Delhi District Court
Gupta Brothers vs Lasya Priya Garments on 27 August, 2025
THE COURT OF Ms. RAVISHA SIDANA
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-06, NI ACT, CENTRAL
DELHI
DLCT020110092019
CC NO. 3917/2019
M/S GUPTA BROTHERS
Through its proprietor
Sh. Manoj Gupta.
R/o 6168/3, Block no.1,
Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005 ........ Complainant
vs.
M/S LASYA PRIYA GARMENTS
Through its proprietor
Sh. Shiva Krishna
R/o H. No. 7-37/2, Market Road,
Khoapalli Haweli, near Market,
Karim Nagar-505451 (AP)
Also At:
1.H. No. 9/9/22-26, Kaman Bazaar Khammam Andhra Pradesh-507001.
2. GV Mall Road, Near Ram Layan Temple Khammam-507001. ........ Accused Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2025.08.27 16:20:14 +0530 CC NO. 3917/2019 M/S GUPTA BROTHERS v. M/S LASYA PRIYA GARMENTS PAGE 1 OF 16 A) Offence complained of Section 138 of Negotiable or proved Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) B) Date of Filing 11.04.2019 C) Plea of Accused Not Guilty D) Date of Reserving Order 28.07.2025 E) Date of Pronouncement 27.08.2025.
F) Final Order Conviction Argued by :-
Ld. counsel for the complainant Sh. Amit Tayal.
Ld. counsel for the accused Sh. Achin.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:-
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. The present complaint is filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the Accused, who issued a cheque towards discharge of a legally enforceable liability arising out of a business transaction between the parties.
2. Briefly, the complainant is dealing in the business of ready made garments, threads, inter linings and packing material under the name and style of M/s Gupta Brothers and the accused is proprietor of M/s Lasya Priya Garments. The accused approached the complainant to purchase shirts and placed orders for purchase of shirts, which were duly supplied. In lieu of the supply of shirts, the complainant raised following invoices:-Digitally signed by RAVISHA
RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2025.08.27
16:20:20 +0530
CC NO. 3917/2019 M/S GUPTA BROTHERS v. M/S LASYA PRIYA GARMENTS PAGE 2 OF 16
S.No. Invoice No. Invoice Amount
1. 598 dated 13.11.2018 Rs 4,59,375/-
2. 600 dated 14.11.2018 Rs 8,82,000/-
Total Amount Rs. 13,41,375/-
In lieu of these invoices and in discharge of part payment, accused issued cheques bearing number 801201 dated 18.02.2019, 801206 dated 13.02.2019, 801207 dated 15.02.2019, 801208 dated 10.02.2019, 801209 dated 12.02.2019 (impugned cheques) and 801205 dated 18.11.2018 each for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Kothapalli, Haveli Branch, in favour of complainant firm and assured that the same would be duly honoured by his above said bank upon presentation.
2.3. The impugned cheques bearing no. 801201 and 801207 were presented for encashment within the prescribed period, but the same was dishonoured and returned unpaid by the bank with the remarks "funds insufficient" and cheque bearing no. 801206, 801208 and 801209 were returned unpaid by the bank with remark "payment stopped by drawer" all vide return memo dated 19.02.2019. Thereafter, the Complainant thereafter issued a legal notice dated 13.03.2019 calling upon the Accused to make payment of the aforesaid cheques amount within 15 days of receipt of the said notice, which was duly served on the accused on 23.03.2019. Despite service of notice, the Accused failed to make payment within the stipulated time and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.Digitally signed by RAVISHA
RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2025.08.27 16:20:27 +0530 CC NO. 3917/2019 M/S GUPTA BROTHERS v. M/S LASYA PRIYA GARMENTS PAGE 3 OF 16
3. After taking pre-summoning evidence, the accused was ordered to be summoned on prima facie satisfaction as to commission of offence under 138 of negotiable instruments act vide order dated 20.04.2019. Upon the first appearance of the accused, on 29.10.2020, the Notice u/s 251 Cr.PC was served upon the accused and he was released on bail on 16.12.2021, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest the case after disclosing the following defence.
