Delhi District Court
M/S Shree Ambika Impex Ltdthrough ... vs Ajay Mittalproprietor Of Mittal ... on 30 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY PANDEY
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-10) CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS Comm 862/2023
M/s Shree Ambika Impex Ltd.
Registered office at :
316 B.D, Chamber, D.B. Gupta Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
Through Director/Authorized Signatory
Sh. Madan Lal
M-9811533666
Also At:
21/22, Khasra No.38/14, Gali No.2,
Shiv Vihar, Shahbad, Daulatpur,
New Delhi-110042. ...Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Ajay Mittal
Proprietor of Mittal Overseas
At : 5536, M Floor,
Basti Harphool Singh, Sadar Bazar,
Delhi-110006
M-9818999415
Date of Institution : 27.05.2023
Date of Arguments : 19.05.2026
Date of Judgment : 30.05.2026
JUDGMENT:-
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 8,86,453/- (RUPEES EIGHT LAKHS EIGHTY SIX THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED M/s Shree Ambika Impex Ltd. Vs Sh. Ajay Mittal Page no. 1 of 11 CS Comm 862/23 AJAY Digitally signed by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.05.30 14:32:37 +0530 FIFTY THREE ONLY) ALONG WITH PENDENTELITE AND FUTURE INTEREST
1. This is a simplicitor suit for recovery of Rs.8,86,453/- filed by the plaintiff/company through Sh. Madan Lal, against the defendant.
2. It is inter-alia stated in the plaint that Sh. Madan Lal is the Director/Authorized signatory of the plaintiff/company, fully conversant with the facts of present case and that plaintiff company has passed a resolution dated 02.11.2021 in his favour authorizing him to sign, verify, institute and file the case and to execute vakalatnama and to take any other steps connected with the present case.
3. It is further stated in the plaint that plaintiff supplied goods to the defendant against invoices Nos. SAIL/072/21-22 dated 01.09.2022, SAIL/073/21-22 dated 01.09.2022, SAIL/075/21-22 dated 14.10.2022 and SAIL/076/21-22 dated 14.10.2022.
4. It is further stated that defendant made part payments to the plaintiff.
5. It is further stated stated that plaintiff maintains his regular books of accounts and as per the separate running account of defendant for the period from 01.04.2021 to March, 2023, a sum of Rs.8,86,453/- is outstanding against the defendant. Plaintiff made request to the defendant to clear the said payments but defendant M/s Shree Ambika Impex Ltd. Vs Sh. Ajay Mittal Page no. 2 of 11 Digitally signed CS Comm 862/23 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.05.30 14:32:43 +0530 started avoiding plaintiff on one pretext or another.
6. It is further stated that as per the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 plaintiff filed a petition before Central District Legal Services Authority but defendant did not appear before that Authority and non-starter report dated 05.03.2022 was issued to plaintiff.
7. Defendant is further stated to be liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the principal amount. Hence, the present suit for recovery of Rs.8,86,453/- with pendentelite and future interest @ 18% per annum.
8. The suit is supported by Statement of Truth.
9. Summons for settlement of issues was served upon defendant. Defendant filed its written statement stating inter-alia in the preliminary objections that suit filed by the plaintiff is abuse of process of law and is hit by Order VII rule 11 CPC, without any cause of action and that plaint has not been signed, verified and filed by duly competent/authorized person.
10. In reply on merits, it is stated in the written statement that plaintiff and defendant used to purchase goods from each other on reciprocal basis and there was mutual, open and running account between the parties to the present suit.
11. It is further stated that none of the invoices, placed on record, as mentioned in the plaint was received by the defendant. It is also stated that plaintiff has not placed any document on record showing delivery of goods M/s Shree Ambika Impex Ltd. Vs Sh. Ajay Mittal Digitally signed Page no. 3 of 11 CS Comm 862/23 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.05.30 14:32:49 +0530 against the alleged invoices. It is further stated that defendant has also raised the invoices against the goods sold and supplied to the plaintiff. Copies of said invoices are filed along with written statement. It is further stated that defendant has not only made payment but also supplied goods to the plaintiff from time to time against the above mentioned invoices/bills raised by the defendant. Defendant also paid GST in respect of the above mentioned bills but the plaintiff did not make any payment against these invoices. It is further stated that an amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs given by the defendant to plaintiff was liable to be adjusted.
