Delhi District Court
M/S Shri Balajee Metal Udyog Through Its ... vs M/ S Aagam Impex on 6 May, 2025
~1~
In the court of Sh. Umed Singh Grewal, District Judge-
Commercial Court-02, North District
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
CS (Comm) No. : 599/23
In the matter of :
M/s Shri Balajee Metal Udyog
A partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1932
Through its partner Sh. Rajendra Kumar Garg,
Having its office at : 44/25/1, Ground Floor,
Shahbad, Daulatpur, Delhi - 110042 .... Plaintiff
Vs.
M/s Aagam Impex,
A partnership Concern,
Having its office at :
77, Ramprastha Greens,
Vaishali, Indrapuram,
Ghaziabad - 201010
also at :
1. Flat No. 24A, Neelkanth Apartments,
Plot No. 46, Patparganj,
Delhi - 110092 ... Defendant no. 1
2. Mr. Varun Jain,
Partner of M/s Aagam Impex,
77, Ramprastha Greens,
Vaishali, Indrapuram,
Ghaziabad - 201010 ... Defendant no. 2
3. Mr. Sanjay Bassi,
Partner of M/s Aagam Impex,
CS (COMM) No.: 599/23
M/s Shri Balajee Metal Udyog Vs. M/s Aagam Impex Page No. 1/12
Digitally
signed by
UMED UMED SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.05.06
04:34:34
+0530
~2~
77, Ramprastha Greens,
Vaishali, Indrapuram,
Ghaziabad - 201010 ... Defendant no. 3
Date of Institution : 14.10.2023
Date on which arguments were concluded : 01.05.2025
Date of pronouncement of order : 06.05.2025
Present: Sh. Aditya Singh, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Defence stands struck off vide order dated
24.07.2024.
JUDGMENT:-
1. This is an ordinary suit for recovery of Rs. 18,10,000/- and damages of Rs. 50,00,000/- (fifty lacs) with pendent-lite and future interest and cost.
2. The plaintiff, a registered proprietorship firm, has authorised its partner Mr. Rajender Kumar Garg vide authority letter dated 01.07.2022 to file the suit against defendant no. 1, a partnership firm whose partners are defendant nos. 2 and 3. The defendant no. 2 approached plaintiff in December, 2020 through one Mr. DC Sharma who had long standing dealings with the plaintiff, representing themselves to be a big importer of metal scrap. They met plaintiff at its Delhi office and painted rosy picture about their firm which used to import stainless steel metal scrap 304 from Germany. Believing the assurance and representation of defendants and the fact that they were CS (COMM) No.: 599/23 M/s Shri Balajee Metal Udyog Vs. M/s Aagam Impex Page No. 2/12 Digitally signed by UMED UMED SINGH Date: SINGH 2025.05.06 04:34:46 +0530 ~3~ introduced by Mr. D C Sharma, a well known scrap broker, the plaintiff entered into High Sea Sales Contract with defendants on 31.12.2020 for supply of 150 metric tons of stainless steel scrap 304, Zurick to be imported by defendant no. 1 from Indria Recycling GHBM, Germany at ICD Sonipat. The amount of the contract was $ 2,26,750 pursuant to which advance of Rs. 33,10,000/- was sent to the defendants on 08.01.2021 through RTGS. Plaintiff regularly followed up the matter from January to February 2021 about the date of arrival of the scrap and the defendants kept on assuring that the goods shall reach Sonipat very soon. They shared two bills of loading in March, 2021 suggesting that the goods had already been shipped by Indira Recycle GMBH to defendant no. 1 from Mediterranean Shipping Company S. A. and thereafter the plaintiff anxiously kept on waiting and also was in touch with defendants continuously. It came to know in April, 2021 that the defendants had sold the scrap to multiple buyers at a substantially higher rates as the rate of scrap had escalated substantially from January, 2021 to April, 2021 and in that bagkground, the plaintiff was constrained to warn defendants that if the goods were not delivered, it would file complaint under Section 420 IPC against them. Only thereafter, the defendants sent back an amount of Rs. 15 lacs in the account of the plaintiff on 20.05.2021 and falsely intimated vide mail dated 30.05.2021 that they cannot supply the goods because of quality issue with the supplier. The plaintiff responded CS (COMM) No.: 599/23 M/s Shri Balajee Metal Udyog Vs. M/s Aagam Impex Page No. 3/12 Digitally signed by UMED UMED Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.05.06 04:34:53 +0530 ~4~ to that mail on the same day bringing it to the notice of the defendants that they had utilised its huge amount for almost five months and also the fact that rate of stainless steel scrap had escalated several folds and hence the plaintiff was not agreeing to their proposal of refund of the advance. Thereafter, the defendant nos. 2 and 3 threatened plaintiff with dire consequences saying they had goods contacts with customs and police authority. At last, the plaintiff issued them recall notice dated 30.05.2021 asking them to deliver the goods within two days failing which it would take appropriate action. When goods were not delivered, a complaint was filed in PS Ashok Vihar on 16.06.2021. The defendants have neither returned the complete advance amount nor delivered the goods. They are illegally retaining amount of Rs. 18,10,000/- and hence they are bound to pay interest @ 24% per annum from 08.01.2021 till recovery. They are also required to pay damages of Rs. 50 lacs towards the loss of potential profit in view of escalation of prices.
