Delhi District Court
Ms Translink Logistics Pvt Ltd vs Seetu Kohli Concepts Pvt Ltd on 7 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS SAVITA RAO, DISTRICT JUDGE
COMMERCIAL COURT-01, SOUTH,
SAKET COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 179/2023
DLST010029532023
In the matter of:-
M/s Translink Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
Having its office situated at
WZ-340, Nagal Raya
New Delhi - 110046
..... Plaintiff
Vs.
M/s Seetu Kohli Concepts Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director Ms. Seetu N Kohli
124, 2nd Floor, Shahpurjat
New Delhi - 110049
Also at :
The Haveli 5/5, Ambawatta One
Kalkadas Marg, New Delhi - 110030
..... Defendant
Date of institution of the case : 24.03.2023
Date of final arguments : 12.12.2024, 06.02.2025,
16.05.2025, 03.07.2025 &
07.07.2025
Date of judgment : 07.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is suit for recovery of Rs. 30,36,601/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs Thirty Six Thousand Six Hundred One Only) filed by the CS (Comm) No. : 179/2023 1/15 plaintiff against the defendant on the facts that plaintiff is a reputed international freight forwarder having one of its branch offices at New Delhi and is known for its best services at the concerned ports. It provides prompt and efficient forwarding/Customs Clearance /Transportation Services to its clients in export/import which includes providing services for making all necessary assistance/work as required for custom clearance forwarding/dispatching of the goods to be exported/imported to/from their respective destinations/countries. Defendant company which is engaged in import of goods/materials from overseas country approached the plaintiff for availing its forwarding/custom clearance/transportation services, infrastructures and experience etc. and agreed to pay fee/charges for the same.
2. Defendant availed the services of plaintiff and plaintiff raised/sent bill(s)/debit notes(s)/invoice(s) to defendant for the services provided by it. Part payments towards the invoices raised by plaintiff were made by defendant but the complete amount was not paid. As per ledger account maintained by plaintiff in respect of defendant's account, after adjusting the payments made by defendant, an amount of Rs. 19,54,297/- remained due and outstanding as on 21.01.2020 payable by defendant to plaintiff, which was not cleared by defendant despite repeated demands and follow up, by the plaintiff. Since defendant failed, avoided and neglected to clear the aforesaid balance outstanding amount even after more than 2 years, it became liable to pay interest on the outstanding amount after 7 days from the said date i.e. 21.01.2020. Hence, defendant became liable to pay total sum of Rs. 29,69,138/- which it failed to clear.
CS (Comm) No. : 179/2023 2/15Legal Demand Notice dated 17.12.2022 sent to defendant did not yield any result.
3. Plaintiff filed an application for Mediation before the competent authority under Rule 2 (c) of The Commercial Courts (Pre-Institution) Mediation and Settlement Rules, 2018 wherein defendant did not participate in the mediation proceedings and Non-Starter Report dated 04.02.2023 was issued by South District Legal Service Authority. Hence, plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit before this court.
4. In written statement filed on behalf of defendant, it was stated that except for the invoices mentioned at page no. 155, 169 and 173, on all other invoices filed and relied upon by the plaintiff, it was mentioned that:
" in case of any dispute on this bill, the same must be reported to us within 7 days from the receipt of the bill and subject to Chennai jurisdiction only".
Hence, this court has limited territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit, only in respect of invoices relied upon by plaintiff at page no. 155, 169 and 173, as every invoice gives rise to a separate cause of action.
5. It was further stated that whatever services were availed by the defendant, defendant had paid for the same and no amount is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. Plaintiff did not provide any services to the defendant after 31.12.2019 and statement of account relied by the plaintiff is not correct but is a manipulated statement of account having false entries.
6. In replication, contents of written statement were denied and those of plaint were reiterated and reaffirmed.
7. Following issues were framed vide order dated 13.09.2024:
CS (Comm) No. : 179/2023 3/15(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount, as claimed? OPP (2) Relief
8. In Plaintiff's Evidence, Sh. Kuldeep Singh, AR of plaintiff was examined as PW1. He filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and relied upon following documents:-
1. Copy of Certificate of Incorporation as Ex. PW1/1.
2. True Copy of Board Resolution dated 01.09.2022 as Ex.
PW1/2.
