Delhi District Court
M/S Meenakshi In-Style vs M/S Bharat Milap And Anr on 28 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF PAWAN KUMAR MATTO
DISTRICT JUDGE COMMERCIAL COURT-04, SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm.) No. 181/2022
CNR No. DLSH01-001-001515-2022
In the matter of :-
M/s Meenakshi In-Style
(A partnership Firm),
Through it's partner :
Shri Vivek Gadodia,
256, F.I.E., Patparganj,
Delhi-110092.
......Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. M/s Bharat Milap, ......Defendant no. 1
(Through it's partners):
Having its registered office:
Shop no. G5A, N.P. Cenrer, New
Dakbanglow Road, Patna,
Bihar-800 004
2. Md. Eiqbal, .....Defendant no. 2(Deleted as per
Order dated
03.03.2023 of court)
Partner:
M/S Bharat Milap,
Shop no. G5A, N.P. Cenrer, New
Dakbanglow Road, Patna,
Bihar-800 004
3. Md. Salauddin, ..... Defendant no. 3
Partner:
M/S Bharat Milap,
Shop no. G5A, N.P. Cenrer, New
Dakbanglow Road, Patna,
Bihar-800 004
4. Md. Shahzad, ...... Defendant no. 4
Partner:
PAWAN
KUMAR
CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 1 of 35 MATTO
Digitally signed by
PAWAN KUMAR
MATTO
Date: 2026.04.28
16:09:39 +0530
M/S Bharat Milap,
Shop no. G5A, N.P. Cenrer, New
Dakbanglow Road, Patna,
Bihar-800 004
Date of institution of the case : 07.03.2022
Date of final arguments : 17.04.2026
Date of judgment : 28.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stating that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 5,66,367/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum on the amount of suit from the date of filing the suit till actual realization of the amount, stating therein that the present Suit is a Commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2 (1)(c) of the Commercial Court Act.
2. It is also averred that initially, the claim was referred to the District Legal Services Authority, Shahdara District, by the plaintiff on dated 17.12.2021, but, no one had appeared on behalf of the defendants for any settlement, therefore, on dated 19.01.2022 Non-Starter Report was issued by the Shahdara District Legal Services Authority. Hence, this Suit is filed in this Court.
3. It is further averred that the plaintiff is the Partnership firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 with the Registrar of Firms, and it's partner is competent to sign and to institute / pursue the said Commercial Suit against the Defendants. It is further averred that the plaintiff is doing the business of manufacturing, sale and supply of ready made garments and it is doing the said business from it's address mentioned herein above.
PAWAN KUMAR CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 2 of 35 MATTO Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date: 2026.04.28 16:09:44 +0530
4. It is further averred that the defendant no 1 is the partnership firm and Md. Eiqbal, who was acting on behalf of the defendant no. 1, 3 and 4, was the agent of the defendant no.1, 3 and 4. It is further averred that the defendant no. 3 and 4 are actually the partners of the defendant no.
1. Defendant no.1 is engaged in the sale of fabrics and garments. Hence, the defendant no. 3 and 4 are liable and responsible for the day to day acts, conducts or business activities of defendant no. 1 (partnership firm).
5. It is further averred that Md. Eiqbal, who was acting on behalf of the defendant no. 1, 3 and 4, was the agent of the defendant no.1, 3 and 4 and he was doing business dealings with the plaintiff and accordingly, he was purchasing the goods / fabrics /readymade garments from the plaintiff against bills/invoices, from time to time, on credit basis. The plaintiff was supplying the ordered goods to the Defendants through Transport as per his orders, requirements, specifications and purchase Orders. The said goods /articles/readymade garments were duly received by the Defendants at their destinations upto their utmost satisfaction without having any complaint of whatsoever nature from time to time as per his orders.
6. It is further averred that as per the admitted terms and conditions printed on the invoice itself, it was agreed upon between the Defendants and the plaintiff that if the defendants fail to pay the amount of invoice within the stipulated period, then they will be liable to pay interest @ 24% per annum on delayed payment of each invoice.
7.It is further averred that the plaintiff has maintained the Ledger Account of the Defendants in it's books of account and duly made the PAWAN KUMAR CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 3 of 35 MATTO Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date: 2026.04.28 16:09:48 +0530 entries of the abovesaid invoices/ purchases, as well as, the payments made by them from time to time. As per the said statement of account / ledger maintained in it's books of account, the principal amount of Rs 2,30,620/- (Rupees Two Lakhs, Thirty Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty) became due and outstanding against the Defendants after adjusting payments of Rs 50,000/- on 25.06.2018 & Rs.25,000/-on 18.02.2019. Except the said last payments in sum of Rs. 50,000/- & Rs. 25,000/-, no other payment is made by the Defendants to the plaintiff after 18.02.2019. The details of Invoice Numbers., Date, Amount and transporter Consignment details are as under:
Sl.No. Invoice Date Amount Transport
Consignment No. &
No
Date
I 00466 04.12.2017 Rs.3,05,620/- Classic Cargo &
Courier Services,
Consignment
No.031818, dated
15.12.2017
"7A. It is further averred that subsequent thereto, where the plaintiff was searching for some other documents of their business transactions, then found three original cheques and cheque no. 592370 dated 25.09.2018 for Rs.50,000/-, Cheque no. 301323 dated 20.03.2019 for Rs.25,000/-, cheque no. 301324 dated 25.03.2019 for Rs. 25,000/- all drawn on Yes Bank, Circle no. 6, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, which were issued by the defendant no. 4 Md. Shahzad, being the Authorised Signatory of the defendant no 1/Bharat Milap.
7.B. It is further averred that due to missing/non-tracing of the said cheques, the same could not be presented for encashment by the plaintiff.
PAWAN KUMAR MATTO CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 4 of 35 Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date: 2026.04.28 16:09:52 +0530
7.C. It is further averred that the abovesaid three original cheques were issued by the defendant no. 4/Md. Shahzad in favour of the plaintiff firm in discharge of his legal liability of business transaction on credit basis are very essential part of pleadings and can be of great help in proving their case against the defendants.
8. It is further averred that the fact also remains that on 25.06.2018 and 18.02.2019 part payments of Rs.50,000/- & Rs.25,000/-were made through cheques to the plaintiff and other three cheques of total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which remained untrceable were issued by the said partner defendant no.4/Md. Shahzad."
9. It is further averred that the plaintiff through it's concerned officials contacted and requested to Md. Eiqbal, who was acting as an agent on behalf of the defendant no. 1, 3 and 4 and even personally visited the offices of the Defendants on various occasions to get the abovesaid outstanding amount with interest, but, the abovesaid Defendants, put deaf ears on all such bonafide requests, demands and reminders of the plaintiff with the sole motive / intention to grab the said legitimate / lawful amount of the plaintiff and the Defendants even stopped the business with the plaintiff.