"***I have business relationship with the complainant***.The cheques in question were given as security to the complainant in the year 2019 against outstanding business transaction. However, the complainant did not supply me the goods and for this reason, I am not liable against the cheques in question.
4. Vide order dated 27.02.2023, the complainant adopted his Pre- summoning Evidence Affidavit CW1/A and placed reliance on documents Ex.CW1/1 to CW1/11 (colly). An opportunity was granted to the accused to cross examine the complainant on the same day and further cross examination was conducted on 27.02.2023. The Complainant evidence was closed vide the same date.
ORAL EVIDENCE
CW 1 Complainant
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/5 Impugned cheques
Ex.CW1/6 Returning memo
Ex.CW1/7 Invoice dated 13.11.2018
Ex.CW1/8 Invoice dated 14.11.2018
Ex. CW1/9 Legal demand notice
Digitally signed
RAVISHA SIDANA
by RAVISHA
SIDANA Date: 2025.08.27
16:20:32 +0530
CC NO. 3917/2019 M/S GUPTA BROTHERS v. M/S LASYA PRIYA GARMENTS PAGE 4 OF 16
Ex. CW1/10 Postal receipt
Ex.CW1/11 (colly) Tracking report.
5. Thereafter, the accused was examined under section 313 of CrPC on 03.07.2023, for explaining the circumstances appearing against him in the complainant's evidence. He denied issuing the cheque in question towards discharge of his liability, albeit it bears his signature and stated that firstly, he had not received any material under the invoices Ex.CW1/7 and Ex.CW1/8. He admitted the receipt of legal demand notice. Further, the cheques in question were issued as advance payment prior to supply of goods but no goods were received by him and therefore, the cheques in question have been misused by the complainant. To support his defence, the accused examined himself under 315 Cr.PC. DE was closed on 30.06.2025.
ARGUMENTS
6. The final arguments were heard. I have heard the ld. counsel appearing for the parties and have given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
7. It has been argued by the complainant that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case and further:
1. He has argued that the business relationship of the accused and complainant are not denied. The accused has admitted his signature on the cheque in question. No suggestions have been put to the important witnesses on material issues. Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2025.08.27 16:20:38 +0530 CC NO. 3917/2019 M/S GUPTA BROTHERS v. M/S LASYA PRIYA GARMENTS PAGE 5 OF 16
2. The Invoices on record duly establishes the liability of the accused qua the cheque in question
a) Further, it has been urged that the accused has taken different stands during different stages of the trial. Ld. counsel for the complainant has contended that it has been duly proved in this case and the accused has failed to produce any evidence to the contrary.
As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offence.
8. Per contra, ld. counsel for the accused has argued that the complainant has failed to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt and submits that
a) the accused has no legally enforceable liability towards the complainant as the impugned cheque was given as advance payment to the complainant but no goods were supplied by the complainant.
b) the documents led in evidence by the complainant does not prove his case.
c) The accused can rely on the evidence led by the complainant to prove his defence and it is not required that the accused himself leads evidence in his defence. Further, this repayment is also evidenced by material on record.
As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted.
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE AND DISCUSSION-
9. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be met by both parties. In order to establish the offence under Section 138 of NI Act, the prosecution must fulfil all the essential ingredients of the offence. Perusal of the bare provision reveals that Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2025.08.27 16:20:43 +0530 CC NO. 3917/2019 M/S GUPTA BROTHERS v. M/S LASYA PRIYA GARMENTS PAGE 6 OF 16 the following ingredients are to be proved before an offence is said to be committed:-
First Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by a person on an account maintained by him for payment of money and the same is presented for payment within a period of 3 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity; Second Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability;
Third Ingredient: The cheque was returned unpaid by the bank due to either insufficiency of funds in the account to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account on an agreement made with that bank;
Fourth Ingredient: A demand of the said amount has been made by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque by a notice in writing given to the drawer within thirty days of the receipt of information of the dishonour of cheque from the bank; Fifth Ingredient: The drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice.