It is next mentioned that a commercial suit bearing no. 697/22 was earlier filed in North West district, Rohini Court, Delhi but the plaint was returned vide order dated 09.08.2023 to present the same before the commercial courts, North District, Rohini Courts and thereafter the present case has been filed.
3. Despite service, no one appeared for the defendants nor written statement was filed and hence they were proceeded ex-
CS (COMM) No.: 599/23 M/s Shri Balajee Metal Udyog Vs. M/s Aagam Impex Page No. 4/12 Digitally signed by UMED UMED SINGH Date: SINGH 2025.05.06 04:35:00 +0530 ~5~ parte and their right to file written statement was closed on 24.07.2024 and following notional issues were framed :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree in the sum of Rs.
24,61,600/- as prayed for? ... OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of damages to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- towards the damages for breach for sales contract as prayed for ? ... OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest and if so, at what rate, at what amount and for what period ? ... OPP
4. Relief.
4. In order to substantiate the case, the plaintiff examined four witnesses.
5. PW1 Mr. Rajender Kumar Garg is AR and he repeated the contents of plaint in his affidavit in evidence Ex. PW1/A and relied upon following documents :-
I. Ex. PW1/1 is copy of registered partnership deed of plaintiff firm.
II. Ex. PW1/2 is copy of registration certificate of plaintiff.
III. Ex. PW1/3 is authority letter dated 01.07.2022.
IV. Ex. PW1/4 is copy of High Sea Sales (HSS) contract no.
A1/102.
V. Ex. PW1/5 and Ex. PW1/6 are copy of bills of lading.
VI. Ex. PW1/7 is e-mail dated 30.05.2021.
CS (COMM) No.: 599/23 M/s Shri Balajee Metal Udyog Vs. M/s Aagam Impex Page No. 5/12 Digitally signed by UMED UMED SINGH Date:
SINGH 2025.05.06 04:35:07 +0530 ~6~ VII. Ex. PW1/8 is copy of ledger account.
VIII.Ex. PW1/9 is bank statement of plaintiff.
IX. Ex. PW1/10 is e-mail dated 31.05.2021.
X. Ex. PW1/11 is copy of legal notice dated 07.06.2021.
XI. Ex. PW1/12 is copy of police complaint.
XII. Ex. PW1/13 is non-starter report.
XIII.Ex. PW1/14 is plaint of CS (COMM) no. 697/22 along with order dated 17.09.2022. XIV.Ex. PW1/15 is order dated 09.08.2023 in CS (COMM) No. 697/2022.
PW2 Mr. Siddharth Rathore, Senior Manager from HDFC Bank, proved the statement of bank account of the defendant from 31.12.2020 to 24.05.2021 as Ex. PW1/1.
PW3 Mr. Anjit Kumar, Assistant Manager from Axis Bank proved the account statement of defendant maintained in Axis Bank from 30.12.2020 to 24.05.2021 as Ex. PW3/1.
