Delhi District Court
Ms Orient Multi Products Worldwide Pvt ... vs Ankur Tayagi on 30 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RENU: CIVIL JUDGE : NORTH
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
CS SCJ-534474/2016
CNR No. -DLNT030000352015
In reference:
M/s. Orient Multi Products Worldwide Pvt. Ltd.
Registered office at D-1606, DSIDC,
Narela Industrial Area,
Delhi-110040.
Through its Director Shri Pankaj Mittal ............. Plaintiff
VERSUS
Shri Ankur Tyagi, Proprietor
M/s. Balaji Glass Company,
77/4A, Ganesh Pur, Railway Road,
Roorkee, Uttrakhand. .............Defendant
Date of Institution : 06.02.2015
Date of reservation of Judgment : 16.02.2026
Date of Judgment : 30.03.2026
Decision : Decreed
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.2,14,568/-.
SCJ No. 534474/2016 Orient Multi Products Worldwide Pvt Ltd. Vs. Ankur Tyagi Page 1 of 18Digitally signed by RENU RENU Date:
2026.03.30 16:33:32 +0530 FACTS AS PER THE PLAINT :-
2. The case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, is that the plaintiff company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is engaged in the business of various foamed acrylic and silicone items etc. And Sh. Pankaj Mittal is one of the Directors of the plaintiff company and is duly authorised by the resolution dated 15.07.2014 passed by the Board of Directors empowering him to file and pursue the present suit on behalf of the company against the defendant and as such he is competent to file the present suit.
3. It is averred that the defendant had purchased various items from the plaintiff company vide various invoices and the same were supplied to the defendant as per his satisfaction and were duly received and acknowledged by the defendant. As on date i.e. the date of filing of the suit, an amount of Rs.1,90,952/- is outstanding against the defendant which the defendant failed to pay despite repeated requests made.
4. It is further averred that the plaintiff had issued two cheques both dated 06.06.2014 for Rs.50,000/- each drawn on ICICI Bank, Roorkee Branch, Uttarakhand as part payment of the total outstanding against him. However, the same were dishonoured with the remarks 'Funds Insufficient' vide memo dated 10.06.2014. The plaintiff company approached the defendant regarding dishonoured cheques, on which the defendant assured the plaintiff company to make the payment within 2-3 days' time. However, no payment was made by the defendant towards outstanding amount/dishonoured cheques despite SCJ No. 534474/2016 Orient Multi Products Worldwide Pvt Ltd. Vs. Ankur Tyagi Page 2 of 18 Digitally signed by RENU RENU Date:
2026.03.30 16:33:46 +0530 repeated requests. Finally, a legal notice was sent to the defendant on 14.06.2014 vide registered post demanding the outstanding payment, which was served upon the defendant on 19.06.2014. It is further alleged that the orders placed by the defendant were received at Delhi and the goods have been supplied to him from Delhi and the part payments made by the defendant to the plaintiff at Delhi and as per the agreement, the courts at Delhi only have the jurisdiction and this court has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide the present case. The cause of action arises in favour of the plaintiff and still persists till recovery of the outstanding amount from the defendant.
5. It is further averred that a sum of Rs.1,90,952/- as principal amount and a sum of Rs.23,616/- @ 18% per annum, thereby a total amount of Rs.2,14,568/- is outstanding towards the plaintiff to be paid to the defendant company. It is also averred that till date defendant has failed to make any payment.
PRAYER:
6. Plaintiff has made the following prayer:-
(a) Pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.2,14,568/-.
(b) Award the future and pendente-lite interest in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant @ 18% per annum being the commercial transaction.
(c) Cost of the suit.
(e) Any other relief(s).