10. The accused can only be held guilty of the offence under Section 138 NI Act when the above mentioned ingredients are proved by the complainant co- extensively. Additionally, the conditions provided under Section 142 NI Act have to be fulfilled.
11. It is settled law that once the execution of cheque is admitted, Presumption under section 139 of NI act is raised in favour of the complainant. The presumption raised is a rebuttable presumption and the onus on the accused to raise a probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting, the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. [Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa (AIR 2019 SC 1983) See also Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513]
12. The phrase "unless the contrary is proved" u/s 139 is of vital importance clarifying that the rebuttal of the presumption has to be supported by proof and not mere plausible explanation. The liberty is granted to the accused to either Digitally signed RAVISHA SIDANA by RAVISHA SIDANA Date: 2025.08.27 16:20:47 +0530 CC NO. 3917/2019 M/S GUPTA BROTHERS v. M/S LASYA PRIYA GARMENTS PAGE 7 OF 16 rely on evidence led by him in his support or the material relied by the complainant to raise his probable defence. In addition to the materials brought on record, the circumstances relied upon can also draw the inference of preponderance of probability lying in the favour of the accused.
13. The proof of the first, third, fourth and fifth ingredient is not disputed. The complainant has proved the original cheques, Ex. CW1/1 - Ex. CW1/5 in each case, which the accused has not disputed as not being drawn from his account. It is not disputed that the cheques in question was presented within the respective validity period. The cheques in question was returned unpaid vide return memo, Ex. CW1/6 due to the reason "Funds insufficient" and "Payment stopped by drawer". A demand notice was sent to the address of the accused vide registered post and the same has been proved by legal notice Ex. CW1/9, postal receipts Ex. CW1/10 and tracking report Ex. CW1/11 colly. The accused has not disputed the receipt of legal notice in his initial defence while framing of notice under Section 251 CrPC, admission of documents u/s 294 Cr.PC and during his statement under Section 313 CrPC. The fact that the payment was not made within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice is not disputed. Therefore, the fourth and fifth ingredient does not require adjudication independently. As such, on the basis of the above, the first, third, fourth and fifth ingredient of the offence under Section 138 NI Act stands proved.
Now, it remains to be ascertained if the second ingredient is proved or not. As far as the proof of second ingredient is concerned, it has to be proved that the cheque in question was drawn by the drawer for discharging a legally enforceable debt
14. During the stage of notice framing and admission and denial of documents, and his statement recorded under 313 Cr.PC, the accused has Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2025.08.27 16:20:51 +0530 CC NO. 3917/2019 M/S GUPTA BROTHERS v. M/S LASYA PRIYA GARMENTS PAGE 8 OF 16 admitted his signatures on the cheques in question that has been drawn in favour of the complainant. Hence, the presumption under 139 NI Act read with Section 118 NI Act is drawn in favour of the complainant.
14.1. The accused in the present case has relied on the following line of main defences to rebut the presumption:
A. The Blank signed cheques were issued to the complainant B. The impugned cheques were misused by the complainant 14.2 To analyse these defences in the right perspective, the following Issues need to be adjudicated:
i) Whether the accused issued blank signed cheques to the complainant
ii) Whether the impugned cheques are in discharge of his outstanding liability of Rs 5,00,000 towards the supply of goods.
BLANK SIGNED CHEQUE AS SECURITY
15. The first defence taken by the accused is the cheques in question were misused by the complainant as the impugned cheques were issued for the orders placed by him but no such goods were ever supplied by the complainant and the complainant has himself filled the particulars of the same before presenting it.
