Delhi District Court
N R Hosiery vs M/S Mangal Creation on 1 December, 2025
CS (Comm) 690/2024 N.R. Hosiery Vs. Mangal Creation
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02:
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
CNR No.DLNW010107002024
Civil Suit (Comm.) 690/2024
In the matter of:
M/s N.R. Hosiery,
Through its sole Prop. Sh. Naresh Kr.,
Having office at H.No.378, Gali
Kumharowali, Rampura, Delhi-110035.
.....Plaintiff
(Through Sh. Varun Gupta, Advocate)
Versus
M/s. Mangal Creation,
Through its sole Prop. Sh. Rubma Chandak,
Having office at 201/A, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
4th Floor, Sadasukh Katra, Kolkata-700007.
.....Defendant
(Defendant already ex parte vide order dt. 24.09.2025)
Date of Institution of Suit : 06.11.2024
Date of hearing final arguments : 18.11.2025
Date of judgment : 01.12.2025
Suit for recovery of Rs.5,24,927/- (Rupees five lacs twenty four thousand
nine hundred twenty seven only) along with pendente lite and future
interest, compensation and cost
Page 1 of 16
CS (Comm) 690/2024 N.R. Hosiery Vs. Mangal Creation
JUDGMENT IN TERMS OF ORDER 8 RULE 10 CPC
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. This is a suit for recovery filed on behalf of plaintiff against the
defendant, thereby seeking a decree in the sum of Rs.5,24,927/- (Rupees
five lacs twenty four thousand nine hundred twenty seven only) along with
pendente lite and future interest, compensation and cost.
2. The facts of the case in brief, as borne out from the record are that
plaintiff is a proprietorship firm which is inter alia engaged in the business
of apparel and lingerie both in wholesale and retail. The defendant is also
stated to be a proprietorship firm which is engaged in the business of
fabrics.
3. It is the case of plaintiff that in the year 2018, the defendant
approached it at its office in Delhi for supply of the aforesaid goods, vide
its first order dated 18.04.2018 against which plaintiff raised invoice
No.067 for a sum of Rs.47,001/-. It is further stated that defendant used to
make part payments against the orders. It is further stated that plaintiff
supplied the aforesaid goods to the defendant as per its various orders till
December, 2022 and till then, an amount of Rs.5,24,927/- became due and
payable against the defendant, which has also been reflected in the ledger
account (running and recurring account) maintained by plaintiff in respect
of the dealings with the defendant. The unpaid invoices are stated to be as
below:-
Page 2 of 16
CS (Comm) 690/2024 N.R. Hosiery Vs. Mangal Creation
Sl. Invoice/bill Invoice dt. Amount Part Total
No. No. (Rs.) payment, outstanding
if any amount
(round of
figure)
1. 311 15.04.2021 41,297/- 10,400/- 30,897/-
2. 324 13.07.2021 89,831/- 0 89,831/-
3. 401 10.06.2022 82,236/- 0 82,236/-
4. 411 22.07.2022 56,389/- 0 56,389/-
5. 426 19.10.2022 98,271/- 0 98,271/-
6. 432 10.12.2022 1,67,303/- 0 1,67,303/-
Total 5,35,327/- 10,400/- 5,24,927/-
amount
4. It has been averred by plaintiff that defendant admitted all its
invoices and did not raise any dispute/complaint regarding the supply of
goods. It is further stated that defendant made last payment of Rs.40,000/-
against outstanding amount of Rs.5,64,927/- as on 10.05.2023. It has
further been averred that despite repeated reminders/requests, the
defendant did not clear the outstanding amount and ultimately, refused to
make payment of the due amount. It is further stated that defendant also
issued three cheques bearing No.232217, 232218 and 232219 dated
08.01.2024 of Rs.20,000/- each and the same were dishonoured on
presentation with the remarks "funds insufficient" and "payment stopped by
drawer", vide return memo dated 10.01.2024. It is further stated that
plaintiff again presented the aforesaid cheques in question to its banker on
19.03.2024, the same again got dishonoured vide return memio dated
19.03.2024 with the remarks "funds insufficient". Thereafter, plaintiff filed
Page 3 of 16
CS (Comm) 690/2024 N.R. Hosiery Vs. Mangal Creation
complaint No.1796/2024 under NI Act against the defendant. It is further
stated that defendant claimed GST input against the invoices issued by
plaintiff but did not make any payment to the plaintiff qua such invoices,
hence plaintiff made complaint against defendant in the GST Department
and other authorities in this regard. Thereafter, plaintiff sent legal notice
dated 25.01.2024 to the defendant demanding payment of the aforesaid
outstanding amount but in vain. When the aforesaid cheques were again
dishonoured, plaintiff again sent another legal notice dated 26.03.2024
demanding payment of the outstanding amount but in vain.