3. Computer generated Copy of Tax Invoice as Ex. PW1/3 (colly)
4. Copy of Ledger Account for the financial years 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017, 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018, 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 and 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 as Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/7.
5. Copies of emails sent by the plaintiff to defendant as Ex.
PW1/8 (colly).
6. Certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.
PW1/9.
7. Certificate under Order XI Rule 6 (3) of CPC as Ex.
PW1/10.
8. Copy of Legal Notice dated 17.12.2022 as Ex. PW1/11.
9. Non-Starter Report dated 04.02.2023 as Ex. PW1/12.
9. Sh. Bibek Kumar Jha, Accountant of plaintiff was examined as PW2. He filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A and relied upon documents already exhibited as Ex. PW1/3 (colly) to Ex. PW1/7.
10. No witness was examined in Defendant's evidence and on CS (Comm) No. : 179/2023 4/15 the submission of Ld. counsel for defendant, DE was closed vide order dated 06.11.2024.
Issue-wise Findings are as under:-
11. Issue No. 1: During the course of business transactions between the parties, plaintiff had raised various bills for the services provided and the defendant had been making the part payments. Business transactions between the parties is admitted fact on record. Defendant admitted all the invoices except for three invoices and stated about there being no business transaction between the parties after 31.12.2019. Disputed three invoices are dated 15.01.2020 (two invoices) and 21.01.2020 in sum of Rs. 1,45,213, 9,440/- and Rs. 1,32,870/- respectively. PW1 relied upon the ledger details Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/7 for the financial years from 01.04.2016 to March 31.03.2020 and tax invoices Ex. PW1/3 (colly).
12. Ld. counsel for defendant also raised objection pertaining to territorial jurisdiction of the court submitting that this court has territorial jurisdiction to deal with the case only in respect of invoices mentioned at page no. 155, 169 and 173 as on all other invoices filed and relied upon by the plaintiff, the dispute between the parties is subject to Chennai Jurisdiction only.
13. Ld. Counsel for petitioner submitted that it is well settled proposition of law that the parties by agreement or consent cannot confer jurisdiction on the court not vested otherwise as the jurisdiction can be conferred only by statute and not by consent and acquiescence.
14. Defendant is admittedly operating within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Parties even by their consent cannot confer the jurisdiction upon the court which otherwise is not having territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. PW1 was categorical CS (Comm) No. : 179/2023 5/15 in his submission that though the court of discharge is mentioned as 'Chennai' in some of the tax invoices and it was also mentioned in invoices that disputes were subject to 'Chennai' jurisdiction except in three of the invoices, where the disputes were subject to Delhi jurisdiction, however no goods were received from overseas at 'Chennai' and he did not know why on later bills, Delhi jurisdiction was mentioned whereas on earlier bills, 'Chennai' jurisdiction was mentioned.
15. Nevertheless, the parties though can agree to restrict the jurisdiction to one place out of many places where the cause of action or part of cause of action has arisen, but cannot confer the jurisdiction upon the court where no part of cause of action has arisen. There is no submission on record that any part of cause of action has arisen in Chennai. Even otherwise, unilateral mention in the invoices conferring the jurisdiction upon one court where otherwise no cause of action has arisen, jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon the same. The defendant being operating within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and part of cause of action having arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, this court has territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter between the parties.
16. Further, based upon the clause restricting the jurisdiction to the ,Chennai, in many of the invoices, Ld. Counsel for defendant submitted that it proves that the invoices are not authentic and are fabricated and the alleged invoices at page no. 155, 169 and 173 do not bear any acknowledgment of defendant, hence cannot be said to be proved.
17. PW1 while conceded that on all the tax invoices which are part of Ex. PW1/3 (colly), there are no signatures or CS (Comm) No. : 179/2023 6/15 acknowledgment of the defendant, however, he denied that since these tax invoices were not genuine documents, therefore, no signatures of the defendant's representative had been placed on record by them . Plaintiff has placed on record numerous invoices against which the payments have been made by the defendant which also do not bear any acknowledgment from the defendant. More so, contrary to the submission of Ld. counsel for defendant with regard to invoices not being authentic or fabricated, all the invoices except for invoices bearing no. 392, 394 and 402 which are at page no. 155, 169 and 173, have been admitted by defendant in affidavit of admission/denial of documents.
