Delhi District Court
Ramesh Brij Lal Santani vs Anita Dalmia on 18 August, 2025
BEFORE THE COURT OF SH. SURINDER S. RATHI, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMM.)-11 CENTRAL, THC, DELHI
CS Comm. No. 292/2024
Ramesh Brij Lal Santani
S/o Sh. B. M. Santani
Proprietor of M/s R B Santani
Office at: M 177, Gali No. 11
Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052 .............Plaintiff
Vs.
Anita Dalmia
Proprietor of M/s Dalmia Hosiery & Crockery Place
Dalmia Hosiery, Bhiwani Wala Mohalla
Moti Bazar, Hissar, Haryana-125001 ............Defendant
Date of Institution : 24.02.2024
Date of Final Arguments : 18.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 18.08.2025
Decision : Dismissed
Judgment
1.This suit is filed by plaintiff for recovery of Rs.23,10,277/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum as unpaid dues of goods sold.
Case of the Plaintiff
2. Case of the plaintiff as per plaint and the documents filed is that he is proprietor of M/s R B Santani at Shastri Nagar, Delhi and is in the business of trading of hosiery items. He ordinarily resides in Nagpur, Maharashtra and has filed this suit through his duly constituted power of attorney Sh. Roshan Lal Mittal who is also looking after affairs of the plaintiff's firm in Delhi. It is case of the plaintiff that in the course of business defendant Ms. Anita Dalmia who is proprietor of M/s Dalmia Hosiery and Crockery Place at Hisar, Haryana CS Comm. No. 292/2024 Ramesh Brij Lal Santani Vs. Anita Dalmia Page No. 1 of 23 came into the plaintiff's contact and agreed to carry out purchase of goods from him. She assured timely payments and it was agreed that in case of delay she would pay 18% per annum interest.
3. Plaintiff started selling and supplying goods to the defendant as per instructions. Plaintiff maintained a ledger of all the sales made and payments received. The plaint is silent as to when the business started between the parties, when the first or the last sale was made, what was the cumulative value of goods sold or what was the total amount of the money received. All that is stated is that there was a debit balance of Rs.15,00,180/- as on 26.11.2021 and that the same was not cleared by the defendant despite repeated requests. Plaintiff has demanded 18% interest by claiming that it was agreed between the parties.
4. Plaintiff approached Central DLSA for Pre-Institution Mediation under Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaint is silent as to when the mediation proceedings were initiated, whether defendant was served or whether the defendant participated in the same or not. Even the Non-Starter Report is not mentioned in the plaint. However, perusal of the Non-Starter Report annexed with the plaint shows that it was applied on 16.08.2023. Defendant did not turn up despite delivery of notice and as such Non-Starter Report was issued on 21.10.2023. Consequently, plaintiff was constrained to file this suit for Rs.23,10,277/- which include principal of Rs.15,00,180/- and pre-suit interest Rs.8,10,097/- for following reliefs:
Prayer:
i. Pass a money decree directing the defendant to pay Rs.23,10,277/- (Rupees Twenty-
Three Lakh Ten Thousand Two Hundred Seventy-Seven Only) alongwith future and pendente lite interest @ 18% per annum till realization. ii. Award the cost of the suit.
iii. Pass any further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.CS Comm. No. 292/2024
Ramesh Brij Lal Santani Vs. Anita Dalmia Page No. 2 of 23
5. Perusal of the affidavit under Order 11 Rule 6 CPC shows that it is not in full compliance of ingredients of Order 11 Rule 6 CPC as amended for commercial suits.
6. Summons of the suit was served upon the defendant who entered appearance through Sh. Shrinek Bhardwaj, Advocate. WS was filed.
Defendant's Case
7. Case of the defendant as per written statement is that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as nothing is due or payable by her to the plaintiff. There were issues qua quantity and quality of the material supplied apart from delay in supply of goods. It is pleaded that defendant suffered losses on account of the same monetarily as well as dent on her reputation. Plaintiff assured her that she would be issued credit notes and the sub-standard stock would be taken back. It is pleaded that the plaintiff started taking back the supplied sub- standard/inferior quality stock but did not refer to the same in his books of account. However, defendant has not filed any return/reverse sale invoice or e- way bill or even her ledger in support of her above plea. Not even any email or whatsapp message in this regard has been filed. It is pleaded that plaintiff also did not issue credit notes as promised.
8. Dismissal of the suit is also prayed on the ground that the ledger filed is a forged and fabricated document and does not truly reflects the business carried out between the parties. It is pleaded that plaintiff approached this Court with unclean hands and has suppressed material facts and has played fraud upon the defendant. It is also pleaded that plaintiff Ramesh Brij Lal Santani is not the proprietor of M/s R B Santani and is as such incompetent to execute power of attorney in favour of Sh. Roshan Lal Mittal. Moreover, Sh. Roshan Lal Mittal is not aware of the facts of the case and is as such not competent to file this suit.