5. It has further been averred that thereafter, plaintiff approached the
Legal Services Authority, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi for
pre-institution mediation but defendant did not appear there and
accordingly, Non-Starter Report dated 14.08.2024 was issued in this
regard.
6. The summons in the matter were duly served upon the defendant on
12.03.2025 through dasti mode as well as on 17.03.2025 through speed
post, however, none had appeared for the defendant on various dates.
Therefore, defendant was accordingly proceeded ex parte vide order dated
24.09.2025. The defence of defendant was also struck off on the said date.
SCOPE OF ORDER VIII RULE 10 CPC
7. The scope of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC in commercial suits
Page 4 of 16
CS (Comm) 690/2024 N.R. Hosiery Vs. Mangal Creation
particularly under the New Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and
Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court Act, 2015 has been
examined by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case reported as,
"235(2016)DLT 354", titled as, "Nirog Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs. Umesh Gupta
& Anr.", whereby the Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to lay down as
under:
xxxxx
"11. Order VIII Rule 10 has been inserted by the
legislature to expedite the process of justice. The
courts can invoke its provisions to curb dilatory
tactic, often resorted to by defendants, by not filing
the written statement by pronouncing judgment
against it. At the same time, the courts must be
cautious and judge the contents of the plaint and
documents on record as being of an unimpeachable
character, not requiring any evidence to be led to
prove its contents.
..........
28. The present suit is also a commercial suit within the definition of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 and it was the clear intention of the legislature that such cases should be decided expeditiously and should not be allowed to linger on. Accordingly, if the defendant fails to pursue his case or does so in a lackadaisical manner by not filing his written statement, the courts should invoke the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 to decree such cases."
xxxxxx
8. (i) Further the power and authority of the Courts to straightway decree a suit on the basis of averments made in plaint in terms of Order Page 5 of 16 CS (Comm) 690/2024 N.R. Hosiery Vs. Mangal Creation VIII Rule 10 CPC, in the absence of a written statement filed by the defendant is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as, "(1999) 8 SCC 396", titled as, "Balraj Taneja V/s Sunil Madan".
(ii) Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case reported as, "CS (Comm.) No.618/2019", titled as, "Parsvnath Developers Limited V/s Vikram Khosla" (DOD: 03.03.2021), has been pleased to lay down as under:
xxxxx
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff, it is noted that the defendant has not cared to appear before this Court and was proceeded ex-parte. The law with regard to Order VIII Rule 10 CPC is clear, which stipulates that where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9, fails to present the same within time permitted or fixed by the Court as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment or make such orders in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of same, the decree sheet shall be drawn up. Accordingly, in view of the provisions of order VIII Rule 10 CPC, I proceed to decide the present suit. Further, I am in agreement with the judgments of the Coordinate Benches of this Court as relied upon by the plaintiff in paragraph 8 on the issue that in ex-parte matters no purpose would be served if evidence is directed to be led. There being no written statement filed, the averments in the Plaint being unrebutted, the same are deemed to be correct.
xxxxx Page 6 of 16 CS (Comm) 690/2024 N.R. Hosiery Vs. Mangal Creation
9. (iii) Recently, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case reported as, "CS (Comm.) No.72/2022", titled as, "Kleenoil Filtration India Pvt. Ltd. V/s Udit Khatri & Ors." (DOO: 05.01.2023) has been pleased to clear the air regarding power and authority of Court to straightway decree the suit under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.
ANALYSIS
10. Further, on the aspect of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, I am also conscious of the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case reported as, "Civil Appeal No.9695/2013", titled as, "Asma Lateef & Anr. V/s Shabbir Ahmad & Ors." (DOD: 12.01.2024), whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to categorically observe that a Court is not supposed to pass a mechanical judgment invoking Rule 10 of Order VIII CPC, merely on the basis of plaint, upon the failure of defendant to file a written statement. I am further conscious of the fact that a judgment, if pronounced by a Court under Rule 10 of Order VIII CPC, must satisfy the requirements of Rule 4(2) or Order XX CPC and thereby conform to its definition provided in Section 2(9) thereof.
11. Let us analyze the averments made in the plaint and the documents on record. The plaintiff has placed on record the postal receipt and tracking report in respect of the service of legal notice dated 08.11.2011 upon the defendant. In support of his aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the plaintiff has referred to Section 27 of the General Clauses Act.
