferred a sum of Rs.9,75,000/- for the purchase of goods. 3.5 Defendants alleged that plaintiff concealed the major fact that for shipment of first consignment amounting to Raj Rs.7,00,000/-, defendant no.2 along with plaintiff went to Kumar Tripathi Mumbai for loading of mangoes and remaining two consignments Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2026.02.18 13:10:05 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.853/2024 (Santosh Kumar Rana vs. Manoj Kumar Birla & Others) Page 8 of 22 were to be shipped after the delivery of the first consignment. 3.6 It is contended that after defendant no.2 went to Dubai for delivery of 1st shipment, plaintiff took delivery of remaining two shipments of mangoes under his own custody. Only 1st consignment was shipped to Dubai and remaining two consignments are still with plaintiff.
3.7 Defendants claim that plaintiff and defendant no.2 went to Mumbai to load first consignment amounting Rs.7,00,000/- and according to shipping bill summary of Indian Customs, EDI had issued the bill for Rs.7,00,000/-. 3.8 It is submitted that all the payments were made by plaintiff for the purpose of business transaction. The transfer of Rs.1,80,000/- by plaintiff is without any proof as there is logistics and shipping charges which were borne by plaintiff and defendants equally. No specific proof was produced by plaintiff regarding the specific mentioning of each and every transaction. 3.9 Defendants state that plaintiff was well aware of the fact that after the mangoes got rotten, they tried their best to sell the remaining mangoes but it is the plaintiff, who was sitting in India and asking defendant no.2 via whatsapp conversation about the rate of sale of mangoes. Plaintiff fully knew that the sale of leftover mangoes will take place in cash.
3.10 As per defendants, during the period when the mangoes got rotten, plaintiff took delivery of the next two consignments and kept them under his possession. Plaintiff is Raj Kumar Tripathi trying to avoid that fact as the major portion of the mangoes are Digitally signed by with plaintiff himself and it is the plaintiff, who has to pay to Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2026.02.18 13:10:11 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.853/2024 (Santosh Kumar Rana vs. Manoj Kumar Birla & Others) Page 9 of 22 defendants the amount with him.
3.11 Defendants contend that they were continuously trying to contact the plaintiff to settle the final amount but he was never interested in settling. Plaintiff always tried to escape and claim for the full refund of the invested amount. There is a huge stock of mangoes which is in possession of plaintiff and he never tried to share any details regarding what he has done with the said mangoes and the profit he retained from the said mangoes. Denying all the other averments and allegations of the plaint, defendants prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary cost. Replication 4.1 Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of defendants, wherein the averments and assertions of the written statement have been denied and plaintiff has reiterated his stand as taken in the plaint.
Issues 5.1 From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 15.05.2025:-
(i) Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit against the defendant as plaintiff is not the partner in the defendant firm?OPD.
(ii) Whether plaintiff has filed the present suit on the basis of fabricated and manipulated facts?OPD.
(iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.13,15,000/- from the defendant?OPP.
Digitally signed by Raj Kumar
(iv) Whether plaintiff is entitled for pendente lite Raj Tripathi Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.18 and future interest @ 24% per annum from the date 13:10:16 +0530 of filing of the suit till its realization?OPP.CS (COMM.) No.853/2024 (Santosh Kumar Rana vs. Manoj Kumar Birla & Others) Page 10 of 22
(v) Whether plaintiff is entitled for loss of damages of Rs.6,00,000/- and also entitled for Rs.3,00,000/- on account of physical and mental harassment from the defendant?OPP.
(vi) Relief.
Evidence of parties 6.1 In support of his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW1. He filed his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.PW1/A, wherein, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the facts as mentioned in the plaint. He has relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Details of Document Exhibit Mark