WRITTEN STATEMENT:
SCJ No. 534474/2016 Orient Multi Products Worldwide Pvt Ltd. Vs. Ankur Tyagi Page 3 of 18
Digitally
signed by
RENU
RENU Date:
2026.03.30
16:33:52
+0530
Defendant in its written statement has averred that the present false and frivolous suit has been filed by the plaintiff with ulterior motives and has suppressed the material facts and has not come with clean hands. The plaint has not disclosed any cause of action having arisen in favour of the plaintiff hence is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. This court does not have jurisdiction to try the present matter.
In para-wise reply, the defendant has admitted the business relationship between plaintiff and defendant and also admitted that on several occasions defendant placed the orders with plaintiff and also received goods. However, defendant alleged that invoice dated 28.05.2014 is forged and fabricated and that the said goods were never supplied to the defendant. It is also stated in the WS that whenever the goods were supplied to the defendant by the plaintiff, the same were supplied directly to Uttarakhand and in this regard every time 2% CST was charged but, in the invoice, dated 28.05.2014, the goods were stated to be supplied by using vehicle bearing registration no. HR 46B-2472 driven by one Imran of one Hum Tempo Transport Service. It is also stated that on said articles the CST was charged @5% instead of @2% which itself shows that the said articles/goods were received by the defendant and as such there is no receiving on the counter part of the invoice. It is further stated that plaintiff misused the security cheques which were given to him at the time of starting the business with the plaintiff. Defendant also denied receiving of any legal notice dated 14.06.2024 as the address mentioned on the legal notice does not belongs to the defendant. It is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff SCJ No. 534474/2016 Orient Multi Products Worldwide Pvt Ltd. Vs. Ankur Tyagi Page 4 of 18 Digitally signed by RENU RENU Date:
2026.03.30 16:33:57 +0530 be rejected with exemplary cost.
REPLICATION:
Replication to the WS of the defendant filed by the plaintiff in which the averments of WS were denied in toto and the contents of the plaint are reiterated.
ISSUES:
7. Thereafter the following issues were framed vide order dated 13.12.2022:
I) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for a sum of Rs.2,14,568, as prayed for? OPP.
II) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to future and pendente-lite interest @ 18% p.a., as prayed for? OPP.
III) Relief.
EVIDENCE:
8. To substantiate its case, the plaintiff examined Sh. Pankaj Mittal, one of the Directors of plaintiff company, who has relied upon the following documents:-
(a) Ex PW-1/1 (OSR) being the certificate of incorporation.
(b) Ex PW-1/2 (OSR) being the resolution dated 15.07.2014.
(c) Ex PW-1/3 to Ex. PW-1/8 (OSR) being the invoices.
(d) Mark A to Mark F being the transport builties.
(e) Ex PW-1/9 (colly) being the statement of account from 01.04.2012 SCJ No. 534474/2016 Orient Multi Products Worldwide Pvt Ltd. Vs. Ankur Tyagi Page 5 of 18 Digitally signed by RENU RENU Date:
2026.03.30 16:34:02 +0530 till 12.01.2014.
(f) Ex PW-1/9A being the certificate u/s 65-B IEA.
(g) Ex PW-1/10 being the cheque no.917198.
(h) Ex PW-1/11 being the cheque no.917197.
(i) Ex PW-1/12 being the cheque return memo.
(j) Ex PW-1/13 being the legal notice.
(k) Ex PW-1/14 being the postal receipt.
(n) Ex PW-1/15 being the computer generated tracking report.
9. PW-1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant at length.
10.Sh. Balram Mishra, Jr. Assistant, ITO Department of Trade and Taxes is examined as PW-2 and discharged. He relied upon the following documents:-
(a) Ex. PW-2/1 being the authority letter.
(b) Ex. PW-2/2 (colly.) being the certified copy of sales return of the plaintiff company.
(c) Ex.PW-2/3 being the certificate u/s 65-B IEA.