CS Comm. No. 292/2024Ramesh Brij Lal Santani Vs. Anita Dalmia Page No. 3 of 23
9. Objection qua affidavit under Order 11 Rule 6 CPC is also taken claiming that it is not prepared as per law. It is also objected that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try this suit as goods were supplied to defendant at Hisar, Haryana and defendant is ordinary resident of Hisar, Haryana and as such, no cause of action took place in Delhi.
10.In her reply on merits, defendant reiterated that she did carry business with M/s R B Santani but denied that Sh. Ramesh Brij Lal Santani is its proprietor or Sh. Roshan Lal Mittal is his attorney. She did not deny that she contacted the plaintiff for purchase of goods. It is also not denied that she assured timely payments or that she agreed to pay 18% interest in case of default or delay to the plaintiff.
11.She claimed that she runs her proprietorship firm through her husband Sh. Ajay Dalmia and as such she is filing the written statement on the basis of facts and knowledge acquired through her husband. She denied approaching the plaintiff for purchasing of goods and rather stated that a sales person of plaintiff approached her husband at Hisar for sales of goods on credit basis alongwith delivery at Hisar. Defendant has not denied that plaintiff firm sold and supplied goods to the defendant at Hisar. She accepted that plaintiff was maintaining a ledger of sales made and payments received but claimed that incorrect account was maintained and plaintiff has not shown the entries of credit notes issued qua returned goods. It is denied that there was a debit balance of Rs.15,00,180/- as on 26.11.2021 as claimed in the plaint. It is denied that plaintiff requested the defendant to make these payments. It is also denied that plaintiff is within his rights to impose 18% interest on the goods sold.
12.Defendant do not deny receipt of Pre-Institution Mediation notice from Central DLSA. It is denied that plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.23,10,277/-. With CS Comm. No. 292/2024 Ramesh Brij Lal Santani Vs. Anita Dalmia Page No. 4 of 23 these pleas, defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit, however, no document has been filed by defendant alongwith the WS.
13.Separate affidavit of admission denial filed by defendant to the plaintiff's documents, however, perusal thereof shows that defendant has denied all the documents of the plaintiff. Perusal of the affidavit shows that no cogent reason is stated for denying the invoices and ledger filed by the plaintiff. Invoices even though not denied in the WS have been denied in the affidavit of admission denial by simply stating that they are photocopies. It is pertinent to observe that CPC as amended for Commercial Courts do not mandate that a plaintiff shall supply original documents either to the Court or to the defendant. Order 11 Rule 1 (1) CPC requires that plaintiff shall place on record a list of documents alongwith photocopies of all those documents. In case the defendant was desirous of perusing the original invoices she should have moved an application under Order 11 Rule 3 CPC for inspection of the documents which in any case, at the best, would have been seller's copy since all the original invoices must have been sent by the plaintiff to the defendant alongwith the consignment. As such, it is found that flaws in the affidavit of admission denial calls for invoking Order 11 Rule 4 (6) CPC. Replication:-
14.Separate replication was filed wherein plaintiff reiterated his pleaded case and denied the contentions of the defendant. Plaintiff categorically denied that the goods sold and supplied were sub-standard. It is also denied that he ever promised to take back the sub-standard goods. Plaintiff has categorically reiterated that he never took back any sold goods from the plaintiff on account of poor quality. However, it is added that since defendant was not making payments, on the request of defendant some unsold inventory was received back by the plaintiff between 14.01.2021 and 26.11.2021 and requisite credit CS Comm. No. 292/2024 Ramesh Brij Lal Santani Vs. Anita Dalmia Page No. 5 of 23 entries have already been made in the ledger. Plaintiff has also denied the defendants contention that Sh. Ramesh Brij Lal Santani is not the proprietor of M/s R B Santani. It is stated that the printout of GST registration record in this regard has already been placed on record.
15.Upon completion of pleadings, following Issues were identified by this Court on 28.10.2024:
Issues:
i. Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try this suit? OP Parties ii. Whether material supplied by the plaintiff was sub-standard and supplied with delayed supply and was consequentially returned? OPD iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.23,10,277/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum? OPP iv. Relief.
16.To prove its case, the plaintiff examined PW-1 Roshan Lal Mittal. Vide affidavit Ex.PW1/1, he deposed on the lines of plaint and exhibited following documents:
i. Print out of GST registration as downloaded from the website of GST Department is Ex.PW1/A;
ii. True copy of Power of Attorney is Ex.PW1/B;
iii. Office copy of bills/invoices and transport receipt of the goods is Ex.PW1/C-1 to Ex.PW1/C-41;
iv. Printout of statement of account maintained in electronic form is Ex.PW1/42; v. Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW1/43. vi. Photocopy of Non-Starter Report is Ex.PW1/44.