1. Copy of his Aadhaar Card and PAN card Ex.PW1/1 &
Ex.PW1/2
2. Visiting card of defendant Ex.PW1/3
3. True copy of agreement dated 21.03.2024 Ex.PW1/4
4. E-receipt with bank statement Ex.PW1/5 (colly.)
5. Shipping bill summary and sea-way bill Ex.PW1/6 and
along with sale order Ex.PW1/7
6. Copy of insurance Ex.PW1/8
7. Copy of complaint dated 13.06.2024 and Ex.PW1/9 and
02.07.2024 Ex.PW1/10
8. Legal Notice Ex.PW1/11
9. Postal Receipt Ex.PW1/12
10. Copy of Certificate u/s 63 of BSA Ex.PW1/14
11. Non-Starter Report Ex.PW1/15
12. Certificate u/s 63 of BSA Ex.PW1/16
7.1 On the other hand, defendants in their defence have
examined Mr. Manoj Birla (defendant no.1) as DW1. He filed his Raj evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.DW1/A. Kumar Findings and Observations:
Tripathi Digitally signed by 8.1 I have heard and considered the rival submissions of Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2026.02.18 13:10:22 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.853/2024 (Santosh Kumar Rana vs. Manoj Kumar Birla & Others) Page 11 of 22 both the parties and perused the material on record.
Issue wise findings are as under:-
Issue no.(i) Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit against the defendant as plaintiff is not the partner in the defendant firm?OPD.
9.1 Onus to prove this issue lies on defendants. 9.2 The defendants, in the written statement, have contended that plaintiff has no locus standi and no legal case against them. Plaintiff is not a partner in the firm and has no legal remedy available to him to file this commercial suit. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
9.3 On the other hand, the plaintiff in the replication submitted that there is valid agreement between defendants no.1 and 2 regarding the business to be done by plaintiff with them. 9.4 Having considered the rival submissions of both the parties and on consideration of material on record, this Court is of the view that plaintiff has locus standi to file the present suit against defendants as he invested Rs.13,15,000/- for business purpose, in terms of Financial Partnership Agreement dated 21.03.2024, Ex.PW1/4 for export of mangoes to Dubai for earning profits. Plaintiff has alleged that the defendants did not invest any amount towards their contribution in the business. The mangoes after being shipped to Dubai was taken by defendants Raj Kumar but they did not share any details about the sale with plaintiff nor Tripathi gave any profit to him. In view of the same, plaintiff has a legal Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi case for seeking recovery of the dues against the defendants.Date: 2026.02.18 13:10:29 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.853/2024 (Santosh Kumar Rana vs. Manoj Kumar Birla & Others) Page 12 of 22
9.5 The contention of defendants that plaintiff is not a partner in the firm is without any basis and substance as in the Financial Partnership Agreement, Ex.PW1/4, the plaintiff is shown as partner-II. Defendant no.1 is also shown as partner in the said agreement.
9.6 PW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that he is partner no.II in the Financial Partnership Agreement. The said fact has not been refuted and denied by defendants. 9.7 It is pertinent to note that on 03.02.2025, defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') for seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the present suit is barred under section 69 (2) of The Partnership Act, 1932. The said application of defendants was dismissed vide order dated 30.04.2025. The learned Predecessor of the Court, while deciding the application, held that the suit is not barred under the provisions of section 69 (2) of The Partnership Act. He further observed that plaintiff had valid cause of action to file the present suit.
9.8 In the course of hearing in the matter, to the query of this Court as to whether the defendants have challenged the order dated 30.04.2025 before Hon'ble Superior Courts, learned counsel for defendants replied in negative. Thus, the order dated 30.04.2025 has attained finality.
9.9 In view of above, this Court holds that defendants have failed to discharge the onus to prove the issue. Accordingly, Raj issue no.(i) is decided against the defendants and in favour of Kumar Tripathi plaintiff.Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2026.02.18 13:10:37 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.853/2024 (Santosh Kumar Rana vs. Manoj Kumar Birla & Others) Page 13 of 22
Issue no.(ii) Whether plaintiff has filed the present suit on the basis of fabricated and manipulated facts?OPD.
10.1 Onus to prove this issue lies on defendants. 10.2 At the outset, it is to note that no arguments on the aforesaid issue were addressed by counsel for parties. 10.3 In the written statement, defendants contended that plaintiff has filed the present suit entirely on the fabricated, manipulated and concocted facts and documents against them and accordingly, he is liable to be prosecuted for perjury and forgery. 10.4 Defendants have not led any evidence on the aforesaid aspect of defence taken in the written statement. They have also not pursued any remedy for prosecution of plaintiff for perjury and forgery as alleged. The aforesaid defence of defendants is without any supporting proof. 10.5 Thus, defendants have miserably failed to discharge the onus to prove the issue. Accordingly, issue no.(ii) is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue no.(iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.13,15,000/- from the defendant?OPP.
