Delhi District Court
Ms Ceasefire Industries Pvt Ltd vs Ajay Manchanda Huf on 19 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Richa Sharma
CS No. 1389-2024
CNR Number: DLWT03-002349-2024
M/s. Ceasefire Industries Pvt. Ltd.
B-1/H-1, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi - 110044. ........Plaintiff
Versus
Ajay Manchanda HUF
ARN Footwear Industries
487/24, Near Shiv Mandir,
Peeragarhi, Delhi - 110087. ........Defendant
Date of institution of the suit : 27.09.2024
Date of judgment : 19.04.2025
Decision : Exparte Decreed
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 1,22,454/-
ALONG WITH INTEREST PENDELITE & FUTURE @ 18% PER
ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF DECREE TILL ITS REALIZATION
ALONG WITH COST OF THE SUIT
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit was initially filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 1,22,454/- alongwith pendentelite and future interest against the defendant at the rate of 18% per annum.
___________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 1389/24 M/s. Ceasefire Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Manchanda HUF 1 of 11
2. It has been averred, that the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of selling fire extinguisher, fire fighting equipment and security products. It has been averred, that the plaintiff has authorized Sh. Harsh Mohan Upadhya, who is well conversant with the facts of the present suit and duly authorized to sign, file, verify and prosecute the present suit, vide board resolution.
3. It has been averred, that defendant Ajay Manchanda HUF is carrying on its business under the name and style of ARN Footwear Industries and had approached the plaintiff for supply of the fire extinguishers and raised purchase order. It has been averred, that accordingly the plaintiff had supplied fire extinguishers vide invoice no. DL092223TIAR430 dated 06.05.2022 for an amount of Rs. 1,25,848/-. It has been averred, that defendant had made part payment of Rs.10,000/- on 29.09.2023.
4. It has been averred, that despite repeated requests and demands made by plaintiff in this regard from time to time, defendant did not pay the said amount. Thereafter, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 09.03.2023 and reminder notice dated 11.01.2024 were sent to the defendant, which were duly received. Thus, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff.
___________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 1389/24 M/s. Ceasefire Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Manchanda HUF 2 of 11
5. Summons were sent to the defendant and same were duly served by way of affixation on 21.11.2024. However, the defendant failed to appear before the Court and also failed to file the written statement within the time prescribed. Thereafter, the Court ordered to proceed exparte against the defendant vide its order dated 29.01.2025.
6. During ex-parte evidence, the plaintiff got examined Sh. Harsh Mohan Upadhyay as PW-1 and relied upon the following documents:-
1. Ex.PW1/1 (OSR) is the resolution,
2. Mark A is the certificate of incorporation,
3. Ex.PW1/2 is computerized GST record of the defendant,
4. Mark B is the copy of purchase order,
5. Ex.PW1/4 is the invoice dated 06.05.2022,
6. Ex.PW1/5 is the e-way bill,
7. Ex.PW1/6 is the legal notice,
8. Ex.PW1/7 is the postal receipt,
9. Ex.PW1/8 and Ex.PW1/9 are tracking reports,
10. Ex.PW1/10 is the reminder notice,
11. Ex.PW1/11 is the postal receipt of reminder notice,
12. Ex.PW1/12 and Ex.PW1/13 are tracking reports ___________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 1389/24 M/s. Ceasefire Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Manchanda HUF 3 of 11 of reminder notice,
13. Ex.PW1/14 is the statement of account / ledger.
14. Ex.PW1/15 is the computerized bank statement,
15. Ex.PW1/16 is the certificate under Section 63 of BSA.
7. Thereafter, the exparte PE was closed.
8. I have heard the ex-parte arguments as addressed by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and perused the case file alongwith the documents annexed and exhibited.
9. In support of its contentions, the plaintiff has relied upon Ex.PW1/1 (OSR) i.e. the resolution, vide which PW1 was authorized to pursue the present case as well as to depose on behalf of the plaintiff.
10. The plaintiff has relied upon the certificate of incorporation marked as Mark A. The plaintiff has relied upon the document viz. GST details of the defendant exhibited as Ex.PW1/2. Perusal of the GST certificate shows, that the legal name is mentioned as Ajay Manchanda HUF and the trade name in the GST is mentioned as ARN Footwear Industries.
11. Plaintiff has also relied upon the copy of the purchase order marked as Mark B. Further, the plaintiff has relied upon ___________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 1389/24 M/s. Ceasefire Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Manchanda HUF 4 of 11 computerized copy of the ledger account statement exhibited as Ex.PW1/14 and also the bill / invoice dated 06.05.2022 exhibited as Ex.PW1/4. Perusal of the ledger account statement reflects, that there have been continuous business transactions between the plaintiff and defendant and the plaintiff has maintained the ledger account with respect to the defendant and corresponding dealing with the amount received and also the outstanding balance. As per the ledger entries, the last payment was credited in the account of the plaintiff by the defendant on 29.09.2023 and since then an amount of Rs.1,07,889/- is outstanding as per the ledger entries.
12. Further, the plaintiff has also relied upon the e-way bill exhibited as Ex.PW1/5. Perusal of the same shows, that the goods ordered by the defendant were supplied via road and the document number was mentioned as that of the invoice no. DL092223TIAR430.
13. In support of all the computerized documents, plaintiff has also placed on record the certificate under Section 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 exhibited as Ex.PW1/16.