11. Thereafter, on the statement of plaintiff, PE was closed on 13.01.2025.
DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE:
12. Defendant Sh. Ankur Tyagi examined himself as DW-1. He was cross-examined and discharged. On his statement DE was closed on 05.05.2025.SCJ No. 534474/2016 Orient Multi Products Worldwide Pvt Ltd. Vs. Ankur Tyagi Page 6 of 18
Digitally signed by RENU RENU Date:
2026.03.30 16:34:08 +0530 FINAL ARGUMENTS:-
13. Final arguments have been heard at length.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:-
14. Before embarking to decide the present case, it would be appropriate to reiterate the burden of proof required to be discharged in civil proceedings. As laid down in Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v. Jaspal Singh, (2009) 7 SCC 330, the burden which ought to be discharged in civil proceedings in not as strict as in criminal cases and in order for any party to succeed, he/it is required to prove his/its case on the preponderance of probabilities. The relevant portion of the aforesaid pronouncement is hereby produced here for the sake of brevity:
"It has been held that there is a marked difference as to the effect of evidence, namely, the proof, in civil and criminal proceedings. In civil proceedings, a mere preponderance of probability is sufficient, and the defendant is not necessarily entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt; but in criminal proceedings, the persuasion of guilt must amount to such a moral certainty as convinces the mind of the court, as a reasonable man, beyond all reasonable doubt."
15. Further, Section 104 of the Bharitya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 defines "burden of proof" and laid down that the burden of proving a fact always lying upon the person who asserts the facts. Until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The court has to examine as to whether the person SCJ No. 534474/2016 Orient Multi Products Worldwide Pvt Ltd. Vs. Ankur Tyagi Page 7 of 18 Digitally signed by RENU RENU Date:
2026.03.30 16:34:14 +0530 upon whom the burden lies has been able to discharge his burden. Until he arrives at such conclusion, he cannot proceed on the basis of weakness of other party. In view of Section 106 of Bharitya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023, the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lied on any particular person. Further, Section 53 of the Bharitya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 contained that no fact needs to be proved in any proceedings which parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the herein, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands or which by any rule of pleadings enforce at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings.
16. Having determined the burden of proof required to be discharged in civil cases, this court will now proceed to give it issue wise findings as per the issues framed on 13.12.2022, are as follows:-
Issue no. (I) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for a sum of Rs.2,14,568, as prayed for? OPP.
17. The burden of proving this issue is upon the Plaintiff. In order to prove this issue plaintiff is required to prove that defendant has a liability towards the plaintiff and that defendant has failed to make the SCJ No. 534474/2016 Orient Multi Products Worldwide Pvt Ltd. Vs. Ankur Tyagi Page 8 of 18 Digitally signed by RENU RENU Date:
2026.03.30 16:34:22 +0530 payment in discharge of said debt.
18.In order to prove that defendant has an undischarged lability towards the plaintiff, plaintiff placed reliance of invoice no. R-32 dated 28.05.2014 as it the case of plaintiff that he supplied goods to the defendant against this invoice which were delivered to the defendant by G. R. No. 9829. Further, in order to prove the liability of defendant plaintiff also placed reliance on statement of account which is exhibited as Ex PW-1/9 (colly), cheques Ex PW-1/10 & Ex PW-1/11, return memo Ex PW-1/12 ,legal notice , postal receipt and tracking report as Ex PW-1/13, Ex PW-1/14& Ex PW-1/15 respectively.
19.The defence of accused is of two-fold; one is invoice dated 28.05.2014 and receipt R-32 is forged and fabricated document and no goods were ever supplied qua this invoice and secondly, the security cheques issued at the time of starting the business with the plaintiff were misused by the plaintiff.