Page 7 of 16CS (Comm) 690/2024 N.R. Hosiery Vs. Mangal Creation
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case reported as, "(2007) 6 SCC 555", titled as, "C.C Alavi Haji V/s Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. (DOD: 18.05.2007) has been pleased to enunciate the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, the relevant paragraphs whereof reads as under:
xxxxx
"13. According to Section 114 of the Act, read with Illustration (f) thereunder, when it appears to the court that the common course of business renders it probable that a thing would happen, the court may draw presumption that the thing would have happened, unless there are circumstances in a particular case to show that the common course of business was not followed. Thus, Section 114 enables the court to 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 public and private business in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Consequently, the court can presume that the common course of business has been followed in particular cases. When applied to communications sent by post, Section 114 enables the court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee. But the presumption that is raised under Section 27 of the GC Act is a far stronger presumption. Further, while Section 114 of the Evidence Act refers to a general presumption, Section 27 refers to a specific presumption. For the sake of ready reference, Section 27 of the GC Act is extracted below:
"27. Meaning of service by post.--Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of Page 8 of 16 CS (Comm) 690/2024 N.R. Hosiery Vs. Mangal Creation this Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression 'serve' or either of the expression 'give' 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."
14. Section 27 gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. In view of the said presumption, when stating that a notice has been sent by registered post to the address of the drawer, it is unnecessary to further aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business. This Court has already held that when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement "refused" or "not available in the house" or "house locked" or "shop closed" or "addressee not in station", due service has to be presumed. (Vide Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh [(1992) 1 SCC 647 : AIR 1992 SC 1604] ; State of M.P. v. Hiralal [(1996) 7 SCC 523] and V. Raja Kumari v. P. Subbarama Naidu [(2004) 8 SCC 774: 2005 SCC (Cri) 393].) It is, therefore, manifest that in view of the presumption available under Section 27 of the Act, it is not necessary to aver in the complaint under Section 138 of the Act that service of notice was evaded by the accused or that the accused had a role to play in the return of Page 9 of 16 CS (Comm) 690/2024 N.R. Hosiery Vs. Mangal Creation the notice unserved.
xxxxx"
13. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case reported as, "1980 RLR (Note 44)", titled as, "Kalu Ram V/s Sita Ram" has been pleased to hold that adverse presumption will be drawn if the legal notice is not replied to. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:
xxxxx "It was held that the plaintiff before filing suit had served defendant with a notice making serious allegations that defendant was a trespasser and that his possession was illegal. Defendant did not refute these charges and remained silent by ignoring to reply the notice. Silence showed that he had nothing to deny and hence it was a fit case for raising adverse presumption. Besides the defendant also failed to prove the two contentions that he had raised. There is nothing on record to support the pleas that he had taken. His appeal is without force. The appeal of the plaintiff is supported by the provisions of O. 20 R.12, CPC and trial court should have ordered mesne profits till the delivery of possession. Plaintiff is held entitled to same."
xxxxx (Emphasis supplied)
(ii) Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case reported as, "98 (2002) DLT 573", titled as, "Metropolis Travels & Resorts (I) Pvt. Ltd. V/s Sumit Kalra & Ors.", (DOD: 07.05.2002) has been pleased to lay down as under:
xxxxx
13. There is another aspect of the matter which negates the argument of the respondent and that is Page 10 of 16 CS (Comm) 690/2024 N.R. Hosiery Vs. Mangal Creation that the appellant served a legal notice on the respondent vide Ex. PW-1/3. No reply the same was given by the respondent. But inspite of the same no adverse inference was drawn against the respondent. This Court in the case of Kalu Ram v.
Sita Ram 1980 RLR (Note) 44 observed that service of notice having been admitted without reservation and that having not been replied in that eventuality adverse inference should be drawn because he kept quite over the notice and did not send any reply. Observations of Kalu Ram's case (Supra) apply on all force to the facts of this case. In the case in hand also despite receipt of notice respondent did not care to reply nor refuted the averments of demand of the amount on the basis of the invoices/bills in question. But the learned Trial Court failed to draw inference against the respondent.
Xxxxx
(iii) Even recently on the similar aspect in case reported as, "RFA (OS) No.93/2010", titled as, "Krishan Kumar Aggarwal V/s Life Insurance Corporation" (DOD: 29.08.2014), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to lay down as under:
xxxxx
65) No explanation has been rendered by the respondent as to why letter dated 23rd August, 2008 and the legal notice sent by the appellant were not repudiated or even replied. Despite due receipt, the respondent did not bother to even send any response to the letter dated 23rd August, 2008 or the legal notice, the contents whereof would be deemed to have been admitted. In the judicial precedents reported in Rakesh Kumar Vs. Hindustan Everest Tool Ltd. (1988) 2 SCC 165 & Hiralal Kapur Vs. Page 11 of 16 CS (Comm) 690/2024 N.R. Hosiery Vs. Mangal Creation Prabhu Chaudhary (1988) 2 SCC 172 it was held by the Supreme Court that a categorical assertion by the landlord in a legal notice if not replied to and controverted, can be treated as an admission by a tenant.