17.In his cross-examination done by Sh. Shubham Bhardwaj, Ld. Counsel for defendant the witness stated that initially the business between the parties started long back. Initially, his brother Sh. Vinod Jain was looking after the business and he is taking care of the business since 2016. He denied the suggestion that Sh. Ramesh Brij Lal Santani is not the proprietor of M/s R B Santani. He is SPA of plaintiff since 29.06.2016. He is getting a salary of Rs.50,000/- per month from the plaintiff. He accepted the suggestion that certain goods were accepted back by the plaintiff from the defenant. He added CS Comm. No. 292/2024 Ramesh Brij Lal Santani Vs. Anita Dalmia Page No. 6 of 23 that goods were returned for the reason that defendant was unable to make the payments to the plaintiff. The value of the returned goods was around Rs.7 lakhs and requisite entries already stands made in the ledger filed alongwith the suit. He denied that goods sold and supplied to the defendant were of sub- standard quality or were not supplied within the stipulated time. The returned goods were sent by the defendant from Hisar by transportation. He accepted the suggestion that plaintiff's salesman used to visit Hisar for taking the purchase orders but added that many a times defendant also used to come to Delhi for placing the purchase orders. He denied the suggestion that PW1 never met defendant but accepted that most of the time her husband Sh. Ajay Dalmia used to deal with the plaintiff.
18.Plaintiff himself stepped into the witness box as PW2 Ramesh Brij Lal Santani wherein he reiterated his pleaded case. PW2 was recorded on VC as per Video Conferencing Rules of Delhi High Court, 2021.
19.In his cross-examnation done by Ld. Counsel for defendant Sh. Krishan Kumar he stated that he is B.Com LLB by education. He stated that his business was looked after by his attorney Sh. Roshan Lal Mittal in Delhi for the last about 10 years. He accepted the suggestion that Sh. Mittal was appointed to look after entire Delhi business and to supervise his office. He also accepted that the terms and conditiions of business with defendant was finalised by Sh. Mittal and were shared with the plaintiff as well. He has sworn the affidavit on the basis of information received. In the course of business he checks the balance sheets and bills etc. The suit was filed under his instructions. He denied the suggestion that he is not proprietor of M/s RB Santani. He accepted that Mr. Viral Kumar Jain is looking after sales and marketing of the plaintiff firm and used to visit shopkeepers. The orders taken from different places were complied by transporting the goods from Delhi. He accepted that he never CS Comm. No. 292/2024 Ramesh Brij Lal Santani Vs. Anita Dalmia Page No. 7 of 23 visited Hisar personally or but denied the suggestion that defendant never visited Delhi.
20.He denied the suggestion that goods worth Rs.15-16 lakhs were returned. He also denied the suggestion that plaintiff did not issue any credit note worth Rs. 15-16 lakhs and reiterated that only goods worth around Rs.7.50 lakhs were returned.
21.In support of her case defendant examined her husband DW1 Ajay Dalmia. Vide affidavit Ex.DW1/A he deposed on the lines of WS. As per record defendant did not place any document whatsoever in support of her plea. Also admittedly no application under Order 11 Rule 1 (10) CPC has been filed for placing any additional document on record on behalf of defendant but it is found that during his cross-examination carried out on 19.04.2025 DW1 placed on record, for the first time, 5 sheets of paper giving them Ex.DW1/A as printouts of messages purportedly exchanged between the parties. The same was objected to by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and rightly so because neither this was filed alongwith the WS nor any leave of the Court was sought for placing additional documents on record under Order 11 Rule 1 (10) CPC. As such these documents claimed to be messages exchanged between the parties Ex.DW1/A were de-exhibited and renamed as Mark D1.
22.In his cross-examination carried out by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff he stated that he is husband of defendant. She is doing business since 2007-08. He accepted that he does not have any power of attorney or authorisation to depose on her behalf in the Court. The business with plaintiff was started in 2007-08 itself. No ledger of the business carried out with the plaintiff was maintained. He added that payments were made on bill to bill basis but no record was kept. Defendant's turnover is Rs.30-35 lakhs yearly. The data of the business CS Comm. No. 292/2024 Ramesh Brij Lal Santani Vs. Anita Dalmia Page No. 8 of 23 transactions lost as their laptop got damaged in 2022. However, no proof of the said damages was proved on record.
23.Defendant is registered with GST and due returns are filed. He accepted that the bills issued by plaintiff for sale of goods is available with them. Upon being asked he stated that he has bills for return of goods to the plaintiff but he is not in a position to produce them. Relevant entries were made in the GST returns. As per him between April to July 2022 plaintiff's representative collected the goods from the defendant under a promise that due credit note would be issued. He admitted that no document qua the said return was placed on record. Although he claimed that he can produce documents on record. He accepted that he never issued any letter email or message to the plaintiff for demanding credit notes as only telephonic conversations were held. He could not disclose the phone no. on which he had conversation with the plaintiff or his employee despite searching the record. He could not disclose any date when the claimed meeting for issues of quality and quantity were held between the parties. He admitted that no record of such meetings was kept and no email whatsapp or other communication was exchanged in this regard. He admitted that no communication was ever issued or filed qua delayed supply of goods. He also accepted that nothing is filed on record to show that he suffered losses on account of sales made by the plaintiff.