10. It is also averred that the Defendants have illegally withheld the outstanding amount of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was left with no other option, so, the plaintiff served a legal demand notice dated 16.10.2021 upon the Defendants through Speed Post and Whats-app message, whereby, the Defendants were called upon to make the payment of the principal amount of Rs.2,30,620/- (Rupees Two Lakh, Thirty Thousand, Six Hundred and Twenty) alongwith interest of PAWAN KUMAR MATTO CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 5 of 35 Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date: 2026.04.28 16:09:56 +0530 Rs.3,21,901/-calculated @ 24% per annum on the delayed payment of invoice till 15.10.2021 and further interest till actual realization.
11. It is also averred that despite of service of the said legal demand notice dated 16.10.2021 upon the Defendants, the Defendants have failed and neglected to adhere to the the legal demand notice.
12. It is also averred that before the filing of the present Suit, the matter was referred to the Shahdara District Legal Services Authority on dated 17.12.2021, but, the defendants did not appear on dated 06.01.2022 and 19.01.2022 and ultimately, Non-Starter Report dated 19.01.2022 was issued by the Authority.
13. It is also averred that as on the date of filing of the present Commercial Suit, the defendants are liable to pay the principle amount of Rs 2,30,620 (Rupees Two Lacs, Thirty Thousand, Six Hundred and Twenty) alongwith interest of Rs.3,35,747/- (Rupees Three Lacs, Thirty Five Thousand, Seven Hundred and Forty Seven) accrued thereon from the date of invoice till 15.01.2022 i.e. total amount of Rs.5,66,367/- (Rupees Five Lacs, Sixty Six Thousand, Three Hundred and Sixty Seven).
14. It is also averred that the cause of action to file the present Suit firstly arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants on dated 04.12.2017, when, the goods/articles/readymade garments were purchased by the defendants through pürchase order from the plaintiff and the plaintiff supplied the ordered goods/articles/readymade garments, as per specifications of the defendants by raising proper invoice against the defendants for total amount of Rs.3,05,620/- and it PAWAN KUMAR CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 6 of 35 MATTO Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date: 2026.04.28 16:10:00 +0530 further arose on dated 25.06.2018 & 18.02.2019, when, the defendants merely made the payments of Rs.50,000/- & Rs.25,000/-, leaving the principle balance outstanding amount of Rs.2,30,620/- and the plaintiff kept on demanding the balance outstanding amount alongwith interest. The cause of action further arose on dated 16.10.2021, when the legal notice of demand was served upon the defendants, but, inspite of receipt of notice, the defendants failed to comply with the legal demand notice. It further arose on dated 17.12.2021, 06.01.2022 and 19.01.2022, when the plaintiff approached District Legal Services Authority, Shahdara District for mediation proceedings and when, on non-appearance of the defendants, Non-Starter Report was issued by the D.L.S.A. Delhi. The cause of action is still continuing against the defendant, as despite approaching D.L.S.A. by the plaintiff, the defendants neither appeared before the Legal Services Authority nor made the payment of balance outstanding amount
15. It is also averred that the orders for supply of goods/readymade garments were placed to the plaintiff by the defendants at 256, F.I.Ε., Patparganj, Delhi-110092, from where, the ordered material was supplied by the plaintiff to the defendants. The entire cause of action and every part thereof for filing the present suit arose within the jurisdiction of Shahdara District of Delhi, where, the plaintiff is running it's Partnership business at 256, F.I.E., Patparganj, Delhi-110092, hence, this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the present suit for Recovery against the defendants.
16. It is also averred that the suit of the plaintiff is well within the statutory period of Limitation, as lastly the defendants had made the part payments of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff on PAWAN KUMAR CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 7 of 35 MATTO Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date:
2026.04.28 16:10:03 +0530 25.06.2018 and 18.02.2019, leaving the outstanding balance of Rs.2,30,620/- and legal notice was served to the defendants on dated 16.10.2021, thereafter the matter was referred before the West District Legal Services Authority on dated 17.12.2021 and Non-Starter Report was issued on 19.01.2022. Hence, the present suit is within the Limitation and prayed for passing decree for recovery of Rs. 5,66,367/-
alongwith interest @ 24 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the said amount with cost of the suit.
17. Initially, the suit was filed by the plaintiff against M/s Bharat Milap (defendant no. 1) and Mohd. Iqbal (defendant no. 2). The summons of the suit were issued to them and the summon sent to the defendant no. 2 was received back unserved, whereas the summon sent to the defendant no. 1 M/s Bharat Milap (defendant no. 1) was received back with the report served and Sh. Sunil Kumar, Advocate had appeared on behalf of defendant no.1 and filed the written statement stating therein, that defendant no. 2 Mohd. Iqbal was never partner of defendant no. 1 and further stated that Mohd. Shahzad and Mohd. Salauddin both are real brothers and they are partners in the partnership firm M/s Bharat Milap (defendant no.1).
18. The defendant no. 1 has also stated therein that this suit has been filed by the plaintiff to extort the money from the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 1 has nothing to do with the alleged transaction between defendant no. 2 and plaintiff. It is also stated that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant no. 2. It is further stated that defendant no. 1 had lodged complaint to the police in Bihar, against the defendant no. 2 for cheating the defendant no. 1.
PAWAN KUMAR MATTO CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 8 of 35 Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date: 2026.04.28 16:10:08 +0530
19. It is also stated by the defendant no. 1 that the defendant no. 1 never authorized to defendant no. 2 to do business on behalf of defendant no. 1 namely M/s Bharat Milap.
20. Replying to the plaint on merit, the defendant no. 1 had not denied that this is commercial dispute. Defendant no. 1 has denied about the pre-institution mediation proceedings and non-starter report, for want of knowledge. Defendant no. 1 has denied that the plaintiff is a partnership firm. The defendant no. 1 has admitted that it is partnership firm and denied that defendant no. 2 (Mohd. Iqbal) is a partner thereof or that defendant no. 2 was liable and responsible for day to day conduct of business activities of defendant no. 1. It is also denied that defendant no. 2 being partner of the defendant no. 1 had done business dealings with the plaintiff or defendant no. 1 was purchasing goods from the plaintiff. This defendant has also denied that it is liable to pay the Principal amount and interest thereon. This defendant has also denied that it is liable to Rs. 2,30,620/- after adjusting the payment of Rs. 50,000/-on dated 25.06.2018 and Rs. 25,000/- on dated 18.02.2019 and after denying the other averments made in the plaint, the defendant no. 1 sought dismissal of the suit.
21. In view of such pleas taken by the defendant no.1, the plaintiff had filed an application under order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and sought to implead Mohd. Shahzad and Mohd. Salauddin as defendants in the present case. Accordingly, taking into consideration the facts that Mohd. Shahazd and Mohd. Salauddin are partners of the defendant no.1, the predecessor of this court vide her order dated 03.03.2023 was pleased to allow the said application and Mohd. Shahzad and Mohd. Salauddin were allowed to be impleaded as defendants in the present case. The name of the defendant no. 2 Mohd. Iqbal was PAWAN KUMAR CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 9 of 35 MATTO Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date: 2026.04.28 16:10:12 +0530 ordered to be deleted from the array of the parties vide order dated 03.03.2025.