66) In a Division Bench proceedings of this court reported in Metropolis Travels & Resorts Vs. Sumit Kalra 98 (2002) DLT 573 (DB), no adverse inference was drawn against the respondent for failure to reply the legal notice on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. Reference was made to proceedings reported in Kalu Ram Vs. Sita Ram 1980 RLR (note) 44 wherein it had been observed that service of notice being admitted without reservation and that having not been replied, in that eventuality adverse inference should be drawn.
Xxxxx"
14. Therefore, the adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the defendant.
15. (i) Now coming back to the facts of present case. From the perusal of Non-Starter Report dated 14.08.2024, issued under the signatures of learned Secretary, DLSA, North-West, Rohini Courts, it is clearly apparent that despite due service the defendant neither appeared before the District Legal Services Authority during pre-institution mediation nor gave its consent/willingness to participate in the mediation process.
16. (ii) Furthermore, the plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendant Page 12 of 16 CS (Comm) 690/2024 N.R. Hosiery Vs. Mangal Creation for payment of the due amount. The legal notice sent to defendant by plaintiff was correctly addressed but the same did not evoke any response. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case reported as, "98 (2002) DLT 573", titled as, "Metropolis Travels & Resorts (I) Pvt. Ltd. V/s Sumit Kalra & Ors.", (DOD: 07.05.2002) has been pleased to hold as under:
xxxxx
13. There is another aspect of the matter which negates the argument of the respondent and that is that the appellant served a legal notice on the respondent vide Ex. PW-1/3. No reply the same was given by the respondent.
But inspite of the same no adverse inference was drawn against the respondent. This Court in the case of Kalu Ram v. Sita Ram 1980 RLR (Note) 44 observed that service of notice having been admitted without reservation and that having not been replied in that eventuality adverse inference should be drawn because he kept quite over the notice and did not send any reply. Observations of Kalu Ram's case (Supra) apply on all force to the facts of this case. In the case in hand also despite receipt of notice respondent did not care to reply nor refuted the averments of demand of the amount on the basis of the invoices/bills in question. But the learned Trial Court failed to draw inference against the respondent.
xxxxx
17. (iii) Furthermore, in another case "RFA (OS) No.93/2010", Page 13 of 16 CS (Comm) 690/2024 N.R. Hosiery Vs. Mangal Creation titled as, "Krishan Kumar Aggarwal V/s Life Insurance Corporation"
(DOD: 29.08.2014), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to lay down as under:
xxxxx
65) No explanation has been rendered by the respondent as to why letter dated 23rd August, 2008 and the legal notice sent by the appellant were not repudiated or even replied. Despite due receipt, the respondent did not bother to even send any response to the letter dated 23 rd August, 2008 or the legal notice, the contents whereof would be deemed to have been admitted. In the judicial precedents reported in Rakesh Kumar Vs. Hindustan Everest Tool Ltd. (1988) 2 SCC 165 & Hiralal Kapur Vs. Prabhu Chaudhary (1988) 2 SCC 172 it was held by the Supreme Court that a categorical assertion by the landlord in a legal notice if not replied to and controverted, can be treated as an admission by a tenant.
66) In a Division Bench proceedings of this court reported in Metropolis Travels & Resorts Vs. Sumit Kalra 98 (2002) DLT 573 (DB), no adverse inference was drawn against the respondent for failure to reply the legal notice on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. Reference was made to proceedings reported in Kalu Ram Vs. Sita Ram 1980 RLR (note) 44 wherein it had been observed that service of notice being admitted without reservation and that Page 14 of 16 CS (Comm) 690/2024 N.R. Hosiery Vs. Mangal Creation having not been replied, in that eventuality adverse inference should be drawn.
xxxxx
18. In view of the above judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, plaintiff has been successful in showing on record that non-reply of notice of the plaintiff by the defendant calls for drawing of presumption as to correctness of the facts contained therein.
19. The plaintiff has succeeded in establishing on record that it has good case in his favour whereas the defendant has not been able to show any plausible defence in defending the present suit. The conduct of the defendant is also blameworthy.
20. As regards the quantum of interest, in view of the nature of transaction between the parties being commercial in nature, interest @ 12% p.a. would meet the ends of justice.
Relief
21. (i) In view of the above, a decree in the sum of Rs.5,24,927/- (Rupees five lacs twenty four thousand nine hundred twenty seven only) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 10.05.2023 till realization thereof is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
(ii) Plaintiff is entitled to costs of the suit. Plaintiff is further entitled to counsel's fee which is quantified as Rs.22,000/-.
Page 15 of 16CS (Comm) 690/2024 N.R. Hosiery Vs. Mangal Creation
22. Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly, subject to payment of requisite court fees.
23. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
VINOD Digitally signed by Dictated & Announced in the open Court on 01.12.2025 YADAV VINOD YADAV (Vinod Yadav) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 North-West/Rohini Courts Page 16 of 16