24.He admitted receiving legal demand notice Ex.DW1/P1 however he did not say anything if the same was replied or not. He was issued a notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC dated 10.04.2025 by the plaintiff Ex.DW1/P2 and in compliance thereof he brought on record his bank statement Ex.DA for the period 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2024. He also brought on record his GSTR-1, GSTR-3B and GSTR-9 for 4 Financial Years from 2019-20 to 2022-23. He also placed on record GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B for 2023-24 as Ex.DB to Ex.DF CS Comm. No. 292/2024 Ramesh Brij Lal Santani Vs. Anita Dalmia Page No. 9 of 23 respectively. He stated that he is not in a position to explain these entries. He denied the suggestion that plaintiff had given due credit qua the goods taken back.
25.Plaintiff has placed on record pen drive Ex.DW1/P3 alongwith a transcription of conversation between PW1's nephew and DW1.
26.Defendant did not step into the witness box. No other witness was examined.
27.I have heard arguments of Sh. Pawan Kumar Mittal, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Sh. Krishan Kumar, Ld. Counsel for defendant and have perused the case file carefully.
28. Now I shall dispose of individual issues framed in this case.
Issue No. 1:
i. Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try this suit? OPParties
29.In her WS defendant has prayed for rejection/return of the plaint on the ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try this suit.
30.The plaint dedicates para no. 12 as under:
That the plaintiff is having its principal office/business at the address given in the memo of parties within jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and the payments were made at the office of the plaintiff at Delhi within jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The cheque towards the part payment was delivered to the plaintiff at its office at Delhi and the cheque was presented for collection at the Bank of the plaintiff at Delhi and the same was dishonoured at Delhi within jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The part payment was received by the plaintiff at said office/bank account within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Cause of action has also arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Hence, this Hon'ble Court has territorial jurisdiction to try, entertain and adjudicate the present suit.
31.In response to this para of the plaint defendant has replied in para 12 as under:
That the contents of para 12 of the plaint are wrong and denied. It is denied for want of knowledge that plaintiff is having its Principal Office/Business at the address as mentioned in memo of parties as defendant or her husband Ajay Dalmia has never visited the work place of M/s RB Santani. In fact the salesman of M/s RB Santani who always dealt with husband of the defendant at Hisar, Haryana for entire business transactions. It is wrong and denied that payments were made at the office of plaintiff at Delhi. It is also wrong and denied that cheques of part payments were made at Delhi. Further dishonoring of cheque at Delhi does not confer jurisdiction to Delhi Court in civil disputes. In fact no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court; hence present suit deserves dismissal as this score alone.CS Comm. No. 292/2024
Ramesh Brij Lal Santani Vs. Anita Dalmia Page No. 10 of 23
32.In her preliminay objection defendant has taken a plea in para 9 as under:
That Hon'ble Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. The goods were delivered to defendant at Hisar, Haryana. Orders were always placed at Hisar, Haryana; payments were also made at Hisar, Haryana; initial terms and conditions of the business were also settled at Hisar, Haryana. Defendant resides and has its work place at Hisar, Haryana. In fact no cause of action has arisen at Delhi; hence present suit deserves dismissal on this score alone.
33.While opening his arguments Ld. Counsel for defendant submits that defendant is running her business in Hisar Haryana. Neither defendant or her husband ever visited plaintiff's office in Delhi as claimed since all the orders were collected by plaintiff's representative at Hisar. It is submitted that terms and conditions of business were also settled in Hisar and hence no cause of action arose in Delhi. It is also argued that presentation of cheque drawn by the defendant in some bank account in Central Delhi does not confer jurisdiction on this Court.
34.The law in this regard is well settled. As far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the governing law is Section 20 CPC. For ready reference the same is reproduced hereunder:
Section 20 CPC: Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-
(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
1 [* * *] 2 [Explanation].-A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or CS Comm. No. 292/2024 Ramesh Brij Lal Santani Vs. Anita Dalmia Page No. 11 of 23 principal office in [India] or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.
(Emphasis Supplied)
35. The law on Section 20 CPC has been crystallised by Hon'ble SC in case titled ABC Laminart Private Ltd. and Anr. Vs. A P Agencies, Salem, 1989 Latest Caselaw 85 SC Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that in a contractual matter the jurisdiction of Court arises from four aspects:
(1) Where defendant resides or voluntary works for gain. (2) Where the Contract is entered;
(3) Where the Contract is to be performed;
(4) Where moneys have to be paid under the contract.