11.1 Onus to prove this issue lies on plaintiff. 11.2 In order to discharge the onus to prove the issue, Raj plaintiff examined himself as PW1. He filed his evidence by way Kumar Tripathi of affidavit, Ex.PW1/A, wherein, he has deposed and Digitally signed by Raj Kumar corroborated about the facts mentioned in the plaint. He has Tripathi Date: 2026.02.18 13:10:43 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.853/2024 (Santosh Kumar Rana vs. Manoj Kumar Birla & Others) Page 14 of 22 relied upon and proved the documents as mentioned in para no.6.1 of the judgment.
11.3 PW1 has proved e-receipt with his bank statement, Ex.PW1/5 (colly.) which shows that plaintiff transferred an amount of Rs.13,15,000/- in the bank account of M.D. Trading House i.e. defendant no.3.
11.4 DW1 Mr. Manoj Kumar Birla in his cross-
examination has admitted that plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.13,15,000/- to defendant. As per him, the said amount was invested in the company. He stated that the total mangoes purchased by defendants were to the tune of Rs.21,00,000/-. He further admitted that he has not returned any amount to plaintiff out of Rs.13,15,000/-.
11.5 As per DW1, he had invested Rs.13,15,000/- as equal to plaintiff's share for export of mangoes to Dubai. The factum of investment of said amount was not mentioned in the written statement filed by defendants. The plea for investment of said amount equal to plaintiff's share was taken for the first time during cross-examination by DW1. The defendants have not filed any document to substantiate the plea that they had also invested Rs.13,15,000/- for export of mangoes to Dubai. Thus, the plea of investment of Rs.13,15,000/- as taken by DW1 in his cross- examination is found to be without any basis and substance. 11.6 The defendants have taken the defence that the Raj Kumar mangoes got rotten and they had to sell the remaining mangoes at Tripathi throwaway prices. In his cross-examination, DW1 Mr.Manoj Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Birla stated that the mangoes got spoiled before it could be sold in Date: 2026.02.18 13:10:49 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.853/2024 (Santosh Kumar Rana vs. Manoj Kumar Birla & Others) Page 15 of 22 the market. He admitted that he had not stated in the written statement about the quantity of the mangoes sold, the amount generated and received through the sale of mangoes along with the cost of spoiled mangoes. The defendants neither in their written statement nor DW1 in his affidavit of evidence has disclosed the total amount received from the alleged sale of leftover mangoes. Only on being queried during his cross- examination, DW1 stated that from the sale of first consignment, he received a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. The defendants have not filed a single document along with the written statement to prove that the mangoes were actually rotten. Thus, in the absence of any documentary proof or reliable evidence, the defendants failed to prove their defence that the mangoes were actually rotten. 11.7 Another defence of defendant is that during the period when the mangoes got rotten, plaintiff took delivery of next consignments and kept them under his possession. He has never tried to share any details about what he had done with the said mangoes and the profits were retained by him. 11.8 In his cross-examination, DW1 stated that plaintiff had lifted two consignments from Nasik. He admitted that he had not mentioned that plaintiff took two consignments of mangoes from Nasik. He could not tell the date when plaintiff had lifted the alleged two consignments of mangoes from Nasik. As per DW1, the payments were made by defendant company to the supplier of mangoes at Nasik. He admitted that he had neither Raj annexed any invoices regarding the alleged purchase of mangoes Kumar Tripathi from Nasik nor mentioned either in the written statement nor in Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2026.02.18 13:10:54 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.853/2024 (Santosh Kumar Rana vs. Manoj Kumar Birla & Others) Page 16 of 22 his evidence by way of affidavit.
11.9 DW1 further deposed in his cross-examination that the payment of the said two consignments was made to Mr. Munna Sayyed. As per him, the payment was made in parts in March, 2024. He further deposed that he had not visited the place from where plaintiff lifted the other two consignments of mangoes. He also stated that he had never sought the accounts of other two consignments from plaintiff. He fairly admitted that he does not have any document to show that the delivery of other two consignments were taken by plaintiff.