20. Main contention raised on of behalf of defendant is that the invoice is forged and fabricated is based upon the following grounds; (i) the regular transport services was not used by plaintiff to deliver the goods, (ii) earlier the goods were transported from Delhi used to be delivered directly to Roorkee, Uttarakhand but for this particular transaction, the goods were alleged to delivered to the Roorkee through Sirmour, H.P, (iii) earlier on all the invoices CST was charged @2% and on the alleged transaction it was charged @5%, (iv) at the alleged time of delivery the defendant has shifted from the address mentioned on the disputed invoice and lastly (v) there is no receiving of defendant on the counterpart of alleged invoice SCJ No. 534474/2016 Orient Multi Products Worldwide Pvt Ltd. Vs. Ankur Tyagi Page 9 of 18 Digitally signed by RENU RENU Date:
2026.03.30 16:34:28 +0530
21. With respect to the that different transport service is used to deliver the goods qua disputed invoice; there in no written contract to that effect between the parties that goods were to be delivered by using a particular transport service. Further, it is nowhere mentioned in the written statement of the defendant that the goods need to be delivered by using a particular transport service. During cross examination of PW-1, he admitted that goods were used to delivered through Vijaylaxmi Transport Company but at the same time PW-1 deposed that it was done at the demand of the defendant. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it cannot be said that the invoice is forged and fabricated only because a different transport agency is used. PW-2 also admitted that the address of Balaji Glass House is not mentioned on the Mark F. However, the same was accompanied with the invoice on which the address of defendant is mentioned.
22.With respect to the submissions that earlier the goods were used to be delivered from Delhi to Roorkee directly and for this particular invoice the goods were transferred from Delhi to Roorkee via Sirmour, H.P. On this basis also it cannot be said that the said invoice is forged and fabricated. It a particular root is followed by the transporting agency for the delivery of goods it cannot be the fault of consignor. Once plaintiff hired the services of a transport agency it becomes the duty of transport agency to deliver the goods safely to the consignee. However, it is on the transport agency to which root they wants to follow, unless it is specifically agreed between the parties that they will follow a particular root and there is nothing on record to show that parties had agreed upon any particular root to be followed.
SCJ No. 534474/2016 Orient Multi Products Worldwide Pvt Ltd. Vs. Ankur Tyagi Page 10 of 18Digitally signed by RENU RENU Date:
2026.03.30 16:34:36 +0530 Further, during cross examination, PW-1 deposed that the disputed invoice and Mark F both are having stamp of Excise and Taxation department, Sirmour, H.P. which in itself shows that the invoice and builty receipt mark F are not forged and fabricated and the goods were actually dispatched as per that invoice.
23. Qua submissions that earlier on all invoices CST was charged @2% and on alleged invoice CST was charged @5%, it was argued by Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff that CST was not charged by the plaintiff company but by the government and the same was charged as per the applicable rates on the date of delivery and he deposited that amount of CST @ 5% with the government and this facts stands duly proved by the testimony of PW-2 who produced the certified copy of the Sales Return filed by plaintiff company for the period of 01.05.2014 to 31.05.2014 which is exhibited as Ex. PW2/2 . From the perusal of Ex. PW2/2 at page 3, 2nd entry, it is clear that rate of CST is 5%. Therefore, this contention of defendant is also devoid of merits.
24.With respect to the submissions that at the date of delivery of goods, the defendant had already changed his address, defendant has failed to produce any document on record to show the same. Moreover, during his cross examination as DW-1, defendant himself deposed that the address mentioned on all the invoices and legal notice is correct. However, defendant volunteered that it was his old address. DW-1 also deposed that he shifted from that address in 2013 to his new address which is M/s. Balaji Company at 58, Gandhi Road, PLS Plaza, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. However, defendant has not placed even a single document on record to prove that he has shifted from his SCJ No. 534474/2016 Orient Multi Products Worldwide Pvt Ltd. Vs. Ankur Tyagi Page 11 of 18 Digitally signed by RENU RENU Date:
2026.03.30 16:34:42 +0530 earlier address in the year 2013. Further, Ex. PW-1/7 is the invoice dated 15.11.2013 on which the address mentioned of defendant is the same which is mentioned on Ex. PW-1/8 i.e, 77/4A, Ganeshpur, Railway Road, Roorkee, Uttarakhand and defendant himself admitted the reception of goods qua invoice Ex. PW-1/7.