36. While relying on this judgment "Rashtriya Mahila Kosh Vs. The Dale View & Anr.", 2007 Latest Caselaw 329 Del, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:
"21. It is well settled that the territorial jurisdiction of a civil court would be ascertained having regard to the place of accrual of cause of action. This issue has fallen for consideration in a catena of judicial pronouncements by the Apex Court reported at AIR 1985 SC 1289 : (1985) 3 SCC 217 State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties; (2002) 1 SCC 567 : AIR 2002 SC 126, Union of India v. Adani Export Ltd.; (2004) 9 SCC 786, National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Haribox Swalram; (2004) 6 SCC 254, Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India; (1991) 4 erstwhile Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 2007 (95) DRJ 418 SCC 270 :
AIR 1992 SC 1514, Patel Roadways Limited Bombay v. Prasad Trading Company; JT 1994 (5) SC 1, Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu; (1996) 3 SCC 443, South East Asia Shipping Company Ltd. v. Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Several pronouncements of Division Bench of this court also have adjudicated upon this issue. In the judgments reported at 85 (1997) DLT 81 DB Sector 21 Owners Welfare Association v. Air Force Naval Housing Board; and (2003) 69 DRJ 98, A.K. Surekha v. Pradeshiya Investment Corporation of U.P. Ltd.; and (2004) 73 DRJ 104, Callipers Naigai Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi, this court has considered the same issue.
22. I have had occasion to deal with this issue on two earlier occasions. In a decision rendered on 4-1-2007 in Arbitration Application No. 242/2006 Rattan Singh Associates (P) Ltd. v. Gill Power Generation Co. Pvt. Ltd. and an earlier decision rendered on 23-12-2005 in Writ Petition (C) No. 5133/2005 Jai Ganesh Petroleum v.
Union of India, upon a careful consideration of the principles laid down in the several judicial pronouncements noticed hereinabove, so far as the accrual for the place of cause of action which would enable a court to have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a lis relating thereto, the following principles had been culled out:--
CS Comm. No. 292/2024Ramesh Brij Lal Santani Vs. Anita Dalmia Page No. 12 of 23 i. making and signing of a contract is part of cause of action;
ii. parties cannot by consent confer jurisdiction on a court;
iii. In the case of several courts having jurisdiction, parties can legally agree to exclude the jurisdiction of any of such courts and elect to restrict territorial jurisdiction to one out of such courts which otherwise has jurisdiction;
iv. the high court must be satisfied from the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action that those facts which constitute the cause or are necessary to decide the dispute have wholly arisen within its territorial jurisdiction, or, in any case, which have, atleast in part, arisen within its jurisdiction;
v. each and every fact pleaded in the petition does not ipsofacto lead to the conclusion that those facts which constitute the cause of action vesting territorial jurisdiction upon the court to adjudicate upon the lis;
vi. only those facts pleaded which have a nexus or relevance with the issues involved in the lis confer territorial jurisdiction on the court;
vii. in determining an objection relating to lack of territorial jurisdiction, the court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action as pleaded in the petition into consideration without embarking upon an inquiry as to the correctness or otherwise to the fact that;
viii. A question of territorial jurisdiction must be apparent on the facts pleaded in the petition, the source or otherwise of the averments made in the writ petition being immaterial. In matters where the parties have agreed to restrict jurisdiction to one or the other court out of several courts which may have territorial jurisdiction, such clause would be enforceable only if the litigation which has arisen falls within the domain of the subject matter which is being provided in such clause. The parties may have confined jurisdiction to litigation arising only under the agreement. In such cases, the court has to arrive at a finding that the litigation between the parties was within the domain of the clause confining jurisdiction. If it does not, then the territorial jurisdiction of the court could be barred;
ix. The court must be satisfied that all relevant facts which have merely a substantial nexus with the lis are located within its territorial jurisdiction;
x. Even if it were to be held that a court has jurisdiction, yet guided by principles of forum non-conveniens, the court may divert the parties to the court having a closer connection with the subject matter of the litigation. Residence of parties, location of evidence, situs of the dispute and such like considerations could guide the decision of the court to this effect.CS Comm. No. 292/2024
Ramesh Brij Lal Santani Vs. Anita Dalmia Page No. 13 of 23 xi. To the above, yet another principle requires to be added. It also requires to be borne in mind that a trivial or insignificant part of the cause of action arising at a particular place or where it may have incidentally arisen, would not be sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court, it is the court within whose jurisdiction, the cause of action has substantially or predominantly arisen which would have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis."
(Emphasis Supplied)
37.Other relevant judgments on this aspect are case titled "Jain Irrigation Systems Limited Vs. M/s Pragyawan Technologies Private Limited, 2024 Latest Caselaw 6103 Del" and "Piccadily Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Ashok Narwal & Anr., 2016 Latest Caselaw 1984 Del".
38.Appreciating the facts of this case in the light of above four conditions is concerned, admittedly defendant is located in Hisar, Haryana. As far as second is concerned as to where the contract was entered the plaint is silent about the place where the terms of business were agreed to between the parties. All that is stated is that defendant came in contact with the plaintiff for carrying on business. It is nowhere pleaded that defendant alone or alongwith her husband came from Hisar to Delhi for settling the terms of business. Even in the two affidavits in chief of PW1 and PW2 there is no reference of holding of business mettings between the parties at Delhi. In this regard it is pointed out by Ld. Counsel for defendant in the cross-examination of PW2 he has admitted that all the orders were taken by Mr. Viral Kumar Jain, nephew of PW1 with the defendant company from Hisar. The witness accepted that he cannot say that defendant ever visited Delhi for business dealings. In view of this the statement of PW1 in his cross-examination that sometimes defendant used to come to Delhi for placing purchase orders is rendered inconsequential.
