Delhi District Court
Saraogi Super Sales Pvt. Ltd vs Jata Shankar Prasad on 13 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL DISTRICT JUDGE COMMERCIAL
COURT-02, SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 412/2023
In the matter of
Saraogi Super Sales Private Limited
Registered Office at:
X-49, Pratap Gali, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi - 110 031.
Through its Authorized Representative
Mr. Dharmender
Mobile 7290097138
Email:[email protected] .....Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Jata Shankar Prasad,
Proprietor M/s. Jaiswal Vastralaya
Inarwa Market, Inarwa, Pashchim Champaran,
Bihar - 845438,
Mobile:7250119466, 8986495931 .....Defendant
Date of institution of the case : 18.08.2023
Date of final arguments : 27.11 .2024
Date of judgment : 13.12.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The present is a commercial suit for recovery of Rs.55,54,566/- (i.e. Rs.30,66,538/- as principal and Rs.24,88,028/- as interest) along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum filed by Saraogi Super Sales Private Limited through its Authorized Representative Mr. Dharmender against Sh. Jata Shankar Prasad, Proprietor of M/s. Jaiswal Vastralaya.
CS (Comm) No. 412/2023 Saraogi Super Sales Private Limited Vs. Sh. Jata Shankar Prasad Page No. 1 of 14
2. It is averred that the plaintiff is well established and reputed organization and is well known nationally for readymade garments and is mainly engaged in the business of retail and/or whole sale and/or trading activities in readymade garments throughout India. It is stated that the defendant has approached the plaintiff for purpose of purchase and regular supply of various readymade garments (hereinafter referred to as 'goods'). Considering the request of defendant and on assurance from defendant that he will make timely payment against all the purchases made by him from time to time, plaintiff agreed to supply the readymade garments to the defendant.
3. It is averred that against valid and confirmed order of defendant, the plaintiff started supplying goods to defendant and raised various bills/invoices which were duly acknowledged by him and the plaintiff started maintaining the current/running account of the defendant in its books of account, which are regularly maintained in due course of business.
4. It is stated that during the course of business, defendant started placing orders for supply of readymade garments with plaintiff and plaintiff had supplied the same against bills/invoices as per requisition of defendant from time to time against which few payments were made by defendant which has been duly adjusted in the account of defendant.
5. It is stated that plaintiff raised bills of each and every supply of goods and services tax law for payments, although, the defendant has acknowledged the receipt of such goods and bills raised by the plaintiff and as per the statement maintained by the plaintiff as on 28.07.2023, an amount Rs.55,54,566/- is still due against the defendant.
CS (Comm) No. 412/2023 Saraogi Super Sales Private Limited Vs. Sh. Jata Shankar Prasad Page No. 2 of 14
6. It is averred that the plaintiff approached the defendant several times and asked him to deposit the payment with respect to the goods purchased by him, but, the defendant did not respond for the reason best known to him. It is further averred that defendant failed to adhere to financial discipline of making payments for goods supplied by plaintiff, thus, there is a outstanding amount due against the defendant. Finding no alternative, plaintiff was constrained to issue a notice dated 21.04.2022 calling upon the defendant to make the payment of outstanding amount along with interest @ 18% per annum.
7. It is stated that the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant as defendant placed various orders for purchase of readymade garments against invoices and plaintiff supplied the same to the defendant against bill/invoices, however, defendant failed to make the payment of goods purchased from the plaintiff from time to time. It is further stated that plaintiff has its office within the jurisdiction of this court, thus, part cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court, in as much as, some of the goods were supplied from the office of the plaintiff and the bills/Invoices have also been issued from the office of plaintiff situated at Gandhi Nagar, Delhi which is within the jurisdiction of this court. Further, the parties have mutually agreed, as is also stipulated on the respective invoices that the only place of jurisdiction is Delhi in case of disputes. It is further stated that the subject matter of suit is a commercial dispute as defined in Section 2 (1)(c) of Commercial Court Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Court Ordinance 2015. It is further stated that the value of suit for purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.55,54,566/- upon which appropriate court fee of Rs.56,561/- has been paid.
CS (Comm) No. 412/2023 Saraogi Super Sales Private Limited Vs. Sh. Jata Shankar Prasad Page No. 3 of 14
8. This case was received through e-portal on 18.08.2023. Defendant was served on 11.10.2023 and WS along with statement of truth and supporting affidavit was filed on behalf of defendant. In the WS, it is stated that present suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as plaintiff has suppressed the material facts. It is stated that defendant has been in the business of garments since last 20 years and has built a reputation through his endeavor and hardwork in the market. Defendant has stated that he came in contact with plaintiff in the year 2017 and since then has been purchasing goods in exchange of payment from plaintiff on regular basis. The relationship between parties has been built over trust and confidence owing to long period of mutual understanding.