15.1 Section 20 of the NI Act talks about inchoate instruments. As per this provision if a person gives a duly signed cheque which is either blank or partly filled then he is deemed to have given implied authority to the holder to fill up the particular in it and complete the cheque, thus making the drawer liable for the payment mentioned in it. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the Digitally signed RAVISHA by RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2025.08.27 16:20:57 +0530 CC NO. 3917/2019 M/S GUPTA BROTHERS v. M/S LASYA PRIYA GARMENTS PAGE 9 OF 16 drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provision of section 138 would be attracted.
15.2 On this point, it is profitable to mention the judgment of Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd., (2016) 10 SCC 458, Sripati Singh vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2021 SCC Online SC 1002 and Sunil Todi vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2021 SCC Online SC 1174, wherein it has been held that merely because a cheque has been issued for only security purposes will not absolve the accused from the liability u/s. 138 NI Act. It has been further held that a cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance. It has been held by the Hon'ble Court that the accused would very much be liable u/s. 138 NI Act for issuance of a security cheque also, if on the date of the presentation of such cheque, there has not been a prior discharge of debt, or if the cheque has not been given towards advance payment, the goods in respect of which have not been received by the other party, or if other than this there has been change in circumstances which precludes the complainant from depositing the cheque with the bank.
15.3. It is the specific version of the complainant that the cheque in question for Rs 5,00,000 was issued by the accused for the discharge of his liability to pay for goods supplied. In Ergo, the stance of the accused during his Notice framing u/s 251 Cr.PC and recording of statement u/s 313 Cr.PC is that the impugned blank signed cheques were misused by the complainant as no goods were supplied by the complainant .
16. As discussed, even in case of blank signed cheques, the statutory presumptions under section 118(a) and 139 would be raised in favour of the complainant. Since, the accused has admitted the execution of impugned Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2025.08.27 16:21:04 +0530 CC NO. 3917/2019 M/S GUPTA BROTHERS v. M/S LASYA PRIYA GARMENTS PAGE 10 OF 16 cheque, the aforementioned statutory presumptions would be raised in favour of the complainant regarding the fact that the impugned cheque has been drawn for consideration and issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt.
IMPUGNED CHEQUES WERE IN PART DISCHARGE OF GOODS SUPPLIED
17. In the Complaint and PSE affidavit Ex.CW1/A, the complainant alleged that there were business relations with the accused, in lieu of the aforesaid, the accused approached him for purchase of shirts and the same were duly supplied to him. The factum of business relations is not disputed by the accused during his statement recorded under section 251 Cr.P.C and Section 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the factum of business relations stands proved, as averred in the Complaint and PSE affidavit.
18. In view of the aforesaid purchase of shirts, Invoice bearing no. 598 dt. 13.11.2018 of Rs 4,59,375 (Ex.CW1/7) and Invoice bearing no. 600 dt. 14.11.2018 of Rs 8,82,000 (Ex.CW1/8) totalling to Rs 13,41,375 were raised against the accused and the impugned cheques were issued for the part payment of aforesaid liability. During the statement of the accused recorded u/s 251 Cr.P.C, he stated that he had issued impugned cheques as security in year 2019 against the outstanding business transaction, however, no goods were supplied to him.
19. During his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, the accused raises defence that no material was received as per Invoices (Ex.CW1/7) and (Ex.CW1/8), he opted to lead defence by stating that the impugned cheques were issued as advance payment before the supply of goods and misused by the complainant. Digitally signed by RAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date:
2025.08.27 16:21:09 +0530 CC NO. 3917/2019 M/S GUPTA BROTHERS v. M/S LASYA PRIYA GARMENTS PAGE 11 OF 16
20. During the defence evidence stage, the accused deposed in his chief examination that in a previous transaction as well, the cheque issued to the complainant of the same value as the impugned cheques was dishonoured and he had later repaid the complainant through Google pay gateway and it was thereafter that the impugned cheques were issued at the time of subsequent transaction. The amount (both in amount and figures) in impugned cheques were filled by the accused himself except Cheque bearing no. 801201 (Ex.CW1/5), in which only the amount in figures was filled by him. He sent the impugned cheques in advance through courier to the complainant, which were received by the complainant in January 2019. The timeline for the supply of goods was the end of January or beginning of February but the material was not received. When it came to his knowledge that the complainant had fallen short of stock upto1000 shirts only, he duly issued the stop payment instruction of Cheques bearing no.801208, 801206, 801209 (Ex.CW1/2-Ex.CW14).