39.The third requirement for ascertaining the territorial jurisdiction as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court is "execution of contract". Perusal of the plaint shows that it is nowhere mentioned therein that the goods were supplied from Shastri Nagar Central Delhi. However perusal of invoices Ex.PW1/C1 to Ex.PW1 CS Comm. No. 292/2024 Ramesh Brij Lal Santani Vs. Anita Dalmia Page No. 14 of 23 C38 shows that they were issued from Shahstri Nagar and the goods were sent through transport as per GR Receipts/bilty available. Perusal of the bilty shows that goods were sent through M/s Malik Transport Company at Gokhlay Market, Central Delhi. During the course of arguments Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that the Shastri Nagar office of the plaintiff is office cum godown and as such all the dispatches were carried out from the same. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for defendant in this regard that the plaint is silent qua the Shastri Nagar office has a godown as well and nothing is filed on record to show that the dispatch was carried out from Shastri Nagar. As per 4 th condition perusal of the invoices show that they demand payments at a bank account with ICICI Bank, Sadar Bazar which falls wthin the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi.
40.In the light of the above this Court has no hesitation in concluding that since the payments were demanded at a bank in Central Delhi, this Court does have territorial jurisdiction to try this suit. This issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. 2:
ii. Whether material supplied by the plaintiff was sub-standard and supplied with delayed supply and was consequentially returned? OPD
41.Before deciding this issue it would be appropriate to cull out the facts admitted between the parties. It is admitted case of both the sides that plaintiff is trader of hosiery items at Shastri Nagar, Delhi while defendant is a retailor of hosiery items and crockery at Hisar, Haryana. Both the sides have business relations since 2007-08 whereunder as per purchase orders received, plaintiff used to sell and supply hosiery items to the defendant against GST paid invoices.
Goods were supplied through transport company. The plaintiff was maintaining a ledger of all the sales made and payments received. Althoguh DW1 in his CS Comm. No. 292/2024 Ramesh Brij Lal Santani Vs. Anita Dalmia Page No. 15 of 23 deposition had stated that he used to make payments bill wise but admittedly ledger Ex.PW1/42 shows that payments in round figures of Rs.1 lakh, Rs. 2 lakh, Rs.1.75 lakh were made from time to time indicating that it was a running account. It is not the case of the defendant that any of the 38 invoices Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/38 are forged and fabricated or that no goods were supplied qua any of them. It is also not the case of the defendant that plaintiff supplied goods under any of the above invoices without issuance of a purchase order by the defendant. Admittedly, it is not the case of the defendant that they made any payment which is not credited into the ledger Ex.PW1/42 by the plaintiff.
42.Upon being asked it is accepted by Ld. Counsel for defendant that no return invoice or e-way bill or bilty qua return of goods by the defendant to the plaintiff has been filed alongwith the WS. It is accepted that even though defendant has taken a plea that the goods supplied by the plaintiff to her was delayed, there was under supply, the quality was not satisfactory and that defendant suffered losses due to same but still no amount has been disclosed in the WS. Also, admittedly, defendant was served with legal notice Ex.DW1/P1 but no reply to the same was sent by the defendant. Also, admittedly, defendant was duly served with Pre-Institution Mediation notice issued by Secretary Central DLSA but defendant did not participate. Also, admittedly, despite the pleas of under-supply and poor quality no message/email/letter or legal notice was ever issued by the defendant to the plaintiff complaining about the same. Also there is nothing on record either in the pleadings or in the documents qua the specific quality of the goods which the plaintiff was supposed to supply to the defendant.
43.As far as quality of the goods is concerned, the law is governed by Section 16 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930. As per landmark judgment of case titled Hyundai CS Comm. No. 292/2024 Ramesh Brij Lal Santani Vs. Anita Dalmia Page No. 16 of 23 Motor India Limited Vs. Shailendra Bhatnagar, Civil Appeal No.3001 of 2022 dated 20.04.2022 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that as per Section 16 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 there is no implied quality assurance in Sale of Goods Act. The same is reproduced as under:
Section 16 of Sale of Goods Act: Implied conditions as to quality of fitness "Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any other law for the time being in force, there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale, except as follows:-
(1) Where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment, and the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller's business to supply (whether he is the manufacturer or producer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose:
Provided that, in the case of a contract for the sale of a specified article under its patent or other trade name, there is no implied condition as to its fitness for any particular purpose.
(2) Where goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description (whether he is the manufacturer or producer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be of merchantable quality:
Provided that, if the buyer has examined the goods, there shall be no implied condition as regards defects which such examination ought to have revealed.
(3) An implied warranty or condition as to quality or fitness for a particular purpose may be annexed by the usage of trade.