12. It is denied that a sum of Rs.8,86,453/- is due and payable by the defendant to plaintiff and it is stated that plaintiff has avoided to mention Rs.6,79,296/- being the amount of invoices raised by the defendant against the goods supplied to plaintiff and that plaintiff is liable to adjust the said amount. It is stated that copy of statement of account annexed with the plaint is manipulated document and there is no question of payment of interest @ 18% per annum or at any other rate. Dismissal of suit is prayed.
13. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement thereby reiterating the facts stated in the plaint and denying contrary allegations of the written statement. It is further stated in the replication that plaintiff company never purchased any material from the defendant nor M/s Shree Ambika Impex Ltd. Vs Sh. Ajay Mittal Page no. 4 of 11 CS Comm 862/23 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.05.30 14:32:59 +0530 took any benefit of GST ever deposited by the defendant. It is stated that plaintiff had deposited GST for the bills raised by the plaintiff and the defendant always took delivery of the goods from the godown of the plaintiff through vehicles bearing No. DL1LL9198 and DL1LQ5950 and the number of these vehicles is mentioned in the e-way bills and purchase bills. 07 bills annexed with the written statement are stated to be fabricated and manipulated documents and it is repeated that plaintiff never purchased any goods from the defendant through these bills or otherwise.
14. Vide order dated 17.10.2023, following issues were framed :-
1) Whether the plaint has not been signed/verified and filed by the competent person? OPD.
2) Whether there is no cause of action for filing the suit? OPD.
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of any amount, if so, what amount? OPP
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate or for which period? OPP
5) Relief
15. Sh. Chirag Mittal, AR/Director of plaintiff company filed his evidence in affidavit and examined himself as PW-1. During his testimony he proved following documents:-
M/s Shree Ambika Impex Ltd. Vs Sh. Ajay Mittal Page no. 5 of 11 CS Comm 862/23 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.05.30 14:33:06 +0530
1) Ex.PW1/1 is Incorporation Certificate.
2) Ex.PW1/2 is copy of Resolution dated 02.11.2021.
3) Copy of resolution dated 15.09.2023 as Ex.PW1/3.
4) Copies of invoices as Ex.PW1/4 to
Ex.PW1/7 (OSR).
5) Copies of form GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 and
GSTR B2B as Ex.PW1/8 to Ex.PW1/10 respectively.
6) Copy of statement of account as
Ex.PW1/77.
7) Non-Starter report dated 05.03.2022 as
Ex.PW1/12.
8) Certificate under section 65B of Indian
Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/13.
16. Sh. Ajay Mittal, who is defendant in the present case has filed his affidavit in evidence and examined himself as DW-1. During his testimony he relied upon following documents :-
1) Copies of invoices raised by him as Ex.DW1/1 to Ex.DW1/7.
2) Copies of GST paid invoices as Ex.DW1/8 (colly).
3) Copy of certificate under section 65B of Evidence Act as Ex.DW1/9.
M/s Shree Ambika Impex Ltd. Vs Sh. Ajay Mittal Page no. 6 of 11 CS Comm 862/23 Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.05.30 14:33:13 +0530
17. Final arguments were addressed by learned counsels for parties.
18. Learned Sh. Jitender Kumar Ghahlyan, Advocate for plaintiff argued that plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the amount as stated in the plaint. He has argued that plaintiff has proved the invoices through which the goods were supplied to the defendant. It is further argued that 07 bills annexed with the written statement are fabricated and manipulated documents and it is argued that plaintiff never purchased any goods from the defendant through these bills or otherwise.
19. Per-contra learned Sh. Sudhir Suneja, Advocate for defendant argued that defendant has not received any goods as alleged by the plaintiff. It is further argued that defendant has also raised the invoice against the goods sold and supplied to the plaintiff. It is further stated that defendant has not only made payment but also supplied goods to the plaintiff from time to time against the above mentioned invoices/bills raised by the defendant. It is further argued that defendant also paid GST in respect of the above mentioned bills but the plaintiff did not make any payment against these invoices. It is further argued that copy of statement of account annexed with the plaint is a manipulated document.
20. Arguments considered. Record perused.
21. Issue wise findings of court are as under:-
Issue no.1 :- Whether the plaint has not been M/s Shree Ambika Impex Ltd. Vs Sh. Ajay Mittal Page no. 7 of 11 CS Comm 862/23 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.05.30 14:33:18 +0530 signed/verified and filed by the competent person? OPD.
22. Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant.
This court is of the humble opinion that defendant has failed to discharge onus to prove this issue. It is not denied that Sh. Madan Lal, who has signed and verified the present plaint is the working Director of plaintiff company. The suit has been filed in the name of plaintiff company by its working Director who was stated to be fully conversant with the facts and transactions involved in the present case. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff.
Issue no.2 :- Whether there is no cause of action for filing the suit? OPD.
23. Onus to prove this issue was upon defendant. This issue is also liable to decided against the defendant as there is a clear cause of action disclosed in the plaint. It is categorically stated that plaintiff supplied material to the defendant through invoices Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/7 but the defendant did not make complete payment of the amount of invoices and an amount of Rs.8,86,453/- is outstanding against the defendant.
24. A clear cause of action is disclosed in the plaint.
Hence, this issue is decided against the defendant.
Issue no.3 :- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of any amount, if so, what amount? OPP M/s Shree Ambika Impex Ltd. Vs Sh. Ajay Mittal Digitally signed Page no. 8 of 11 CS Comm 862/23 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.05.30 14:33:24 +0530
25. Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. Defendant has taken a plea in the written statement that plaintiff did not supply the goods against invoices Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/7. It is also stated in the written statement that said invoices are forged and manipulated and that an amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs given by the defendant was liable to adjusted. It is also stated that defendant also supplied goods worth Rs.6,79,296/-.
26. In his cross-examination, DW-1 admitted "It is correct that I received the bills Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/7. It is further correct that I also received the material against these bills. Vol. I received the material and I also made the payment thereof to the plaintiff. It is correct that in the particular period, I received benefit of the GST deposit by the plaintiff in respect of Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/7."
27. This part of cross-examination of defendant clearly reflects that Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/7 were duly received by the defendant for the goods supplied to him. The defendant also received the goods and also took GST benefit in respect of bills Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/7. Hence, the defence in written statement is falsified.
28. In respect of payment of Rs.2.00 lakhs, defendant stated in cross-examination "It is correct that the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- as referred to in my above statement is reflected in account statement Ex.PW1/11." Hence, the alleged payment of Rs.2.00 lakhs is duly M/s Shree Ambika Impex Ltd. Vs Sh. Ajay Mittal Page no. 9 of 11 CS Comm 862/23 Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.05.30 14:33:30 +0530 credited by plaintiff in the statement of account of defendant as maintained by plaintiff. There is no acknowledgment of plaintiff for receipt of goods from the defendant. Defendant has failed to prove delivery of any of the goods allegedly supplied by him to plaintiff. All invoices and delivery of goods through invoices by plaintiff have been admitted by defendant in his cross- examination. The payments made by defendant have been also credited by the plaintiff in his account. Defendant is therefore liable to make payment of Rs.8,86,453/- as claimed in the suit.
29. Plaintiff is therefore held entitled to recovery of Rs.8,86,453/- (Rupees eight lakhs eighty six thousand four hundred and fifty three only). This issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff.
Issue no.4:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate or for which period? OPP
30. The plaintiff has successfully proved all the relevant documents through which goods were supplied to defendant. The transactions between the parties are related to trade and business of plaintiff and by withholding the payment, defendant has put the plaintiff at loss. Plaintiff might have invested the said amount in the business and would have earned further profit. Plaintiff has not claimed any pre-suit interest. Considering the facts and circumstances, this court is of M/s Shree Ambika Impex Ltd. Vs Sh. Ajay Mittal Page no. 10 of 11 Digitally signed CS Comm 862/23 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.05.30 14:33:40 +0530 the opinion that pendentelite and future interest @ 12% per annum would suffice ends of justice.
31. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and it held that plaintiff is entitled to pendentelite and future interest @ 12% per annum on Rs.8,86,453/-.
32. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff.
Relief :-
33. In view of aforesaid discussion of court, suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost against the defendant for recovery of amount of Rs.8,86,453/- (Rupees eight lakhs eighty six thousand four hundred and fifty three only) with pendentelite and future interest @ 12% per annum.
34. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
35. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open court AJAY by AJAY PANDEY on the 30th day of May, 2026 PANDEY Date: 2026.05.30 14:33:52 +0530 (Ajay Pandey) District Judge (Commercial Court-10) Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
M/s Shree Ambika Impex Ltd. Vs Sh. Ajay Mittal Page no. 11 of 11 CS Comm 862/23