22. Thereafter, the plaintiff had moved an application under order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and in view of allowing the application under order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, the said application was also allowed by the predecessor of this court vide her order dated 28.07.2023 and amended plaint was filed by the plaintiff. It is worthwhile to mention here that the defendant no. 4, Mohd. Shahzad has filed the written statement to the amended plaint. Defendant no. 1 did not file any written statement to the amended plaint.
23. The defendant no. 3 Mohd. Salauddin was served by way of publication of summons, but, he did not appear so, he was proceeded ex-parte.
24. The defendant no. 4 namely Mohd. Shahzad has filed the written statement to the amended plaint and contested the suit of the plaintiff, stating therein that Mohd. Shahzad and Mohd. Salauddin are real brothers and partners in the partnership firm namely M/s Bharat Milap. It is also stated that Mohd. Iqbal is not partner in the said partnership firm.
25. It is further stated that plaintiff is liable for his own wrong act. If the plaintiff is doing business with unauthorized person or the firm, then the plaintiff is liable for his own wrong act.
26. It is also stated by the defendant no. 4 (Mohd. Shahzad) that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, so, it is liable to be dismissed. It is also stated that the plaintiff did not disclose the true Digitally signed by PAWAN PAWAN KUMAR CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 10 of 35 KUMAR MATTO MATTO Date:
2026.04.28 16:10:16 +0530 and correct facts and concealed the material facts from the court. It is also stated that present suit does not disclose cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 2 and 3. It is also stated that Mohd. Iqbal was never partner in the partnership firm namely M/s Bharat Milap. It is also stated that defendant no. 2 and 3 have never done any kind of business transaction with the plaintiff and defendant no. 3 had lodged complaint in the police against Mohd. Iqbal for cheating in Bihar. It is also stated that defendant no. 2 and 3 never authorized to Mohd. Iqbal to do business on behalf of his partnership firm M/s Bharat Milap with anyone at any point of time. It is also averred that defendant no. 2 and 3 do not have any information regarding alleged transactions of plaintiff with Mohd.
Iqbal. It is also stated that Mohd. Iqbal is not partner of partnership firm namely Bharat Milap, so defendant no. 2 and 3 are not liable for any illegal act of Mohd. Iqbal for any business transaction with the plaintiff.
27. It is also stated that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with Mohd. Iqbal (defendant no. 2) to extort money from the defendant no. 2 and 3.
28. Replying to the plaint on merit, the Mohd. Shahzad has not denied that this is a commercial dispute. The defendant Mohd. Shahzad has denied about the fact of Pre-institution mediation and non-starter report, for want of knowledge.
29. Mohd. Shahzad, defendant, has denied that the plaintiff is a partnership firm. The defendant, Mohd Shahzad has also denied that Mohd Iqbal was acting on behalf of defendant no. 1, 3 and 4. He has CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 11 of 35 Digitally signed by PAWAN PAWAN KUMAR KUMAR MATTO MATTO Date:
2026.04.28 16:10:21 +0530 not specifically denied that defendant no. 3 and 4 are liable and responsible for day to day act/conduct and business activity of defendant no. 1, partnership firm Bharat Milap. He has reiterated that Mohd. Iqbal was never partner and further stated that Mohd. Shahzad and Mohd. Salauddin are real brothers and partners in the M/s Bharat Milap. He has denied that Mohd. Iqbal was acting on behalf of the defendant no. 1, 3 and 4 had business dealing with the plaintiff and he was purchasing the goods/fabric/readymade garments from the plaintiff, from time to time, and further stated that Mohd. Iqbal never worked as agent of M/s Bharat Milap and he was never authorized by partners of M/s Bharat Milap to act on behalf of them to do any kind of business dealing with anyone. This defendant has denied that it was agreed upon between the plaintiff and the defendant that if, defendants fail to pay the amount of invoice within stipulated period then, they would be liable to pay interest @ 24% Per annum. This defendant has also denied that he is liable to pay Rs. 2,30,620/- as principal amount to the plaintiff after adjustment of payments of Rs. 50,000/- on dated 25.06.2018 and Rs. 25,000/- on dated 18.02.2019.
30. This defendant has not specifically denied that the goods were supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant, vide invoice no. 00466 dated 04.12.2017 for an Rs.3,05,620/- through Classic Cargo & Courier Services, Consignment No.031818, dated 15.12.2017.
31. This defendant (Mohd. Shahzad) has not specifically denied that cheque no. 592370 dated 25.09.2018 for Rs. 50,000/-, Cheque no. 301323 dated 20.03.2019 for Rs. 25,000/-, cheque no. 301324 dated 25.03.2019 for Rs. 25,000/- all drawn on Yes Bank, Circle no.
PAWAN KUMAR CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 12 of 35 MATTO Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date: 2026.04.28 16:10:25 +0530 6, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, were issued by the defendant no. 4 Md. Shahzad being the Authorised Signatory of defendant no 1/Bharat Milap and the same were issued by the defendant no. 4 Mohd. Shahzad in discharge of his liablity to pay the amount about this transaction on credit basis.
32. This defendant did not specifically deny the other averments made in the amended plaint and sought dismissal of the suit.
33. From the pleading of the parties, the predecessor of this court, vide order dated 06.10.2023 was pleased to frame the following issues:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 5,66,367/-
alongwith pendete-lite and future interest @ 24 % Per Annum and cost of the suit ?(OPP) (2) Relief.
34. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff. In order to prove it's case, the plaintiff has examined it's partner Sh. Vivek Godadia as PW1 vide his affidavit PW-1/A and in one way or the other, he has reiterated the contents of the plaint therein. He has relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/1 to PW1/13. He was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 4. The plaintiff has also examined Sh. Salauddin, Operation Manager of M/s Tridev Express Cargo as PW-2, Sh. Amit Sr. Assistant/Record Keeper of VAT/GST as PW-3 and Sh. Tarun Kumar, Sr. Manager of Union Bank of India was examined as PW-4. Then, the plaintiff did not examine any other witness.
PAWAN KUMAR MATTO CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 13 of 35 Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date:
2026.04.28 16:10:29 +0530
35. The defendant no. 1 M/s Bharat Milap and defendant no. 4 Mohd. Shahzad failed to lead any evidence despite of availing of suifficent time and opportunities, So, the evidence of these defendants was closed.