18. It was further submitted by counsel for defendant that plaintiff has failed to prove that there was closing balance of Rs. 16,89,943.00 as on 31.03.2019 as no tax invoices were filed prior to 07.06.2019 to prove the said fact.
19. Ld. counsel for defendant also raised objection pertaining to authenticity of the ledger details placed on record by plaintiff. It was stated that PW1 in his cross examination has mentioned that printout of the ledger were taken by Ms. Reeta Tawar, employee posted in Accounts department but certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act (previously) has not been filed.
20. PW1 in his cross examination stated about taking of printouts of ledger by Ms. Reeta Tanwar while conceding that Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/7 were not bearing her signatures. However, this witness stated that the entries in Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/7 must be correct entries as the same were entered by the accounts team. He himself was not aware as on what basis, debit entry dated 29.12.2018 at point 'X' on Ex. PW1/6 was made in ledger nor he was able to tell the period of detention charges which were debited at point 'Y' on CS (Comm) No. : 179/2023 7/15 23.03.2019 of Ex. PW1/6.
21. Nevertheless, PW2 who was working as Accountant in plaintiff company was also examined who stated that the entries were being made in the ledger accounts under the control and supervision of PW1. He deposed that the ledger account maintained by plaintiff in its books of account in respect of defendant's account and tax invoice covering the claim amount, had been correctly entered and the payment made by defendant had been duly credited in the defendant's account maintained in plaintiff's books. His job profile in the plaintiff company was to make entries in the ledger.
22. Although this witness did not remember make of CPU being used nor knew since when the same CPU was being used in the plaintiff company, however, he stated that they were using accounting software namely Tally ERP 9 since 2018. Although, he was not aware about software being used prior thereto as he was not working in the plaintiff company at that point of time. Since the job profile of PW1 was as Accountant in the plaintiff firm whose assigned work was to make entries, not much of the benefit can be derived from the factum of him not knowing the make of CPU being used while he specifically brought on record that entire work was being stored in digital form.
23. PW2 also clarified that PW1 was giving quotation to the parties and on the said basis, the invoices were being raised and on the said basis, he had stated that PW1 was controlling the accounts. Printout of tax invoices which are part of Ex. PW1/3 (colly) were taken by this witness while the supporting tax invoices were already in possession of PW1 as stated by PW2. Despite the deposition of PW1 with regard to print outs having been taken by Reeta Tanwar, PW2 categorically affirmed the terms of issuance of Certificate U/s CS (Comm) No. : 179/2023 8/15 65-B (previously of Indian Evidence Act) that he was involved in supervising the preparation of statement of account of the parties including the defendant and also in raising and sending the invoices/debit notes etc. and all the transactions had been fed in the computer terminal in the plaintiff's office in the normal course of company's business. He affirmed that the hard copies of invoices/debit notes and ledger account had been taken out from the computer terminal operated under his control and supervision which ,as stated by him, is true and correct reproduction of the electronic record.
24. No infirmity or contradiction is found in the deposition of plaintiff's witnesses with regard to taking out the print outs and relying upon the invoices and ledger details maintained by the plaintiff in due course of its business. While it may be correct that the entries in books of account alone shall not be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability as contended by Ld. counsel for defendant.
25. Ld. counsel for defendant reiterated that PW1 failed to give explanation for debit entry of Rs. 2,54,027/- at point X and of Rs. 1,29,800/- at point Y of Ex. PW1/6, hence even the opening and closing balance as shown in the ledger accounts are not proved. However, no suggestion was given to PW1 with regard to said entries in the ledger details being incorrect entries, to controvert his assertion that all the entries made in the ledger account were correct entries except that he was not aware of the basis or the period for which the entries had been made. The ledger details maintained by company in its regular course of business may not be the conclusive proof but carries the corroborative evidentiary value .