PW4 Mr. Abhishek Agarwal claimed himself to be expert in the business of import of stainless steel saying that he had done BBA and was working with the firm namely M/s Ecorec Metal Recycling, Kharkhoda Sonipat for last three years and had 14 years experience in trading of metal and scrap. He deposed that as per his personal knowledge, the rate of stainless steel scrap 304 Zurik had escalated as per the following detail from December, 2020 to April, 2021 :-
CS (COMM) No.: 599/23 M/s Shri Balajee Metal Udyog Vs. M/s Aagam Impex Page No. 6/12 Digitally signed by UMED UMED Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.05.06 04:35:14 +0530 ~7~ S. No. Metal Name Dated Price
1. Aluminium December, 2020 2014.67 January, 2021 2003.98 February, 2021 2078.59 March, 2021 2190.48 April, 2021 2319.39
2. Nickel December, 2020 16823.04 January, 2021 17863.18 February, 2021 18584.38 March, 2021 16406.66 April, 2021 16521.25
3. Zinc December, 2020 2779.85 January, 2021 2705.34 February, 2021 2744.50 March, 2021 2791.94 April, 2021 2829.01
4. Copper December, 2020 7772.24 January, 2021 7972.15 February, 2021 8470.94 March, 2021 8988.25 April, 2021 9324.82 He annexed list of data claiming that the same was downloaded from the website of London Metal Exchange as Ex.
PW4/2. He opined that difference in rate of 150 metric steel scrap CS (COMM) No.: 599/23 M/s Shri Balajee Metal Udyog Vs. M/s Aagam Impex Page No. 7/12 Digitally signed by UMED UMED Date:
SINGH SINGH 04:35:20 2025.05.06 +0530 ~8~ in April, 2021 was Rs. 60 lacs if compared with rate thereof in December, 2020.
6. As per partnership deed Ex. PW1/1 executed on 01.04.2022, three persons namely Rajender Kumar Garg, Ram Das Aggarwal and Mr. Sunil Agarwal agreed to do business in partnership by the name of M/s Balajee Metal Udyog in which they were partners of equal percentage and the deed was got registered in the office of sub-registrar on 29.06.2022.
The registration certificate Ex. PW1/2 shows that the firm was registered on 24.03.2023 with the Registrar of Firms, district North, Alipur, Delhi in which the name of partners are mentioned as Rajender Kumar Garg, Ram Das and Sunil Agarwal. After registration, the Registrar issued certificate (form B) acknowledging the receipt of statement provided by the plaintiff. These documents prove that the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm.
Vide authority letter Ex. PW1/3, the remaining two partners authorised Mr. Rajender Kumar Garg to file case against defendants who followed the diktat and instituted the plaint bearing his signature. The accompanying affidavit and statement of truth also bear his signature. So, the suit has been instituted by property authorised person.
7. Vide contract Mark A dated 31.08.2020, the defendant CS (COMM) No.: 599/23 M/s Shri Balajee Metal Udyog Vs. M/s Aagam Impex Page No. 8/12 Digitally signed UMED by UMED SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.05.06 04:35:26 +0530 ~9~ had agreed to sell plaintiff shredded stainless steel Zuric scrap grade 304 par isri weighing 150 metric ton. The rate of 150 metric tons was to be $ 1485 per metric ton and for 100 metric ton, it was to be $ 1525 per metric ton. It was agreed that 20% price shall be paid upon signing the contract, 70% on arrival of container at port and 10% within 10 days after container reached buyer's yard. The origin of the goods was Europe and the date of shipment was in January, 2021. The document further shows the contract amount as @ 2,26,750/- which as per the counsel for plaintiff comes out to Rs. 33,10,000/- as per the prevailing exchange rates. It is mentioned at page no. 40 of the contract that the defendant had an account number '916020035143763' in Axis Bank, Vaishali Ghaziabad.
The statement of account Ex. PW1/9 maintained by HDFC bank account of the plaintiff shows that it transferred an amount of Rs. 3 lacs, 7 lacs, 10 lacs, 10 lacs and Rs. 3.10 lacs in the Axis Bank account of the defendant on 30.12.2020, 01.01.2021, 05.01.2021 and 06.01.2021. Even the account statement Ex. PW3/2 placed on record by the banker i.e. Axis Bank of the defendant, shows that the said amount was deposited in the account of defendant by plaintiff on the given dates. So, it is well proved that there was agreement between the parties as per which the defendant was to supply plaintiff steel scrap in January, 2021 for which plaintiff had paid Rs. 33.10 lacs in advance.