21. It is pertinent to note that only three impugned cheques were instructed for the stop payment and such instruction for stop payment were issued with regard to the other two impugned cheques. It is also admitted by the accused that the amounts is filled by him in all the impugned cheques. During chief examination dated 20.11.2023, the accused stated to have placed order for 3000 shirts in year 2018 but admits that he had placed an order for 1000-1200 shirts during his cross-examination dated 10.02.2025. In light of this observation, it is hard to fathom as to why five impugned cheques after filling the amount of Rs 1 Lac each was handed over to the complainant for an order placed of 1000-1200 shirts by the accused @ Rs.165/- per shirt, if no goods as to the transaction in question was ever delivered to the accused. It is not a reasonable conduct of a prudent man to issue 5 amount filled cheques as security again in year 2019, Digitally signed RAVISHA SIDANA by RAVISHA SIDANA Date: 2025.08.27 16:21:14 +0530 CC NO. 3917/2019 M/S GUPTA BROTHERS v. M/S LASYA PRIYA GARMENTS PAGE 12 OF 16 even when the previous transaction of year 2018 had failed and goods were not received even in 2018. It also raises doubt in the version of the accused in the present transaction as to why subsequent cheques were issued and advance payment of Rs 1 lakh was paid in 2018, despite non-supply of goods.
22. At this stage, Invoices (Ex.CW1/7) and (Ex.CW1/8) requires thoughtful consideration. The Invoices raised mention the description, HSN code, Quantity, Unit Rate and total taxable value billed to the accused firm. Further, the endorsement in Left side of the invoices that 'goods received in good condition' is left blank and is not signed by the receiver of the goods i.e the accused firm, although it is duly signed by the complainant firm. The non-signing of the invoices by the accused and the charge of 5% imposed as IGST in Ex.CW1/7 and Ex.CW1/8, does not nullify the credibility of the Invoices. Hence, Invoices (Ex.CW1/7) and (Ex.CW1/8) are being relied upon for the adjudication of the present case.
23. The accused during his cross-examination dated 10.02.2025 admits that regarding the previous transaction in year 2018, no complaint was initiated against the complainant and he paid Rs 1,00,000 as advance payment to the complainant after his cheque got dishonoured. The transaction in question is not disputed by the accused pertaining to 'shirts'. Regarding the mode of transport, complainant clarifies during his cross-examination dated 24.02.2023 that since the goods were delivered by the way of physical delivery, thereby the mode of transport does not find mention in the Invoices (Ex.CW1/7) and (Ex.CW1/8). Further, there is no receiving of the accused on (Ex.CW1/7) and (Ex.CW1/8) as the cheques were issued simultaneously to the delivery of the goods in question.
Digitally signed byRAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2025.08.27 16:21:18 +0530 CC NO. 3917/2019 M/S GUPTA BROTHERS v. M/S LASYA PRIYA GARMENTS PAGE 13 OF 16
24. The argument of ld. Counsel for the accused that the complaint against the complainant regarding the non-delivery of the shirts was filed before the consumer forum bearing CC no. 122/2019 titiled as 'Boosa Shiva Krishna v. M/s Gupta Brothers', does not aid the case of the accused as neither any admission in the civil forum, on behalf of the mentioning of six cheques with regard to the present complaint nor any admission of the payment regarding the impugned cheques by the complainant has been made in the contemporaneous civil litigation. Further, the closing of the opportunity of the complainant to file the affidavit of the proof of shirts, supplied to the accused before the consumer courts, does not effect merits of this case. His submission that the admission of the payment of the complainant made with regard to the cheque bearing no. 801205, defeats the case of the complainant is not merited in the light of the fact that only 5 cheques are the subject matter of the present complaint case and the admission of the part payment by the complainant is not with regard to any of the impugned cheques.