26. In Jay Ambe Industries Proprietor Shri Dineshkumar CS (Comm) No. : 179/2023 9/15 Bajranglal Somani Vs. Garnet Speciality Paper Ltd. 2002 SCC Online Guj 2258, it was held that:
" 29.After scrutinizing the law on the point, it is to be held:
i) that ledger by itself may not be the proof of transaction and no liability can be fastened on the basis of an entry in the ledger alone unless it is corroborated by some other evidence;
ii) ledger can be taken into consideration and would become relevant u/s 34 of the Evidence Act only when there is corroborative evidence on record in support of the entries made therein or in support of the transaction between the parties ;
iii) that what form of evidence is to be led to corroborate the entries in the ledger would largely depend on the facts of each case. If the entries in the ledger are not denied by the defendant, it may not require any corroboration. Therefore, the nature of proof would vary from case to case".
27. Defendant itself has taken the stand that plaintiff did not provide any services to the defendant after 31.12.2019 and prior thereto, defendant had made the payment of the entire amount, leaving no outstanding amount as claimed by plaintiff. Nevertheless, defendant itself did not file on record its own ledger details, controverting the assertion of the plaintiff with regard to the liability of defendant. Defendant also did not bring on record the payment details made to the plaintiff to arrive at the conclusion if the entire payment as claimed by defendant had actually been made to the plaintiff or not.
28. While defendant asserted that after 31.12.2019, plaintiff did not provide any services, however plaintiff had raised invoices dated 15.1.2020 (two) and 20.1.2020. Plaintiff has also placed on record supporting documents in form of Airway bills and the email communication between the parties pertaining to the transactions in question. On the same email address, previous communication between the parties pertaining to the raising of invoices coupled CS (Comm) No. : 179/2023 10/15 with supporting documents has been admitted by defendant in affidavit of admission/denial of documents.
29. Ex. PW1/8 is other email communication between the parties. This email communication was permitted to be placed on record vide order dated 21.5.2024 upon application under order 11 Rule 1 CPC as moved on behalf of plaintiff. Defendant was directed to file affidavit of admission/denial of these documents and also to make additional submissions, if any with regard to the documents permitted to be taken on record on the application. Defendant did not file affidavit of admission/denial to these documents, which leads to consequence of documents to be considered as admitted documents. Further, in cross examination of PW1, merely suggestion was put that the the emails Ex. PW1/8 (colly) were false emails and due to the said reason, they were not filed alongwith the plaint and that manipulated documents in this regard were filed subsequently. Despite the said suggestion, defendant did not dispute or put any question to plaintiff's witnesses with regard to the email ID of the defendant upon which the email communication was made by the plaintiff.
30. Testimony of PW1 with regard to email communication between the parties at the correct email ID of the defendant remained unchallenged on record. Perusal of the email communication reveals the continuation of transactions between the parties even after 2019, contrary to the stand of defendant. Email dated 08.01.2020 at 8:54 sent by defendant refers to pick up address and shipper details pertaining to an order to France with the readiness date of 10.1.2020 and further discussions between the parties in the subsequent emails.
31. PW1 while was not aware whether any balance confirmation CS (Comm) No. : 179/2023 11/15 was taken from the defendant at the end of every financial year after he joined the plaintiff company or was earlier taken by the plaintiff from defendant, nevertheless email communication dated 31.07.2020 at 12:18 part of Ex. PW1/8 refers to outstanding for Seetu Kohli Concepts Pvt. Ltd and Situ Kohli Home Furniture Doha whereby defendant conveyed to plaintiff that they had processed USD 7693.00 which was preceded by email dated 20.07.2020 at 12:58 P.M. addressed by plaintiff to defendant informing that " we are waiting for your valuable feedback on the attached OS" . It was submitted by Ld. counsel for plaintiff that said payment of USD 7693.00 was pertaining to the other account /entity namely Situ Kohli Home Furniture (Doha).
32. Above noted was followed by series of emails sent by plaintiff to defendant calling upon for payment of outstanding dues in sum of Rs. INR 1954297/- for Seetu Kohli Concepts pvt Ltd. (India) and INR 623978.25 (Converted into INR) for Seetu Kohli Home Furniture (Qatar), for which no response was given by defendant or placed on record by any of the parties. Resultantly, it cannot be concluded that there was no business transaction between the parties after 31.12.2019 and despite the ignorance of PW1 with regard to balance confirmation by the defendant, email communication refers to the repeated intimation to defendant with regard to outstanding amount.