9. It is stated that plaintiff has many times supplied goods to the defendant and in exchange defendant at all times have made payment in exchange of goods and defendant has never lapsed on his payment owed to the plaintiff. It is submitted that plaintiff had raised fraudulent bills, copy of which has been filed alongwith plaint. Admittedly, defendant had made payment to the tune of Rs.22,88,401 + Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff, thus, the suit is clearly an eye wash to derive money through illegal means. It is further stated that defendant has never pushed away his liabilities, but, the amount claimed by plaintiff in the suit is exaggerated and superfluous one.
10. Remaining contents of the plaint are denied and dismissal of the suit has been prayed. WS is supported alongwith affidavit as well as statement statement of truth of Sh. Jatashankar Prasad.
11. Vide order dated 10.05.2024, admission/denial of documents has been conducted wherein defendant has admitted the contents, execution, custody of the CS (Comm) No. 412/2023 Saraogi Super Sales Private Limited Vs. Sh. Jata Shankar Prasad Page No. 4 of 14 two documents relied by the plaintiff i.e.
i) Board Resolution dated 06.05.2022 as Ex.P1;
ii) GST details of defendant as Ex.P2.
The defendant has not admitted the ledger, Invoices and E-way Bills filed by the plaintiff.
12. On the otherhand, plaintiff in his affidavit of admission/denial has not admitted any of the document of defendant. Thereafter, on the basis of pleadings of parties the following issues were framed for consideration:
(i) Whether the defendant has paid the part payment of total invoice amount. If so, to what effect? OPD
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree? If so, to what amount? OPP.
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
(iv) Relief.
13. In support of its claim, the plaintiff has examined Mr. Dharmender, Authorized Representative of plaintiff as PW-1 and he tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW1/A in evidence. He has reiterated the facts averred in the plaint relied upon the following documents:
Copy of Ledger/Interest Statement from 01.07.2017 to 28.07.2023 as Ex.PW1/1;
Copy of current ledger from 01.07.2017 to 10.05.2024 as Ex.PW1/2; Copy of Invoices along-with e-way bills and builties as Ex.PW1/3(colly); Copy of Board Resolution dated 06.05.2022 issued by the plaintiff company in favour of AR as Ex.PW1/4(OSR) (also Ex.P1); Copy of GST details as Ex.PW1/5 (also Ex.P2);
CS (Comm) No. 412/2023 Saraogi Super Sales Private Limited Vs. Sh. Jata Shankar Prasad Page No. 5 of 14 Copy of Certificate of Incorporation as Ex.PW1/6; Copy of legal demand notice dated 21.04.2022 as Ex.PW1/7; Non Starter Report dated 19.12.2022 as Ex.PW1/8; Certificate of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/9; Affidavit under Order XI Rule 6 CPC as Ex.PW1/10. Thereafter, PE was closed on the statement of plaintiff. Defendant did not lead any evidence despite opportunity.
14. The court has thoroughly gone through the testimony of witness and perused the material on record and have also duly considered the arguments advanced and gone through the law and precedents on the point. The findings on the issues are as under:
ISSUE No. (i) : Whether the defendant has paid the part payment of total invoice amount. If so, to what effect? OPD
15. The onus to prove the said issue was upon the defendant. Though, defendant has taken the stand in the WS that he had made payment to the tune of Rs.22,88,401 + Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff. However, the defendant has neither led any evidence, nor filed any documentary proof such as ledger on record which shows that defendant has made the payment to the tune of Rs.22,88,401 + Rs.50,000/-. The defendant had filed along with his WS, statement of account of his two bank accounts of Punjab National Bank bearing no.2295002100001695 and 2295008700001080. However, the statement of account of bank account of defendant has not been proved by him during evidence. The statement of account has been filed from 01.04.2019, onwards till 27.12.2023. Though, the defendant has not proved the statement of accounts on oath, but, still perusal of the statement of account reveals that the entries on which the defendant has relied upon, regarding the payments made to the plaintiff, CS (Comm) No. 412/2023 Saraogi Super Sales Private Limited Vs. Sh. Jata Shankar Prasad Page No. 6 of 14 are corroborating with the entries made by the plaintiff in their Ledger Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2 and the plaintiff has clearly reflected the payment received from the defendant in the ledger account. In fact, the two statement of account of Punjab National Bank filed by the defendant corroborates the entries regarding receiving of payment from defendant in the ledger filed by the plaintiff, in as much as, all the payments made by the defendant are correctly reflected in the ledger account filed by the plaintiff. Nowhere, the defendant has specifically pleaded that defendant has not been given credit of any payment made by them to the plaintiff in the ledger. Nowhere, the defendant specifically stated in the WS that he has made entire payment of the outstanding amount to the plaintiff. Also, the defendant was bound to clearly states as to how much payment according to him was due. The defendant has not filed his own ledger account on record. On the otherhand, plaintiff has proved on record the from 01.07.2017 to 10.05.2024 Ex.PW1/2 which even shows the last payment of Rs.10,000/- made by defendant on 27.10.2023 after the filing of suit. The plaintiff has also relied upon Invoices Ex.PW1/3 (colly). These invoices relied upon by the plaintiff Ex.PW1/3 (colly) can be taken into account against the defendant as they are supported by the E-way bills as well as builties (except few invoices, which will be discussed in issue no.(ii)) and the same bears GSTIN No. 07AAYCS8982Q1ZQ and 'Pan No.AAYCS8982Q' on the invoices raised from Delhi and the same bears 'GSTIN 24AAYCS8982Q1ZU' and 'Pan No.AAYCS8982Q' on the invoices raised from Gujarat and the same bears 'GSTIN 19AAYCS8982Q1ZL' and 'Pan No.AAYCS8982Q' on the invoices raised from West Bengal and also carries the complete details of the defendant in the column of 'Details of Receiver (Billed to)'. Moreover, all these Invoices find mentioned along with numbers and their amounts on the debit side of the Ledger Ex.PW1/2.