14. The plaintiff has also served upon the defendant the legal notice already exhibited as Ex.PW1/6 with proof of service i.e. postal receipt being Ex.PW1/7 and tracking reports being Ex.PW1/8 and Ex.PW1/9 and the plaintiff has also served upon the defendant the reminder notice already exhibited as Ex.PW1/10 with proof of ___________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 1389/24 M/s. Ceasefire Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Manchanda HUF 5 of 11 service i.e. postal receipt being Ex.PW1/11 and tracking reports being Ex.PW1/12 and Ex.PW1/13, thereby demanding the outstanding amount due against the defendant. It is a settled proposition of law that, if a party despite service of legal notices chooses not to reply to the same, the averments of the notice stands admitted. Furthermore, the legal notice along with postal receipts was also sent by plaintiff to the defendant and at this stage inference can be drawn on the basis of Section 119 of the Bhartiya Sakshar Adhiniyam, 2023 (earlier Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act), which states that, " the court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and/a private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case." The Clause (f) appended to the section clearly states that, "common course of business has been followed in a particular case, implying that where a letter or legal notice as in the present case is sent to the defendant, it would have ordinarily been delivered in the common course of business to the party to whom it was addressed."
15. In this case the delivery of the legal notice also stands proved by the postal receipts placed on record and also the tracking report of the service of the legal notice.
16. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment titled ___________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 1389/24 M/s. Ceasefire Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Manchanda HUF 6 of 11 as Abdul Gaffar vs. DDA 2001 Rajdhani Law Reporter 249 that if a legal notice is given by a party, the same is not replied and contents not denied then, silence of the notice raises presumption against him. Another judgment of Hon'ble High Court titled as Kalu Ram v Sita Ram 1980 Rajdhani Law Reporter (Note) 44 is on the same aspect.
17. At this stage, it is also pertinent to mention Section 27 of the General Clauses Act :
"Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression "serve" or "given" or "send" or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 510 observed as under :
"The principle incorporated in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act could profitably be imported in a case where the sender had dispatched the notice by post with the direct ___________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 1389/24 M/s. Ceasefire Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Manchanda HUF 7 of 11 address written on it. Then it can be deemed to have been served on the addressee, unless he proves that it was not really served and he was not responsible for such non-service. These were the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a case relating to service of notice U/s 138 of NI Act. "
19. Thus, in the backdrop of the facts of the present case and the same being read conjointly with the law reproduced as above, it is clear, that the legal notice and the reminder notice were sent to defendant by plaintiff and same are Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/10 respectively. Despite that the defendant did not reply to the legal notice nor did he make payment of the outstanding amount to the defendant and this goes to establish that defendant does not have any valid defence to make against the contentions of plaintiff. Moreover the defendant did not appear before the court even after service of summons to contest the present suit.
20. The defendant has chosen to remain absent during the entire course of proceedings and henceforth he neither cross examined the plaintiff witness nor led any evidence. Hence, the averments made by the plaintiff remain unchallenged and unrebutted. The suit is within the period of limitation as well as within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. The testimony of the witness of plaintiff has remained unchallenged and unrebutted. There is nothing to disbelieve the unrebutted testimony of the witness of plaintiff or to ___________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 1389/24 M/s. Ceasefire Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Manchanda HUF 8 of 11 doubt the authenticity of the documents and veracity of the documents exhibited and proved on record. The defendant did not come forward to disprove the case of the plaintiff.
21. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that plaintiff has duly proved its case by oral as well as documentary evidence on the file. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount at the agreed rate of interest. Since, defendant did not appear before the Court despite service, therefore, it should be presumed that defendant admits the claim of plaintiff. On these grounds, plaintiff has prayed that the Suit should be decreed. From the evidence of plaintiff, which has remained unrebutted, case of plaintiff stands proved.
22. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,22,454/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. The plaintiff is also held entitled to costs. Decree sheet be prepared on filing of deficient Court fees, if any.
Digitally
23. File be consigned to Record Room.
signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19 16:34:54 +0530 Announced in open Court (Richa Sharma) on 19.04.2025 SCJ-cum-RC (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 19.04.2025 ___________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 1389/24 M/s. Ceasefire Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Manchanda HUF 9 of 11 CS SCJ 1389/24 Ms Ceasefire Industries Pvt Ltd Vs. Ajay Manchanda HUF 19.04.2025 Present : Sh. Vivek Bhagat, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Defendant is already exparte.
Be awaited.
(Richa Sharma) Sr. Civil Judge - Cum - RC THC / Delhi / 19.04.2025 At 12:00 Noon Present : Sh. Vivek Bhagat, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Defendant is already exparte.
PW1 is present, examined and discharged.
PE stands closed vide separate statement of PW1. Exparte final arguments heard.
List for judgment during the course of the day.
(Richa Sharma) Sr. Civil Judge - Cum - RC THC / Delhi / 19.04.2025 At 4:00 PM Present : Sh. Vivek Bhagat, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Defendant is already exparte.
Vide separate detailed judgment of the even date announced in the open Court today, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,22,454/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its ___________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 1389/24 M/s. Ceasefire Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Manchanda HUF 10 of 11 realization. The plaintiff is also held entitled to costs. Decree sheet be prepared on filing of deficient Court fees, if any.
Digitally File be consigned to Record Room. signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19 (Richa Sharma) 16:34:48 +0530 Sr. Civil Judge - Cum - RC THC / Delhi / 19.04.2025 ___________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 1389/24 M/s. Ceasefire Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Manchanda HUF 11 of 11