36. I have heard the counsels for parties.
37. Sh. Amit Sisodiya, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that plaintiff had supplied the goods of Rs. 3,05,620/- to the defendant no.1. M/s Bharat Milap, vide invoices no. 0046 Ex. PW-1/2. He has also submitted that since the defendants had failed to make the payment of the remaining amount, so, the plaintiff had filed the present suit, he has also submitted that initially the plaintiff had filed the suit against the defendant no. 1 M/s Bharat Milap and Mohd. Iqbal, who was impleaded defendant no. 2, as partners of the defendant no. 1, as, Sh. Mohd. Iqbal (defendant no. 2 already deleted) used to deal with the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant no. 1, as it's agent. But, the goods were sent to the defendant no. 1 (M/s Bharat Milap) and goods were also sent in the name of M/s Bharat Milap (defendant no. 1). He has also submitted that earlier, the plaintiff was under impression that the Mohd. Iqbal is the partner of the defendant no. 1 M/s Bharat Milap. But, on filing of the written statement by the defendant no. 1, the defendant no. 1 had disclosed in it's written statement that Mohd. Iqbal is not the partner of the defendant no. 1 and Sh. Mohd. Salauddin, defendant no. 3 and Mohd. Shahzad, defendant no. 4 are the partners of M/s Bharat Milap (defendant no. 1). He has further submitted that in view of the same, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and sought to implead Mohd. Shaludddin and Mohd. Shahzad as partners of the defendant no. 1 and the said application was allowed, vide order dated 03.03.2023. He has further submitted that thereafter plaintiff had Digitally signed by PAWAN PAWAN KUMAR CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 14 of 35 KUMAR MATTO MATTO Date:
2026.04.28 16:10:35 +0530 filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, which was consequential to the allowing of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. It was also allowed, vide order dated 28.07.2023. He has further submitted that the defendant no. 4 has taken the plea in his written statement that he had filed the complaint against the Mohd. Iqbal for committing cheating, but, no copy of such complaint is brought on the record. He has further submitted that Mohd. Salauddin has been proceeded exparte and M/s Bharat Milap, (Defendant no. 1) did not file written statement to the amended plaint, but, defendant no. 1 (M/s Bharat Milap) and Mohd. Shahzad contested the case and further submitted that since Mohd. Shahzad, who is the partner of the defendant no. 1 and he had also issued the cheques in the name of the plaintiff, which show the transaction was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants and submitted that since invoice is prepared in the name of the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 4 had also issued certain cheques, but some of the cheques were initially misplaced, so, the same could not presented for encashment. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintif has further submitted that the plaintiff is the registered Partnership firm and the proof of it's registration Ex. PW-1/11 is already placed on record and submitted that since the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants had taken place through Mohd. Iqbal, who worked as agent of the defendant no. 1. As, the plaintiff was under
impression that Mohd. Iqbal was the partner of M/s Bharat Milap. He has also submitted that invoice, vide which, the goods were supplied to the defendant no. 1 is Ex. PW-1/2. He has also submitted that the defendant no. 4 had made the part partment of Rs. 50,000/-, vide cheque no. 592639 and another part payment of Rs. 25000/-, vide cheque bearing no. 30319 and submitted that such part payments of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 25000/- are well reflected in the ledger Ex. PW-1/1.
PAWAN KUMAR MATTO CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 15 of 35 Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date: 2026.04.28 16:10:40 +0530 He has further submitted that in order to prove these part payments of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- vide cheque no. 592639 and cheque no. 30319, the plaintiff has examined one of it's witness namely Sh. Tarun Kumar, Senior Manager of the Union Bank of India as PW-4, who had produced the ledger Ex. PW-4/1. He has further submitted that defendant no. 4 being partner of defendant no. 1 had also issued three more cheques, which are placed on record Ex PW-1/7 of Rs. 50,000/-, Ex PW-1/8 of Rs. 25,000/-, Ex PW-1/9 of Rs. 25,000/-, but, the same cheques were earlier misplaced and they were found subsequently, so, they could not be presented for encashment and further submitted that cheque of Rs. 50,000/- bearing no. 592639 and cheque of Rs. 25,000/- bearing no. 30319, were issued by Mohd. Shahzad, defendant no.4, who is one of the partner of M/s Bharat Milap (defendant no. 1) and three cheques Ex. PW-1/7, Ex. PW-1/8 and Ex. PW-1/9 were also issued by the defendant no. 4, in discharge of his liability to pay the suit amount and submitted that since the plaintiff had supplied the goods vide invoices Ex.PW-1/2 of total amount of Rs. 3,05,630/- and since the defendants had made the part payments of total amount of Rs. 75000/- and after deduction of the said amount of Rs. 75,000/-, the principal amount comes Rs. 2,30,620/-, which is liable to be paid to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 2,30,620/- from the defendants no 1, defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 4, (as principal amount) and the plaintiff has also claimed interest. He has also submitted that the plaintiff has examined it's partner, an offical from the office of VAT/GST Officer, Department of Trade and Taxes GNCTD, Sh. Amit, Senior Assistant/Record keeper, who has proved that the plaintiff has also deposited the GST qua the transactions of Rs. 3,05,630/-, vide invoices Ex. PW-1/2. He has also submitted that defendant Mohd. Salauddin has been proceeded exparte and defendant PAWAN KUMAR CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 16 of 35 MATTO Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date: 2026.04.28 16:10:44 +0530 no.1 M/s Bharat Milap and defendant no. 4 Mohd. Shahzad failed to lead any evidence to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff, the defendants also did not come in witness box to say that the defendant no. 1 M/s Bharat Milap, who is partnership firm of Mohd Shahzad and Salauddin has not received the goods vide invoices Ex. PW-1/2 of Rs. 3,05,630/-. So, the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 5,66,367/- along with interest and cost and prayed for passing the decree.
38. On the other hand, Sh. Sunil Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 i.e (M/s Bharat Milap) and Mohd. Shahzad (Defendant no. 4) has submitted that earlier the plaintiff had filed the suit against the M/s Bharat Milap (Defendant no. 1) and Mohd. Iqbal (Defendant no. 2) and Mohd. Iqbal was impleaded as partner of M/s Bharat Milap (defendant no. 1), whereas, the Mohd. Iqbal was never the partner of M/s Bharat Milap (defendant no. 1) and submitted that when, the defendant no. 1 had filed the written statement, only then, the plaintiff had amended the suit and sought to implead Mohd. Shahzad and Mohd. Salauddin and submitted that Mohd. Salauddin is the brother and partner of Mohd. Shahzad and they are the partners of the defendant no. 1 (M/s Bharat Milap). He has further submitted that the plaintiff has nowhere stated that transactions took place between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 through Mohd. Shahzad, who is the partner of the defendant no. 1 and submitted that PW-1 Vivek Gododia, during his cross examination has also deposed that Mohd. Iqbal did not produce any authority letter to show that he had placed order to the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant no. 1 (M/s Bharat Milap) and submitted that in the absence of any categorical authority by Mohd. Shahzad, it cannot be said that Mohd. Iqbal in any manner was authorized to act on behalf of the defendant no. 1(M/s Bharat PAWAN KUMAR CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 17 of 35 MATTO Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date: 2026.04.28 16:10:48 +0530 Milap). He has further submitted that Mohd. Iqbal (defendant no. 2 already deleted) was never the agent of the defendant no. 1 and Mohd. Iqbal had obtained the cheques from Mohd. Shahzad fraudulently and said cheques were misused by the plaintiff in connivance with Mohd. Iqbal and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
39. In rebuttal thereof, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the testimony of the PW-1 and documents relied upon by him remained uncontrovered, unrebutted and unimpeached on the material points and part payments have been proved and the defendant no. 4 has concocted the story of misusing of the cheques and he failed to examine himself. So, the plaintiff has proved that it is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 5,66,367/- along with pendente- lite and future interest and cost.
40. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the record.