33. Ld. Counsel for defendant also referred to cross examination of PW1 wherein he had admitted that no TDS credit was given in the ledger account by the plaintiff after 16.10.2018. However, Ld. Counsel for defendant also pointed out that the witness had stated that plaintiff can take benefit of the TDS deducted and shown in form 16-A only after confirmation from the customer and did not CS (Comm) No. : 179/2023 12/15 know that the TDS was deducted and deposited by defendant between 01.04.2018 to 31.12.2019 . Nevertheless, Ld. Counsel for defendant obviously did not refer to the cross examination of PW1 where his deposition clarified and rather demolished the stand of the defendant. This witness clarified that defendant used to deduct TDS on the payment made against invoices but sometimes they made the full payment without deducting TDS. This witness was put question that between period 01.4.2018 to 31.12.2019, defendant deducted TDS amount on the invoices raised by plaintiff and thereafter deposited the deducted amount in the government treasury, however plaintiff had not given credit to the defendant in respect of the said TDS which were available in form 16-A of the said department. Witness after seeking time to verify, submitted that defendant had not informed them that they had deducted TDS and therefore, it was not reflected in their ledger. He further sought to clarify that plaintiff could take benefit of the TDS deducted and shown in Form 16-A only after confirmation from the customer and in case customer does not give consent in this regard, then they are not obligated to show the same and take credit of the TDS amount deducted in their returns. According to him, some of the amount regarding deduction of TDS was reflected in Form 16-A showing that the defendant after deduction had deposited the TDS amount, although he was not able to tell specifically the dates on which the said amount was being shown.
34. Defendant itself failed to bring on record details of deduction of TDS against the invoices raised by plaintiff for which the plaintiff had not taken benefit in view of the clarification furnished by PW1 as they could have reflected the deduction of TDS only after the same had been deducted or informed to be deducted by CS (Comm) No. : 179/2023 13/15 defendant. Defendant further failed to bring on record its own Form 16-A to show that the defendant had deducted the TDS which had not been entered/shown by plaintiff in its ledger details. Therefore, no benefit can be derived by defendant from the said deposition of PW1 on the aspect of deduction of TDS.
35. Plaintiff has been able to establish its case, based upon invoices coupled with the supporting documents, ledger details for four years pertaining to the business transactions between the parties and email communication. Defendant itself did not choose to enter into witness box, did not place its own ledger details on record, did not file affidavit of admission/denial of additional document filed by plaintiff i.e. the email communication and ledger details pertaining to financial years 2016 to 2020. Defendant further failed in its assertion with regard to "no transaction" between the parties after 31.12.2019 and failed to controvert the assertions of the plaintiff with regard to non payment by the defendant of the outstanding liability despite repeated communication and the demands made by the plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff is held entitled for recovery of Rs. 19,54,297/- (Rs. Nineteen Lacs Fifty Four Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Seven only).
36. Plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18% per annum on the outstanding amount w.e.f. 29.01.2020. Plaintiff has made basis of claim for interest @ 18% p.a. which was mentioned in invoices raised by plaintiff. There was no specific agreement between the parties for payment of interest at the said rate. Unilateral mention in the invoices does not entitle the plaintiff to claim interest at the above rate, which in considered opinion of this court, is on the higher side, considering the prevailing banking rates. Therefore, this court is inclined to grant interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 29.01.2020 CS (Comm) No. : 179/2023 14/15 till realization.
37. Relief (Issue no. 2) : Instant suit is accordingly decreed with cost in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs. 19,54,297/- (Rs. Nineteen Lacs Fifty Four Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Seven only) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 29.01.2020 till realization.
38. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. After completion of formalities, file be consigned to record room.
savita Digitally signed
by savita rao
Date: 2025.07.07
rao 15:37:56 +0530
Announced in the open (SAVITA RAO)
court on this Day DISTRICT JUDGE
of 07th July 2025 (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm) No. : 179/2023 15/15