25.Moreover, it was also argued on behalf of defendant that there is no receiving of defendant either on Ex. PW-1/8 or on Mark F. Admittedly there is no receiving on the Ex. PW-1/8 or on Mark F. However, there are other invoices and Bility receipts on record which were admitted by the defendant and none of those invoices and bilites have the receiving which suggests that in the ordinary course of business plaintiff and defendant use to operate in similar manner and never took or gave receiving. Therefore, in the absence of the anything to the contrary, it cannot be said that the invoice dated 28.05.2014 and Mark F are false and fabricated document or that no goods were supplied to the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff.
26. Another defence taken by the defendant that the plaintiff misused the security cheques given at the time of starting the business. It is argued on behalf of defendant that both the cheques i.e, Ex. PW-1/10 and Ex. PW-1/11 were given as security when the parties started transacting with each other and the plaintiff misused the post-dated security cheques by filling up the date on the cheques. During cross examination of defendant as DW-1, he admitted the issuance of both the cheques to the plaintiff though he claimed that the cheques were Post dated cheque and not towards any legally enforceable debt. As soon as the issuance of cheques are admitted, the presumption under SCJ No. 534474/2016 Orient Multi Products Worldwide Pvt Ltd. Vs. Ankur Tyagi Page 12 of 18 RENU Digitally signed by RENU Date: 2026.03.30 16:34:48 +0530 section 118 read with section 139 Negotiable Instruments act arises.
27.The NI Act raises two presumptions in favour of the holder of the cheque i.e., complainant in the present case; firstly, with regard to passing of consideration as contained in Section 118 (a) and, secondly, a presumption under Section 139, that the holder of cheque receiving the same of the nature referred to in Section 138 for discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. These presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 have to be compulsorily raised as soon as execution of cheque by accused is admitted or proved by the complainant and thereafter burden is shifted upon the accused to prove otherwise. The onus to prove the issuance of the cheque lies upon the complainant, and the same has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, unless the accused admits the same. Once the issuance of cheque is established, either by admission or by positive evidence, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arises.
28.In Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418, it was held that "23. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in above cases on Sections 118(a) and 139, we now summarise the principles enumerated by this Court in following manner:-
(i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.
(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The SCJ No. 534474/2016 Orient Multi Products Worldwide Pvt Ltd. Vs. Ankur Tyagi Page 13 of 18 Digitally signed by RENU RENU Date:
2026.03.30 16:35:34 +0530 standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.
(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
(iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.
(v) It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence.
29.Similarly, in Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513, it was ruled that "18. Applying the definition of the word "proved" in Section 3 of the Evidence Act to the provisions of Sections 118 and 139 of the Act, it becomes evident that in a trial under Section 138 of the Act a presumption will have to be made that every negotiable instru- ment was made or drawn for consideration and that it was exe- cuted for discharge of debt or liability once the execution of nego- tiable instrument is either proved or admitted. As soon as the com- plainant discharges the burden to prove that the instrument, say a note, was executed by the accused, the rules of presumptions un- SCJ No. 534474/2016 Orient Multi Products Worldwide Pvt Ltd. Vs. Ankur Tyagi Page 14 of 18 Digitally signed by RENU RENU Date:
2026.03.30 16:35:42 +0530 der Sections 118 and 139 of the Act help him shift the burden on the accused. The presumptions will live, exist and survive and shall end only when the contrary is proved by the accused, that is, the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability. A presumption is not in itself evidence, but only makes a prima facie case for a party for whose benefit it exists.
In light of the abovesaid observations, it is clear that once the execution of cheque is admitted or proved then only the court will raise statutory presumption provided under section 118 and 139 of NI act. Therefore, in case of absence of admission on the part of defendant qua the cheque, plaintiff is required to prove that the cheque in question was issued by defendant to him and same bears his signature.