41. The perusal of record reveals that the plaintiff has sought to recover an amount Rs. 5,66,367/- along with pendentelite and future interest @ 24% per annum from filing the suit till the realization of the said amount and cost from the defendants. The plaintiff has claimed that it had supplied the goods to the defendant of an amount of Rs. 3,05,620/- and part payment of Rs. 75000/- has been made and the plaintiff has filed the present suit for recover of Rs. 5,66,367/- along with pendente-lite and future interest and cost, so, the burden of proving of issue no. 1 was on the plaintiff.
42. In order to prove it's case, the plaintiff has examined it's partner Sh. Vivek Gadodia, as PW1 vide his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and PAWAN KUMAR MATTO CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 18 of 35 Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date: 2026.04.28 16:10:52 +0530 in one way or the other, he has reiterated the contents of his plaint therein. He has relied upon the following documents:-
1. Copy of Ledger Account maintained by plaintiff Ex.PW-1/1.
2. Copy of Invoice No. 00466 dated 04.12.2017 raised against defendant Ex.PW-1/2.
3. Copy of Transport Consignment Note No. 031818 dated 15.12.2017 Ex.PW-1/3.
4. Copy of legal notice dated 16.10.2021 Ex.PW-1/4.
5. Two postal receipts of speed post dated 16.10.2021 Ex.PW-1/5.
6. Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW- 1/6.
7. Cheque No. 592370 dated 25.09.2018 for Rs.50,000/- issued by defendants in favour of plaintiff drawn on Yes Bank Ex.PW-1/7.
8. Cheque No. 301324 dated 25.03.2019 for Rs. 25,000/- issued by defendants in favour of plaintiff drawn on Yes Bank Ex.PW-1/8.
9 Cheque No. 301323 dated 20.03.2019 for Rs. 25,000/- issued by defendants in favour of plaintiff drawn on Yes Bank Ex.PW-1/9.
10. Copy of GST Receipt of Tax Payment of Rs. 32,745/- against invoice No. 00466 by the plaintiff firm Ex.PW-1/10.
11. Form A and Form B issued by Registrar of Firm and maintained under Section 59 (4) (1) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 Ex.PW-1/11 (Colly) (OSR) and Ex.PW-1/12 (OSR)
12. Certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex.PW-1/13.
PAWAN KUMAR MATTO CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 19 of 35 Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date: 2026.04.28 16:10:55 +0530 43 Sh. Vivek Gadodia (PW-1) was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 (M/s Bharat Milap) and defendant no. 4 (Sh. Shahzad) and during his cross examination, he has deposed that his partnership firm was constituted in the year 2005. There are three partners in the firm namely Sh. Ved Prakash Gadodia, Sh. Varun Gadodia and himself. He has also deposed that he was personally involved the transactions with the defendant. Other partners were not involved. All the matters pertaining to this suit including sending of legal notice, proceedings before DLSA and filing of the suit have been done by his counsel on his instructions. Mohd. Iqbal had given him the order on behalf of the defendant firm M/s Bharat Milap. Mohd. Iqbal had placed the order with him in his office. It was placed in the year 2017, it maybe in the month of September/October. Mohd. Iqbal did not show any document/authority letter to show that he had placed the order on behalf of the defendant firm M/s Bharat Milap. He has voluntarily deposed that no such practice is generally followed in the trade. He has admitted it to be correct that the order was not placed through WhatsApp or through e-mail. He had sent the material about two months after placing of the order. He has denied that he had contacted only Mohd. Iqbal for outstanding payment. He has voluntarily deposed that he had contacted Mohd. Iqbal and had also sent his employee to the office of the defendant firm, who had met Mohd. Shahzad to make request for payment of outstanding amount.He has admitted it to be correct that e-way bill is required for sending of goods from one state to another. He has voluntarily deposed that in the year 2017 system of e-way bill was not in place as per his knowledge. He had sent the legal notice Ex.PW-1/4 after his employee met Mohd. Shahzad. He has denied that his suit is barred PAWAN KUMAR MATTO CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 20 of 35 Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date:
2026.04.28 16:10:59 +0530 by limitation. He has deducted payment received from the defendant and thereafter calculated interest on outstanding amount. He has admitted it to be correct that delivery report of Department of Posts regarding legal heir has not been filed by him. The legal notice was sent to him on WhatsApp by his counsel. He does not remember, whether he had sent the same through WhatsApp to Mohd. Shahzad and Mohd. Iqbal. It has been two years since then. He has denied that Mohd. Iqbal had illegally taken cheques from Mohd. Shahzad and handed over the same to him. He has denied that he has misused the said cheques. He has denied that Sh. Mohd. Shahzad and Mohd. Salluddin, partners of M/s Bharat Milap, have nothing to do with the transactions. He has denied that Sh. Mohd. Shahzad and Mohd. Salluddin, partners of M/s Bharat Milap, have never placed the said order with him. He has denied that he in collusion with Mohd. Iqbal has filed this false suit to extort money from Mohd. Shahzad and Mohd. Salauddin. He has denied that for this reason he has not mentioned the name of Mohd. Shahzad in the legal notice or before the Shahdara District Legal Service Authority including the present suit. He has denied that no goods have ever been sent by him to Sh. Mohd. Shahzad and Mohd. Salluddin, partners of M/s Bharat Milap. He has denied that he is not personally aware of the facts of this case. He has denied that he had deposed falsely. He has further deposed that in March 2022, there were two partners in his firm namely Sh. Varun Gadodia and himself. He has mentioned the address of the defendant of Patna, which was given to him through visiting card of the defendant at the time of placing of orders. He has also deposed that he does not remember the name of the representative of the defendant, who handed over the visiting card with address to him. He was dealings with the defendant Sh. Mohd. Shahzad and Sh. Mohd. Shahzad had issued cheques to him under PAWAN KUMAR CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 21 of 35 MATTO Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date: 2026.04.28 16:11:04 +0530 his signatures towards part payments of goods purchased by the defendant from him out of which, two cheques were encashed. He had not done any other transaction with Mohd. Shahzad except for goods sent by invoice dated 04.12.2017 Ex.PW-1/2. He has denied that he has deposed falsely.
44 The plaintiff has also examined Sh. Salimuddin, Operations Manager in M/s Tridev Express Cargo as PW-2. He has deposed that he is working as Operations Manager in M/s Tridev Express Cargo, 97A Mata Sundari Road, Delhi-110002 and he has appeared before this court in response to summons issued to M/s Tridev Express Cargo for production of record relating to consignment note No.031818 copy of which has been sent with the summons which already Ex.PW-1/3. The record is of the year 2017. The said record is not available in the office of M/s Tridev Express Cargo being very old. He has further deposed that despite best efforts the said record could not be traced in his office. He was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendants.