11.10 Admittedly, defendants have not examined Mr. Munna Sayyed to whom the payment of two consignments of mangoes was allegedly made. Defendants have not filed any proof in respect of payment made to the supplier of mangoes. Had plaintiff lifted two consignments of mangoes as alleged by defendants, they would have sought accounts for the same from plaintiff. The defendants have not filed any counter claim against plaintiff seeking recovery of the amount as well as the profit, if any qua taking of two consignments of mangoes by him. There is no proof furnished by defendants that plaintiff has actually taken possession of two consignments of mangoes as alleged by them. Thus, defendants have failed to prove the defence of taking of two consignments by plaintiff. Their said plea remained unsubstantiated and unproved. Same is discarded accordingly.
Raj 11.11 In para no.24 of the plaint, plaintiff pleaded that the Kumar goods were insured by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Tripathi Digitally signed Company Ltd. under Policy No. 20240402151522 dated by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2026.02.18 13:10:59 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.853/2024 (Santosh Kumar Rana vs. Manoj Kumar Birla & Others) Page 17 of 22 02.04.2024. He averred that insurance was essential for business to safeguard against unforeseen circumstances, risks, natural disaster, natural calamity, supply chain disruption, damage due to geopolitical circumstances and technical failure in refrigerated container for transit from the place of origin to destination place of delivery.
11.12 PW1 has proved the copy of insurance as Ex.PW1/8. He has further proved the shipping bill summary and sea way bill along with sale order as Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/7 respectively. The factum of insurance of the mangoes has not been denied and disputed by defendants.
11.13 The defendants have taken the plea that the mangoes got rotten. If, the same got rotten, defendants have not disclosed as to whether they filed or pursued any insurance claim against the insurance company or not. Further, if they filed any claim against the insurance company, what was its fate and how much amount was received by them. They have not shared of their action qua the insurance claim with plaintiff. Thus, defendants are found to have not acted fairly in a transparent manner in respect of business transactions with plaintiff. The deliberate failure to invoke the insurance claim, despite the alleged occurrence of an insurable event, warrants a strong adverse inference against defendants. The aforesaid facts demonstrate that the mangoes were actually not rotten and the defendants sold Raj Kumar the same in the open market. The defendants deliberately neither Tripathi shared the profit earned by them qua sale of mangoes nor returned Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi the invested amount to plaintiff.
Date: 2026.02.18 13:11:04 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.853/2024 (Santosh Kumar Rana vs. Manoj Kumar Birla & Others) Page 18 of 2211.14 In view of foregoing reasons and discussions, this Court is of the view that plaintiff has succeeded to discharge the onus to prove the issue. Plaintiff is held entitled to recover an amount of Rs.13,15,000/- from the defendants. The issue no.(iii) is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants accordingly.
Issue no.(iv) Whether plaintiff is entitled for pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization? OPP.
12.1 Onus to prove this issue lies on plaintiff. 12.2 PW1 in his affidavit of evidence deposed that defendants no.1 and 2 never shared any happenings and events of the business transactions at any point of time. They always instructed him to make payment of the transactions and accordingly, plaintiff made payment of the transactions from time to time on their instructions. He further deposed that the act and action of defendants is totally illegal, unlawful and unwarranted. As per the witness, defendants are liable to pay an amount of Rs.13,15,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum. 12.3 In view of section 4 of The Interest Act, 1978 and section 34 CPC, the grant of pendente lite and future interest is the discretion of the Court.
12.4 In the case of Central Bank of India v. Ravindra & Others AIR 2001 SC 3095, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court Raj Kumar that award of interest u/s 34 CPC is discretionary. The discretion Tripathi Digitally signed to award interest should be exercised judiciously and not by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2026.02.18 13:11:12 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.853/2024 (Santosh Kumar Rana vs. Manoj Kumar Birla & Others) Page 19 of 22 arbitrarily. The purpose of interest is to compensate the plaintiff for the delay in receiving payment and not to penalize the defendant. Hon'ble Apex Court also emphasized that the rate of interest should be reasonable reflecting the prevailing commercial rates and market condition.
12.5 In view of above, applying ratio of the law laid down in the aforementioned case regarding grant of interest to the facts of the present case, and as the transaction between the parties is commercial in nature, this Court is of the considered view that interest of justice shall be subserved, if plaintiff is granted interest @ 12% per annum.