(4) An express warranty or condition does not negative a warranty or condition implied by this Act unless inconsistent therewith.
(Emphasis Supplied)
44.While opening his submissions Ld. Counsel for defendant fairly accepts that no specific purchase order has been pleaded, filed or relied to show that there was any express or implied quality or fitness of the goods sold. In his corss- examination DW1 has stated that some goods were returned during April-July 2022 and that the witness has not been cross-examined by the plaintiff in this regard and hence it should be regarded as sufficient proof that the goods were returned. This plea is found to be too little too late since firstly the witness was asked by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff qua the details of the claimed return but the CS Comm. No. 292/2024 Ramesh Brij Lal Santani Vs. Anita Dalmia Page No. 17 of 23 witness accepted that he has not placed anything on record in this regard but can produce the same. Admittedly, nothing was filed by the defendant qua the claimed return. Furthermore, the plea that goods worth Rs.16-17 lakhs were returned is found to be beyond pleadings as nothing of this sort was pleaded in the WS.
45.As per plaintiff when the defendant was unable to clear the mounting debit balance of more than Rs.22 lakhs, he offered to return some unsold inventory. Only with an aim to ease the financial burden on the defendant goods around Rs.7.50 lakhs was taken back by the plaintiff and due credit entries qua the same were made in the ledger Ex.PW1/42 between 14.01.2021 and 26.11.2021. Record shows that post adjustment of this the principal debit balance stood at Rs.15,00,180/-. During the course of final arguments Ld. Counsel for Defendant accepted that credit adjustment worth Rs.7.50 lakhs were granted by plaintiff to the defendant.
46. The plea of return of additional goods worth Rs.16-17 lakhs has primarily remained unsubstantiated in the light of any cogent evidence, documentary or otherwise. Admittedly, nothing is pleaded or proved on record to show as to what was wrong with the quality or quantity of the goods supplied by the plaintiff. As per legal stipulation even though primary onus to prove the case rests of the plaintiff but the onus to prove specific averment of late supply, under supply and supply of poor quality goods rests on the defendant as per Section 105 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Section 102 of Indian Evidence Act). For ready reference the law is reproduced hereunder:
Section 105 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Section 102 of Indian Evidence Act) : On whom burden of proof lies The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.CS Comm. No. 292/2024
Ramesh Brij Lal Santani Vs. Anita Dalmia Page No. 18 of 23 Illustration:
(a) A sues B for land of which B is in possession, and which, as A asserts, was left to A by the will of C, B's father. If no evidence were given no either side, B would be entitled to retain his possession. Therefore the burden of proof is on A.
(b) A sues B for money due on a bond. The execution of the bond is admitted, but B says that it was obtained by fraud, which A denies. If no evidence were given on either side, A would succeed, as the bond is not disputed and the fraud is not proved. Therefore the burden of proof is on B.
47. In case titled Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh, 2006 Latest Caselaw 269 SC dated 02.05.2006 Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"The suit will fail if both the parties do not adduce any evidence, in view of Section 102 of the Evidence Act. Thus, ordinarily, the burden of proof would be on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue and it rests, after evidence is gone into, upon the party against whom, at the time the question arises, judgment would be given, if no further evidence were to be adduced by either side."
48.In the absence of any cogent material this Court has no hesitation in concluding that defendant has failed to discharge the onus of proving this issue. This issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue No. 3:
iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.23,10,277/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum? OPP
49. While opening his submissions Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that combined reading of the 38 invoices Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/38 with ledger Ex.PW1/42, for Financial Years 2020-21 and 2021-22 would go on to show that there was a debit balance of Rs.15,00,180/- as on 01.04.2022. This plea is opposed by Ld. Counsel for defendant with a submission that the ledger Ex.PW1/42 opens with a debit balance of Rs.27,38,040/- and no evidence whatsoever has been filed by the plaintiff to show as to how this liability of 27.38 lakhs odd rupees can be fastened on the defendant in the absence of any evidence. Attention of this Court is drawn by Ld. Counsel for defendant to Section 28 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act) in order to bring home his submission qua an entry in the ledger account fastening CS Comm. No. 292/2024 Ramesh Brij Lal Santani Vs. Anita Dalmia Page No. 19 of 23 financial liability. As per Section 28 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act ledger is not an intrinsic part of document which can independently prove a case rather they are of corroborative nature. For ready reference the same is reproduced as under:
Section 28 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 : [Entries in books of account, including those maintained in an electronic form] when relevant.
"Entries in books of account, including those maintained in an electronic from, regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability."
Illustration:
A sues B for Rs.1,000/- and shows entries in his account books showing B to be indebted to him to this amount. The entries are relevant, but are not sufficient, without other evidence, to prove the debt."