45. The plaintiff has also examined Sh. Amit as PW-3 and during his examination he has deposed that he is working as Senior Assistant/Record Keepar in the office of VAT/GST Officer Ward No.58, Department of Trade and Taxes, GNCTD. He has been authorized by letter dated 22.11.2023 Ex.PW-3/1 to appear before this court and to produce records. He has produced Form GSTR-1 of GSTIN No.07AAMFM1807F1ZF registered in the name of Meenakshi In Style for the month of December 2017, financial year 2017-2018 which is Ex.PW-3/2 and as per the record brought by him M/s Meenakshi In Style had raised one invoice for Rs.3,05,620/- against GSTIN No.10AADFB9502B1ZC in the month of December 2017, which is at point A on Ex.PW-3/2. He has also deposed that he has also Digitally signed by CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 22 of 35 PAWAN PAWAN KUMAR KUMAR MATTO MATTO Date:
2026.04.28 16:11:09 +0530 brought Form GSTR-3B of GSTIN No.07AAMFM1807F1ZF registered in the name of Meenakshi In Style for the month of December 2017, financial year 2017-2018 which is Ex.PW-3/3. He has also deposed that as per the record brought by him M/s Meenakshi in Style has deposited Rs.5,49,619.78p as total tax for the month of December 2017.
46. This witness (PW-1) was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant and during his cross examination, he has denied that the record brought by him is manipulated. He has admitted it to be correct that he is not personally aware of the transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant.
47. The plaintiff has also examined Sh. Tarun Kumar, Senior Manager of the Union Bank of India as PW-4 and during his examination he has deposed that he is the summoned witness. He has produced the certified of statement of Bank account no. 307305040000396 of M/s Meenakshi In-Style for the period 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2020 which is Ex. PW-4/1. and the details of cheque no. 592639 are at point A on Ex. PW-4/1 (internal page 29) and the details of cheque no. 301319 are at point B on Ex. PW-4/1 (internal page 63). He has further deposed that he has also produced certificate u/s 2A of the Bankers Book Evidence Act, which is Ex. PW-4/2 bearing the signature of Ms. Mukta Kumari, Branch Head at point A and certificate u/s 65 B of Evidence Act which is Ex.PW-4/3 bearing my signature at point A. He can recognize the signature of Ms. Mukta Kumari, Branch Head as, he had worked with her and seen her sign. Thereafter he was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and during his cross examination, he has deposed that he has only PAWAN KUMAR MATTO CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 23 of 35 Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date:
2026.04.28 16:11:15 +0530 produced the summoned record. He does not have any personal knowledge of the dispute between the parties.
48. The plaintiff did not examine any other witness and closed his evidence.
49. The defendant no. 1 M/s Bharat Milap and defendant no. 4 Mohd. Shahzad failed to lead any evidence despite of availing of suifficent time and opportunities, So, the evidence of these defendants was closed.
50. The perusal of the record reveals that the plaintiff has claimed that it had supplied the goods to M/s Bharat Milap vide invoice dated 04.12.2017 Ex. PW-1/2 and the perusal of the invoice reveals that this invoice was in the name of the defendant no. 1 (M/s Bharat Milap).
51. The perusal of the record also reveals that the plaintiff has also placed on record the receipt of Tridev Express Cargo Ex. PW-1/3, whereby, the goods were transported to the M/s Bharat Milap and perusal of the cross examination of PW-1 reveals that the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 (M/s Bharat Milap) and the defendant no. 4 (Mohd. Shahzad) has not given any suggestion to challenge the authenticity of invoice Ex. PW-1/2 and the receipt of Transport Ex.
PW-1/3 nor the Ld. Counsel for these contesting defendants (defendant no. 1 and 4) had given any suggestion that the defendant no. 1 (M/s Bharat Milap) did not receive the goods as mentioned in the invoices Ex PW-1/2.
52. The perusal of the invoice Ex. PW-1/2 reveals that total amount is mentioned therein as Rs. 3,05,620/-. The plaintiff has claimed that it PAWAN CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 24 of 35 KUMAR MATTO Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date: 2026.04.28 16:11:29 +0530 had supplied the goods to the defendant vide invoice Ex. PW-1/2 of Rs. 3,05,620/- and the plaintiff has received part payment of Rs. 50,000/- vide Cheque no. 592369 on dated 27.08.2018 and an other part payment of Rs. 25,000/- vide cheque no. 30319 on dated 19.02.2019 and claimed that both the cheques were issued by Mohd. Shahzad (defendant no. 4) and this fact of issuance of said cheques is not specifically denied by the defendant no. 4, so, the same is deemed to have been admitted.
53. It is worthwhile to mention here that in order to prove such part payments by the defendant no. 4, vide above mentioned two cheques. The plaintiff had summoned the witness and Sh. Tarun Kumar (PW-4), Senior Manager of the Union Bank of India Khari Baoli Branch, Delhi had appeared, who had proved statement of account Ex. PW-4/1, which reveals that the plaintiff had received the payment of Rs. 50,000/- vide cheque no. 592369 on dated 27.08.2018 in it's account and the plaintiff had also received an other payment of Rs. 25,000/- vide cheque no. 30319 and on dated 19.12.2019.
54. No doubt that PW-4 was cross examined by Sh. Sunil Kumar, advocate, who is representing the defendant no. 1 and the defendant no. 4 in the present matter, but, the Ld. Counsel for these defendants did not dispute the statement of account Ex.PW-4/1, wherein, the part payments by two cheques issued by the defendant no. 4 are reflected. Thus the testimony of PW-4 and documents Ex. PW-4/1 remained unrebutted and unimpeached.
PAWAN KUMAR CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 25 of 35 MATTO Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date: 2026.04.28 16:11:34 +0530
55. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the plaintiff has claimed that the defendant no. 4 had also issued cheques dated 25.09.2018 Ex. PW-1/7 of Rs. 50,000/- cheque dated 25.03.2019 Ex. PW-1/8 of Rs. 25000/- and an other cheque dated 20.03.2019 E. PW-1/9 of Rs. 25000/-, which were earlier not traceable, so, the same could not presented for encashment and issuance of said cheques are not specifically denied by the defendant no. 4, so, the same are deemed to have been admitted.
56. The perusal of the cross examination of PW-1 reveals that Sh. Sunil Kumar, advocate, the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 4 had not given any suggestion to him to dispute all the documents relied upon by PW-1 and perusal of the record also reveals that Sh. Sunil Kumar, advocate had given suggestion to PW-1 that Mohd. Iqbal (Defendant no. 2 already deleted) had illegally taken cheques from Mohd. Shahzad and handed over to the PW-1, but, PW-1 has denied such suggestion given to him by Sh. Sunil Kumar to PW-1. Sh. Sunil kumar, Advocate had also given suggestion to the PW-1 that the plaintiff has filed the present case in collusion with Mohd. Iqbal. But PW-1 has also denied the suggestion.
57. It is also pertinent to mention here that Sh. Sunil Kumar, Advocate had not pointed out, as which cheques, he had referred to in the cross examination of PW-1. Because two cheques of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- issued by Mohd. Shahzad were honoured. But, if Mohd. Iqbal had taken any of the cheques from Sh. Mohd. Shahzad illegally, he could file the complaint against Mohd. Iqbal for taking those cheques from him illegally and Mohd. Shahzad (defendant no.