CS (COMM) No.: 599/23 M/s Shri Balajee Metal Udyog Vs. M/s Aagam Impex Page No. 9/12 Digitally signed by UMED UMED Date:
SINGH SINGH 04:35:34 2025.05.06 +0530 ~ 10 ~
8. As per the case of the plaintiff, in order to show bonafideness, the defendant had sent plaintiff two bills of loading Mark B and Mark C showing that the shipment had been released and was on the high seas. But it is also the case of the plaintiff that the goods have yet not been delivered by the defendant.
9. The non-delivery of goods is proved by mail Ex. PW1/7 dated 30.05.2021 sent by defendant to plaintiff to regret for not supplying material and the reason mentioned is that there was a quality issue with the supplier and that is why the defendant was refunding the advance out of which it had already refunded Rs. 15 lacs. The defendant promised vide that mail that balance amount also be refunded very soon. Page no. 71 of account statement Ex. PW1/9 of the account of the plaintiff shows that the defendant had returned an amount of Rs. 15 lacs on 21.05.2021. But there is no statement on the record to show that the defendant ever returned remaining advance amount of Rs. 18.10 lacs.
Upon receipt of mail dated 30.05.2021, the plaintiff responded on 31.05.2021 by sending mail Ex. PW1/10 that it will take legal action against defendant for cheating. It is further mentioned that rate of steel scrap on the date of entering into agreement was less which sky rocketed till April, 2021 and due to huge variation in price, the defendant was not delivering goods CS (COMM) No.: 599/23 M/s Shri Balajee Metal Udyog Vs. M/s Aagam Impex Page No. 10/12 Digitally signed UMED by UMED SINGH SINGH 2025.05.06 Date:
04:35:41 +0530 ~ 11 ~ and by doing so, it was getting undue benefit by causing dishonesty with the plaintiff.
In order to get money back from the defendant, the plaintiff issued notice Mark D dated 07.06.2021 which fell on deaf ears. It also filed the complaint Mark A on 16.06.2021 to SHO PS Ashok Vihar under Section 406/420/506/34 IPC.
10. The plaintiff is claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 50 lacs also and in that regard it is heavily relying upon the evidence of PW4 who claimed himself to be expert in the import and export of steel scrap. He claimed to have experience of 14 years in that field. But difference of rate stated in his affidavit in evidence is Aluminium, Nickel, Zinc and Copper. He simply opined that the total price variation in 150 metric ton of steel scrap in April from the rate of December 2020 was Rs. 60 lacs. He did not depose how did he reach to that figure. He did not state about the rate of scrap in December, 2020 and in April, 2021. Without deposition of such rate in two different months, even layman cannot come to know of the total difference. As per his evidence, the rate of that article downloaded by him from Google is Ex. PW4/2. But perusal of that document does not show that it pertains to steel scrap. It is not revealed from which exchange's website it has been downloaded. So, the plaintiff has failed to prove the rate of steel scrap in April, 2021 and hence this court cannot hold that scrap rates had escalated in April, CS (COMM) No.: 599/23 M/s Shri Balajee Metal Udyog Vs. M/s Aagam Impex Page No. 11/12 Digitally signed by UMED UMED Date:
SINGH SINGH 04:35:50 2025.05.06 +0530 ~ 12 ~ 2021 if compared with rates in January, 2021. Without availability of such rates in April, 2021, this court cannot award damages to the tune of Rs. 50 lacs to the plaintiff. But the matter of the fact is that the defendants have violated the contract and for that act, notional damages of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded in favour of plaintiff and against defendants.
The defendants are illegally retaining the advance of Rs. 18,10,000/- since 08.01.2021. The advance was paid in a commercial transaction. Taking into account that fact, plaintiff is held entitled to interest @ 12% on the principal amount of Rs. 18.10 lacs from all defendants jointly and severally.
11. In view of above discussion, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against defendants directing them to pay principal amount of Rs. 18.10 lacs to plaintiff, jointly and severally, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment i.e. 08.01.2021 till realisation with cost. They are required to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court UMED Digitally signed by UMED SINGH on 06th May, 2025 SINGH Date: 2025.05.06 04:35:58 +0530 (UMED SINGH GREWAL) District Judge-Commercial Court-02 North District, Rohini Court, Delhi.
CS (COMM) No.: 599/23 M/s Shri Balajee Metal Udyog Vs. M/s Aagam Impex Page No. 12/12