(Emphasis Supplied)
50.Ld. Counsel for defendant has relied on case titled M/s J K Synthetics Limited Vs. M/s Dynamic Cement Traders, 2012 Latest Caselaw 5494 Del here in an identical case HMJ Valmiki J. Mehta found that a plaintiff company was desirous of fastening financial liability worth Rs.69.36 lakhs on the defendant merely on the basis of an entry in the ledger. While discussing the matter Ld. Judge observed:
In view of Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 a mere entry in the statement of account is not sufficient to fasten any liability and the entries in the statement of account have to be proved by means of the documents/vouchers of the transaction. Admittedly, the entry dated 31.3.1995 in Ex.PW1/50 for Rs.69,36,240.36/- has not been substantiated by means of any document showing as to how and for what this amount of Rs.69,36,240.36/- is due. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V.C. Shukla & Ors. (1998) 3 SCC 410 has observed that Section 34 is in two parts. The first part speaks of relevancy of the entries in evidence once the books of accounts are shown to be regularly kept in the course of business and the second aspect is that even if it is proved that the statements of accounts are regularly kept in course of business, yet, the statement of account/entry alone is not sufficient evidence to charge a person with liability. The object of law is that mere entries should not be sufficient to fasten the monetary liability unless documents of transaction (which would be invoices, challans and receipts of supply of goods etc) are filed and exhibited in support of the entries made. I therefore hold that mere entry of Rs. 69,36,240.36/- existing in the statement of account in Ex.PW1/50 is not sufficient to charge the defendant with liability as claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. Once this entry CS Comm. No. 292/2024 Ramesh Brij Lal Santani Vs. Anita Dalmia Page No. 20 of 23 is not proved, then,even if I take the payment of Rs. 2 lacs made by the defendant on 21/22.4.1995 and as admitted by the defendant in his cross- examination, will not in any manner help to prove the existence of debit entry of Rs.69,36,240.36/-.Even the plaint is totally silent as to because of what reason this entry exists i.e for supply of goods or towards interest or towards any other aspect, and if so what are such invoices/agreement qua the supply or interest or other aspects. I therefore hold that the plaintiff has failed to prove the entries dated 31.3.1995.
51. Appreciating the facts of this case in the light of the above legal position it is found that the 30 invoices filed by the plaintiff actually range between 18.01.2020 and 22.07.2020 while the ledger filed on record is from 01.04.2020 onwards. Accordingly, there are certain invoices which were issued during financial years 2019-20 but no ledger for the year 2019-2020 or any financial year prior to that was filed by the plaintiff in his own wisdom. It is beyond contradiction as to how a plaintiff can expect a Court to believe a mere bald entry in the ledger of Rs.27,38,040/- without any supporting material of sale and supply of goods. Appreciating the total invoices in the light of the ledger shows that as against cumulative value of invoices of Rs.15,62,081/- admitted payments made by the defendant to the plaintiff including the credit note entries qua return of goods between 01.04.2020 and 31.03.2022 comes to around Rs.16.27 lakhs which is much more than the principal debit balance of Rs.15,00,180/-. As far as onus of proving of factual matrix of a case is concerned, primary onus remains on the plaintiff as per Section 104 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Section 101 of Evidence Act). For ready reference the law is reproduced hereunder:
Section 104 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act): Burden of Proof Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.CS Comm. No. 292/2024
Ramesh Brij Lal Santani Vs. Anita Dalmia Page No. 21 of 23 When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
Illustrations:
(a) A desires a Court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed.
A must prove that B has committed the crime.
(b) A desires a Court to give judgment that he is entitled to certain land in the possession of B, by reason of facts which he asserts, and which B denies, to be true.
A must prove the existence of those facts.
52. In case titled Rangammal Vs. Kuppuswami and Anr., 2011 Latest Caselaw 417 SC dated 13.05.2011 Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 defines "burden of proof"
which clearly lays down that:
"101. Burden of proof.--Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person."
Thus, the Evidence Act has clearly laid down that the burden of proving a fact always lies upon the person who asserts it. Until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been able to discharge his burden. Until he arrives at such conclusion, he cannot proceed on the basis of weakness of the other party.
53.A plea is raised by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that his principa debit balance of Rs.15,00,180/- is exclusive of return of credit notes entry of Rs.7.55 lakhs and that only a payment of Rs.8.75 lakhs were made by the defendant during the above period. In so far as the plaintiff has been able to prove sale of goods only worth Rs.15,62,081/- as against received payments/credit note entires of Rs.16.27 lakhs, no case of decretal of principal debit balance of Rs.15,00,180/- is made out. Accordingly the issue is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant.
54.In the absence of any liability in favour of plaintiff question of interest does not arise.
CS Comm. No. 292/2024Ramesh Brij Lal Santani Vs. Anita Dalmia Page No. 22 of 23
55.In view of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation in concluding that plaintiff company has miserably failed to discharge the onus of proving this case and suit of the plaintiff is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
56.Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by SURINDER SURINDER S RATHI S RATHI Date:
2025.08.25 15:26:24 +0530 (SURINDER S. RATHI) District Judge Commercial Court-11 Central District, THC Delhi/18.08.2025 CS Comm. No. 292/2024 Ramesh Brij Lal Santani Vs. Anita Dalmia Page No. 23 of 23