4) also could instruct to his bank to not honour the said cheques and PAWAN KUMAR CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 26 of 35 MATTO Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date: 2026.04.28 16:11:38 +0530 Sh. Mohd. Shahzad could also file complaint against the plaintiff for misusing of those cheques. But Sh. Mohd. Shahzad (Defendant no. 4) did not appear in the witness box to prove that Sh. Mohd. Iqbal had illegally taken any cheque from him or that those cheques have been misused by the plaintiff. The perusal of affidavit of admission/denial of defendant no. 4 reveals that this defendant has merely denied all the documents relied upon by the plaintiff, but no reason for denial of any of the documents of the plaintiff is mentioned therein, so, the affidavit of admission/denial of the defendant no. 4 is also inconsistent of provision of Commercial Courts Act, so, the same cannot be looked into.
58. The perusal of the written statement of the defendant no. 4 Mohd. Shahzad reveals that this defendant no. 4 Mohd. Shahzad has claimed that he had filed the complaint to the police in Bihar against Mohd. Iqbal for committing cheating. But, Sh. Mohd. Shahzad has not filed even copy of any such complaint against Mohd. Iqbal in the present matter nor Mohd. Shahzad chose to appear in the witness box to put such defence. This defendant no. 4 Mohd. Shahzad has taken the plea in his written statement that he (Mohd. Shahzad) and Mohd. Salauddin never authorized to Mohd. Iqbal to do business on behalf of their partnership firm M/s Bharat Milap. But, as the perusal of the invoice Ex. PW-1/2 reveals that it was prepared in the name of Bharat Milap and goods were also sent to defendant no. 1, through Transport vide Ex. PW-1/3 on the correct address of the defendant no. 1 and correctness of address of defendant no. 1, as mentioned on the invoice Ex. PW-1/2 is not disputed, even otherwise the address of the defendant no. 1 M/s Bharat Milap and it's partner Mohd. Shahzad and Mohd. Salauddin is same. Sh. Mohd. Shahzad has denied the Digitally CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 27 of 35 signed by PAWAN PAWAN KUMAR KUMAR MATTO MATTO Date:
2026.04.28 16:11:47 +0530 transactions with the plaintiff. But, as the part payment of Rs. 50,000/- and amount of other part payments of Rs. 25,000/- vide cheques issued by Mohd. Shahzad are proved on the record and since the fact of issuance of Cheques Ex. PW-1/7, Ex. PW-1/8 and Ex. PW-1/9 by Mohd. Shahzad is proved on the record. Mere simple denial of his liablity to pay the due amount by Mohd. Shahzad is not sufficient.
59. Since, the plaintiff has also examined Sh. Amit, Sr. Assistant/Record Keeper from the VAT/GST Office, who has also proved that the plaintiff had raised the invoice of Rs. 3,05,620/- against GSTIN No. 10AADFB950213IZC in the month of December, 2017, as mentioned in Ex. PW-3/2. Thus, it is proved the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1.
60. Since, the plaintiff has claimed that it had supplied the goods to the defendant no. 1 M/s Bharat Milap, vide invoice Ex. PW-1/2 of total amount of Rs. 3,05,620/-, as mentioned in the invoice and plaintiff has also claimed that part payments of Rs. 50,000/- was received by Cheque no. 592369 on dated 27.06.2018 and an other part payment of Rs. 25000/- was received on dated 19.02.2019 vide cheque no. 30319 and fact of issuance of said cheques by the defendant no. 4 is not specially denied, so, the same is also deemed to have been admitted and after deduction of amount of part payments of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 25,000/-, the Principal amount comes to Rs. 2,30,620/-.
61. From the above discussion, it is proved that the plaintiff had supplied the goods to the defendant no. 1, which is partnership firm, vide invoice dated 04.12.2017 Ex. PW-1/2, part payments of Rs.
PAWAN CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 28 of 35 KUMAR MATTO Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date: 2026.04.28 16:11:51 +0530 50,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- were received on dated 27.06.2018 and 19.02.2019, vide two cheques, which is proved from Ex. PW-4/1. The defendant no. 4 Mohd. Shahzad had also issued cheque dated 25.09.2018 of Rs. 50,000/- Ex. PW-1/7, cheque dated 25.03.2019 of Rs. 25,000 Ex. PW-1/8, and cheque dated 20.03.2019 of Rs. 25,000/- Ex. PW-1/9 vide which, the defendant had acknowledged the part liability, which were not presented by the plaintiff, as initially, the same could not be traced by the plaintiff.
62. Since the perusal of the Non Starter Report reveals that the plaintiff had applied for Pre Institution on dated 17.12.2021 and the Non Starter Report was issued on dated 19.01.2021 and the present suit was filed on the e-portal on dated 07.03.2022. So, taking into consideration the abovesaid cheques issued by the defendant no. 4. This court is inclined to hold that the suit of the plaintiff is well within the time.
63. In view of the above discussion, this court is inclined to hold that from the testimony of PW-1 and documents relied upon by him, it is proved on the record that the plaintiff had supplied the goods of total amount of Rs. 3,05,620/- to the defendants vide invoice Ex. PW-1/2 and in view of the same, the defendant no. 4 (Mohd. Shahzad) had made payments of total amount of Rs. 75,000/- and the defendants have failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 2,30,620/-.
64. No doubt that the defendants have taken the plea that Mohd. Iqbal (Defendant no. 2 already deleted) was not allowed to do business on behalf of the defendant no. 1 (M/s Bharat Milap). But, as from the unrebutted and unimpeached testimony of the PW-1 and documents PAWAN KUMAR CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 29 of 35 MATTO Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date: 2026.04.28 16:11:58 +0530 relied upon by him. It is proved on the record that the defendant no. 1 had received the goods vide invoice Ex. PW-1/2, which was sent by the plaintiff through transporter vide receipts Ex. PW-1/3 and in view of the receiving of the same, the defendant no. 4 had made part payments of only Rs. 75,000/- vide two cheques. The said part payments are also reflected in the ledger Ex. PW-1/1, Statement of Account Ex. PW-4/1, as proved by PW-4. The defendant no. 4 had also issued 03 more cheques Ex. PW-1/7, Ex. PW-1/8 and Ex. PW-1/9 in view of receiving of the goods by the defendant no. 1.
65. Since it is admitted fact that Mohd. Shahzad and Mohd. Salauddin both are the real brothers and partners of the defendant no. 1, the defendant no. 3 Mohd. Salauddin was served summons by way of publication, but despite of it, the defendant no. 3 Mohd. Salauddin did not appear in the court. Mohd. Shahzad, who is the brother of Mohd. Salauddin, who is also partner of M/s Bharat Milap (Defendant no. 1) did not make any effort, so that defendant no.3 Mohd. Salauddin may be represented by any counsel. So, Mohd. Salauddin, (Defendant no. 3) was proceeded exparte.
66. No doubt that the plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that Mohd. Iqbal is the agent of the defendant no. 1 and he has facilitated in the transactions. It is also not matter of doubt that till the filing of the written statement by M/s Bharat Milap (Defendant no. 1). The plaintiff did not implead Mohd. Salauddin and Mohd. Shahzad. From perusal of the record, it is clear that only on filing of the written statement of defendant no. 1 (M/s Bharat Milap), the plaintiff had come to understand that Mohd. Iqbal is not the partner of the defendant no. 1 (M/s Bharat Milap) and in view of the same, the PAWAN KUMAR MATTO CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 30 of 35 Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date:
2026.04.28 16:12:02 +0530 plaintiff had chosen to file application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and Mohd. Salauddin and Mohd. Shahzad, who are the partners of defendant no. 1 (M/s Bharat Milap) were allowed to be impleaded in the present case.
67. Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. Since the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, which was consequential to allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. So, vide order dated 03.03.2023, the ld. Predecessor of this court had allowed that application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC.
68. The perusal of the record also reveals that the defendant no. 1 (M/s Bharat Milap) did not file written statement to the amended plaint and only Mohd. Shahzad had filed the written statement to the amended plaint of the plaintiff. The perusal of the written statement also reveals that Mohd. Shahzad (Defendant no. 4) has taken the plea in the written staement that Mohd. Iqbal is not the partner of the defendant no. 1 (M/s Bharat Milap). He has also taken the plea that he had committed cheating and the defendant had also filed a complaint against Mohd. Iqbal regarding cheating. The perusal of the record reveals that in order to prove such plea taken in the written statement, no one has come in the witness box on behalf of any of the defendants nor any alleged complaint against Mohd. Iqbal has been brought on the record. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 and 4 has also argued that Mohd. Iqbal in connivance with the plaintiff has misused the cheques. Since the defendant no. 1 (M/s Bharat Milap) and Mohd. Shahzad have contested the present case, so, what has PAWAN KUMAR MATTO CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 31 of 35 Digitally by PAWAN signed KUMAR MATTO Date: 2026.04.28 16:12:07 +0530 prevented them to come in the witness box to prove their defence is not explained.
69. Since their Lordship of Supreme Court in case of Vidhyadhar vs Manikrao & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1441 was pleased to hold, as under:-
"Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy Council beginning from the decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial Singh and Anr. This was followed by the Lahore High Court in Kirpa Singh v. Ajaipal Singh and Ors. AIR (1930) Lahore 1 and the Bombay High Court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v. Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh AIR (1931) Bombay 97. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat also followed the Privy Council decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh's case (supra). The Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh v. Virender Nath and Anr. held that if a party abstains from entering the witness box, it would give rise to an inference adverse against him. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bhagwan Dass v. Bhishan Chand and Ors., drew a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box".
Similarly, their Lordship of Supreme Court in case title as Iqbal Basith Vs N. Subbalakshmi, (2021) 2 SCC 718, it is ruled that:
"Adverse presumption u/s 114(g) of the Evidence Act can be drawn against the defendant if does not present himself for cross- examination and refuses to enter witness box in order to refute the allegations made against him or support his pleadings in his written statement."
70. The burden of proving of issue no. 1 was on the plaintiff and since the testimony of the PW-1 and documents relied upon by him Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/13 have gone unrebutted, uncontroverted, unchallenged and unimpeached, from which, it is proved on the record that the plaintiff had supplied the goods to the defendant no. 1 (M/s Bharat Milap), which is the partnership firm of Mohd. Salauddin (defendant no. 3) and Mohd. Shahzad (defendant no. 4).
CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 32 of 35 PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date: 2026.04.28 16:12:25 +0530
71. No doubt that the plaintiff has claimed that the goods were supplied to the defendant no. 1 (M/s Bharat) through the agent of the defendant no. 1 and plaintiff did not place on record any documentary proof that Mohd. Iqbal was the agent of defendant no.
1.
72. Since supplying of the goods by the plaintiff to the defendant no. 1, which is partnership firm of Mohd. Salauddin and Mohd. Shahzad is not disputed, as no cross examination has been done to this effect. Since supplying of the goods by the plaintiff to the defendant no. 1 is not disputed during the examination of PW-1 and part payment of Rs. 75,000/- is done by the defendant no. 4 to the plaintiff and the testimony of the PW-1 and documents relied upon by him Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-13 have gone unrebutted, uncontroverted, unchallenged and unimpeached and it is proved on the record that the plaintiff had supplied the goods to the defendant no. 1 vide invoices Ex.PW-1/2 of total amount of Rs. 3,05,630/-. Since the perusal of the record reveals that the Mohd. Shahzad issued two cheques of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- during the cross examination of PW-1. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 and 4 had also suggested that the plaintiff has filed the present suit in connivance with Mohd. Iqbal and the plaintiff has misused the cheques. But, PW-1 had denied the same. Since the defendant no. 1 (M/s Bharat Milap) and Mohd. Shahzad (defendant no. 4) have contested the present case, so, what has prevented them to come in the witness box to prove their case is not explained.
PAWAN CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 33 of 35 KUMAR MATTO Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date: 2026.04.28 16:12:44 +0530
73. Since their lordship of Supreme Court in case Vidhya Dhar Vs. Manik Rao and Iqbal Basith Vs. N. Subba Lakshmi (supra) was please to hold that an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against such party, who does not come in the witness box, so, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the abovesaid judgments an adverse inference is drawn against the defendant no. 1,3 and 4. I am inclined to hold that the case set up by the defendants in their written statements is not correct, so, I am inclined to hold that the defendants have failed to prove that the plaintiff has misused the cheques of the defendant no. 4 or that the plaintiff has filed the present suit in connivance with defendant no. 2
74. Since the plaintiff has successfully proved on the record that it had supplied the goods to the defendants vide invoices Ex. PW-1/2 of total amount of Rs. 3,05,630/-. The plaintiff has admitted that it has received part payments of Rs. 75,000/- as mentioned in the ledger Ex. PW-1/1 and such part payments are also proved from Ex. PW-4/1 and after deduction of amount of Rs. 75,000/- from 3,05,630/-, the principal amount comes to Rs. 2,30,620/-.
75. In view of the above discussion, this court is inclined to hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 2,30,620/- from the defendant no. 1,3 and 4. No doubt that the plaintiff has claimed pendente-lite and future interest @ 24% per annum. But, it appears to the court that such rate of interest claimed by the plaintiff is exorbitant. Since the transaction between the parties was commercial. So, this court is inclined to hold that the plaintiff is also entitled to recover interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the said amount with cost of the suit from defendant PAWAN KUMAR CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 34 of 35 MATTO Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO Date: 2026.04.28 16:12:50 +0530 no. 1, (M/s Bharat Milap), defendant no. 3 (Mohd. Salauddin) and defendant no. 4 Mohd. Shahzad. In the abovesaid terms, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1,3 and
4. RELIEF:-
76. In view of my findings on issue no. 1 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1, defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 4, the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,30,620/-
along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the realization of the decretal amount is decreed with cost of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1, 3 and 4. The defendant no. 1, 3 and 4 are directed to pay Rs. 2,30,620/- along with interest @ 9% per annum on the decretal amount from the date of institution of the suit till the realization of the decretal amount and cost to the plaintiff.
77. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. PAWAN by Digitally signed PAWAN KUMAR MATTO KUMAR Date:
78. File be consigned to record room. MATTO 2026.04.28 16:12:54 +0530 Announced in the open (PAWAN KUMAR MATTO) court on 28.04.2026 DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-04 SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI 28.04.2026.
CS Comm. 181/2022 M/s Meenakshi In-Style Vs. Bharat Milap & Anr. Page no. 35 of 35