25. In the present case, the opportunity to prove his case by pointing out the holes in the story of the complainant was duly availed by the accused but only minor contradictions were culled out. No evidence has been led by the accused to show that the impugned cheques were issued for the advance payment to the complainant, under exercise of duress by the complainant. It is highly improbable that no police complaint regarding the misuse of previous cheque bearing no. 801205, issued in the year 2018 was filed on behalf of the accused. Further, no satisfactory explanation has been furnished on the behalf of the accused as to why the concerned Bank was not intimated as to the stop payment instructions of the remaining two cheques in the possession of the complainant.
Digitally signedRAVISHA SIDANA by RAVISHA SIDANA Date: 2025.08.27 16:21:23 +0530 CC NO. 3917/2019 M/S GUPTA BROTHERS v. M/S LASYA PRIYA GARMENTS PAGE 14 OF 16
26. The present case is a perfect example of contradictory defences on behalf of the accused, none of which support his case. No witness was examined on behalf of the accused to prove his defence through positive or negative evidence that the impugned cheque was not issued for the friendly loan with the complainant to probabilize by adducing evidence or even by pointing out inconsistencies in the case of the complainant.
27. In totality, the accused has not been successful in raising a cloud over the story of the complainant that the impugned cheque was not issued for the aforesaid liability of Rs 5,00,000. Thus, plea of the accused does not inspire confidence due to lack of proof or pointing out inconsistencies in the complainant's case. As per the above discussion, it can be said that the cheque was drawn by the accused in favour of the complainant. Therefore, the essential ingredient (ii) as discussed in the preceding paragraph stands fulfilled.
28. The primary burden upon the accused was to punch holes in the version of the complainant in order to rebut the presumptions and the standard of proof required from him was preponderance of probabilities and the accused has not been able to do the same by bringing out the inconsistencies and contradictions in the version put forward by the complainant. The accused failed in discharging his burden of proof, in order to rebut the operation of the presumption.
29. Reliance is being placed upon dictum of the Apex Court in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3126 OF 2023 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.12802 of 2022) Rajesh Jain versus Ajay Singh, raison d'etre of which circled around the questioning of the want of evidence on part of the complainant, in order to support his allegation of having extended loan to the accused, whereas it was held that the Courts ought to have instead concerned itself with the case set up Digitally signed RAVISHA by RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2025.08.27 16:21:28 +0530 CC NO. 3917/2019 M/S GUPTA BROTHERS v. M/S LASYA PRIYA GARMENTS PAGE 15 OF 16 by the accused and whether he had discharged his evidential burden by proving that there existed no debt/liability at the time of issuance of cheque.
30. In my view, the complainant has proved that the accused had issued the cheque in question in his favour for discharge of the legally enforceable liability and has proved his case against the accused for the offence under Sec. 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. Resultantly, the accused Shiva Krishna/ proprietor of M/S Lasya Priya Garments, thus, stands convicted for the said offence.
31. This judgment contains 16 pages. This judgment has been signed and pronounced by the undersigned in open court.
Digitally signed byRAVISHA RAVISHA SIDANA SIDANA Date: 2025.08.27 16:21:33 +0530 (RAVISHA SIDANA) JMFC, NI ACT-06, CENTRAL DISTRICT, THC/27.08.2025 CC NO. 3917/2019 M/S GUPTA BROTHERS v. M/S LASYA PRIYA GARMENTS PAGE 16 OF 16