30.In the present case, the execution of cheque is stands admitted by the defendant. Therefore, the presumption under Negotiable Instruments Act does arises in favour of the plaintiff and now the burden is upon the defendant to prove that cheque is not given for any consideration and that the cheques were not issued towards any debt or liability.
31.In order to discharge said burden the defendant has taken a defence of misuse of security cheques issued at the time of starting the business with the plaintiff. Law is settled on this point that using of security cheques is not per se exempt the defendant from his liability. Per contra, it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments that security cheques are meant to secure the transaction between the SCJ No. 534474/2016 Orient Multi Products Worldwide Pvt Ltd. Vs. Ankur Tyagi Page 15 of 18 Digitally signed by RENU RENU Date:
2026.03.30 16:35:49 +0530 parties and in case the other party fails to pay the amount owed by the drawer, the drawee is entitled to encash cheques given for security purposes unless the drawer proves that at the date of presentation of cheque there is no liability to be discharged in favour of the drawee. In the present case, defendant has failed to prove that he has not received any goods against Ex. PW-1/8 as discussed above. Therefore, the defendant has failed to rebut the presumption on the precipice of preponderance of probabilities.
32.Plaintiff has also claimed pre litigation interest @18% i.e., Rs. 23,616 on outstanding amount of 1,92,952/- but again plaintiff has failed to prove that he has any right to claim interest such pre litigation interest as there nothing on record to show that there is any such stipulation or condition existed between the parties.
33. Accordingly, in view of the above said discussion, issue I is partially decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. II Whether the plaintiff is entitled to future and pendente-lite interest @ 18% p.a., as prayed for? OPP.
34.The burden to prove this issue is also upon the plaintiff that he is entitled to claim pendente-lite and future interest @18%. However, in order to prove this issue plaintiff has not adduced any single evidence. Moreover, any such clause is also not mentioned on the invoices. It is SCJ No. 534474/2016 Orient Multi Products Worldwide Pvt Ltd. Vs. Ankur Tyagi Page 16 of 18 Digitally signed by RENU RENU Date:
2026.03.30 16:35:55 +0530 also not case of plaintiff that it was agreed between the parties that in case of failure of defendant to pay the outstanding amount the penal interest @18% will be charged.
35.It is the settled law that the Court is not bound by the rate of interest claimed by the plaintiff even if it is contractual. It has been reiterated in the case of M/s. Sangat Printers Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Wimpy International Ltd.(RFA No.657/2003) that the Court should be alive to the change of rate of interest regime and refrain from awarding excessively high and unreasonable rates of interest. Accordingly, this Court deems it fit to exercise its discretion under Section 34 of the CPC and grant reasonable interest rate of 9% per annum as pendente lite and future interest.
Accordingly, issue no.2 is decided in favour of defendant and against the defendant. However, plaintiff is entitled to claim interest @ 9%.
36.In light of the above discussion, this Court finds that the plaintiff has proved his case on the balance of probabilities. The defendant's defence has no evidentiary backing. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is partially decreed in his favour and against the defendant The plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Rs.1,92,952/-. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to pendente-lite and future interest @9% per annum.
Digitally SCJ No. 534474/2016 Orient Multi Products Worldwide Pvt Ltd. Vs. Ankur Tyagi Page 17 of 18 signed by RENU RENU Date:
2026.03.30 16:36:01 +0530 Relief
36. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is partially decreed in his favour and against the defendant in the following terms:
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff a sum of ₹1,92,952.
2. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to pendente-lite and future interest @9% per annum.
3. The plaintiff shall be entitled to costs of the suit.
37. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
38. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Announced in the open Court on 30.03.2026 (RENU) JMFC-10(WEST)/THC/DELHI 30.03.2026 Digitally signed by RENU RENU Date:
2026.03.30 16:36:06 +0530 SCJ No. 534474/2016 Orient Multi Products Worldwide Pvt Ltd. Vs. Ankur Tyagi Page 18 of 18