12.6 Issue no.(iv) is decided accordingly in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue no.(v) Whether plaintiff is entitled for loss of damages of Rs.6,00,000/- and also entitled for Rs.3,00,000/- on account of physical and mental harassment from the defendant?OPP.
13.1 Plaintiff has claimed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- for loss of damages and Rs.3,00,000/- on account of physical and mental harassment.
13.2 In Mehra Jewel Palace (P) Ltd. vs. Miniso Lifestyle (P) Ltd. 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1557 in para no.65 to 68 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:-
65. ".......Under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, Raj Kumar compensation for breach of contract can only be claimed Tripathi upon damage or loss caused by such breach of contract by Digitally signed by the other side. Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act Raj Kumar Tripathi provides that where an amount is mentioned in the Date: 2026.02.18 13:11:18 +0530 contract as payable in case of breach, the party alleging CS (COMM.) No.853/2024 (Santosh Kumar Rana vs. Manoj Kumar Birla & Others) Page 20 of 22 breach is entitled to receive reasonable compensation, not exceeding the amount so named, whether actual damage is proved or not.
66. While interpreting Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Fateh Chand v. Bal Krishan Das, (1964) 1 SCR 515 held that under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, where the compensation payable for breach of contract is predetermined in a contract, the Court will only award to the aggrieved party reasonable compensation not exceeding the compensation so named.
67. The judgment in Fateh Chand supra was followed by the Supreme Court in Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority, (2015) 4 SCC 136. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are set out hereinafter:
"43. On a conspectus of the above authorities, the law on compensation for breach of contract under Section 74 can be stated to be as follows:
43.1. Where a sum is named in a contract as a liquidated amount payable by way of damages, the party complaining of a breach can receive as reasonable compensation such liquidated amount only if it is a genuine pre-estimate of damages fixed by both parties and found to be such by the court. In other cases, where sum is named in a contract as a liquidated amount payable by way of damages, only reasonable compensation can be awarded not exceeding the amount so stated. Similarly , in cases where the amount is fixed in the nature of penalty, only reasonable compensation can be awarded not exceeding the penalty, so stated. In both cases, the liquidated amount or penalty is the upper limit beyond which, the court cannot grant reasonable compensation. 43.2. Reasonable compensation will be fixed on well known principles that are applicable to the law of contract, which are to be found inter alia in Section 73 of the Contract Act.
43.3. Since Section 74 awards reasonable compensation for damage or loss caused by a breach of contract, damage or loss caused is a sine qua non for the applicability of the section.
43.4. The section applies whether a person is a plaintiff or Raj Kumar a defendant in a suit.
Tripathi 43.5. The sum spoken of may already be paid or be Digitally signed by payable in future. Raj Kumar Tripathi 43.6. The expression "whether or not actual damage or Date: 2026.02.18 13:11:31 +0530 loss is proved to have been caused thereby" means that where it is possible to prove actual damage or loss, such CS (COMM.) No.853/2024 (Santosh Kumar Rana vs. Manoj Kumar Birla & Others) Page 21 of 22 proof is not dispensed with. It is only in cases where damage or loss is difficult or impossible to prove that the liquidated amount named in the contract, if a genuine pre- estimate of damage or loss, can be awarded....."
13.3 In the present case, plaintiff has failed to prove the loss of damages allegedly suffered by him. Thus, in the absence of any proof, plaintiff is not entitled for grant of any amount towards damages or for mental and physical harassment as prayed by him. 13.4 Issue no.(v) is decided accordingly against plaintiff and in defendants' favour.
Relief 14.1 For the foregoing reasons and discussions and findings returned on issue no.(i) to (v), suit of plaintiff is decreed with cost. Defendants are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.13,15,000/- to plaintiff along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 30.09.2024 till the date of actual payment.
15.1 Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. 16.1 File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court Digitally
signed by Raj
on 16th day of February, 2026 Raj Kumar
Tripathi
Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.18
13:11:37
+0530
(Raj Kumar Tripathi)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-05
West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS (COMM.) No.853/2024
(Santosh Kumar Rana vs. Manoj Kumar Birla & Others) Page 22 of 22