CS (Comm) No. 412/2023 Saraogi Super Sales Private Limited Vs. Sh. Jata Shankar Prasad Page No. 7 of 14
16. Though, the defendant has admitted that plaintiff has many times supplied goods to them and in exchange they have made payment in exchange of goods and they never lapsed on his payment owed to the plaintiff. However, the entire WS of the defendant is bereft of the fact that as to regarding which of the particular Invoices/bills, he has made the payment. In the absence of any evidence or documentary proof, the plea of the defendant that he has made the payment is vague. The plaintiff has given clear details of each and every invoice and the amount i.e. how much quantity of articles were sold to the defendant against each invoice and the rate at which the same was sold to the defendant and also the payments received from the defendant. In the absence of any specific averments, the plea of the defendant that he had made the payment of the articles purchased is vague and clearly an afterthought. The defendant has miserably failed to discharge the onus place upon him.
Issue no. (i) is thus, decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue No.(ii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree? If so, to what amount? OPP.
17. The onus to prove the said issue was upon the plaintiff. The suit is commercial in nature and squarely falls within the purview of Section 2 (1) (C) of Commercial Courts Act and plaintiff has also duly complied with mandatory provision of Pre-Institution Mediation and Conciliation as provided in Section 12 A of Commercial Courts Act. This court also has the pecuniary jurisdiction over the matter since the suit amount claimed by the plaintiff is more than the specified value of Rs.3 lacs of the Commercial Courts.
18. Invoices Ex.PW1/3 (colly) are of the year 2019-2020 and the last invoice was of 19.02.2020. Even the last payment of Rs.20,000/- was made by the defendant CS (Comm) No. 412/2023 Saraogi Super Sales Private Limited Vs. Sh. Jata Shankar Prasad Page No. 8 of 14 on 05.05.2022 as per the Ledger Account Ex.PW1/1. The present suit was filed on 18.08.2023, thereafter, the plaintiff has filed an application for bringing on record fresh ledger account stating that after the filing of present suit, the defendant has made the payment on 27.10.2023 and thus, the last payment made by the defendant was of 27.10.2023 of Rs.10,000/-. It is pertinent to mention that the Apex Court has in the order dated 10.01.2022 in suo moto Writ Petition(c) 2020 In Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation, while discussing the difficulties faced by litigants due to outbreak of Corona Virus, directed that period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or specific laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings. The present suit has been instituted on 18.08.2023 and thus, is filed within the extended period of limitation.
19. As far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the plaintiff has stated in para 17 of the plaint that plaintiff office is situated within the jurisdiction of the present court and therefore, the present court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. As per the E-way bills and builties part of Ex.PW1/3 (colly), some of the goods were also sent from the office of plaintiff situated within the jurisdiction of present court. Therefore, the present court has territorial jurisdiction to decide the present case.
20. The other defence taken by the defendant is that they have never pushed away their liabilities, but, the amount claimed by plaintiff in the suit is exaggerated and superfluous one. Though, nothing has been placed on record by the defendant to show that as to what was the amount claimed by plaintiff in the suit is exaggerated and superfluous one and for which particular invoice/bill the plaintiff has charged exaggerated amount, but, it is the duty of the court to examine the documents CS (Comm) No. 412/2023 Saraogi Super Sales Private Limited Vs. Sh. Jata Shankar Prasad Page No. 9 of 14 proved on record by the plaintiff. Also, the plaintiff has to prove its case on record as per law, even if nothing is stated by the defendant.
21. As already observed plaintiff has proved on record that the goods were supplied by them to the defendant by way of invoices Ex.PW1/3 which can be taken into account against the defendant as these Invoices are supported by the E-way bills and builties. Moreover, it is not the case of the defendant that they have not received the goods from the plaintiff, but, the only issue is that suit amount of the plaintiff is exaggerated and superfluous one. As far as the plea of defendant that they had made the part payment is concerned, the same is already dealt with in issue no. (ii).
22. It is a settled law that every trial is a search of truth and the purpose and objective of trial is to secure a fair and impartial administration of injustice between the parties to the litigation. During trial AR of plaintiff company submitted that an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been credited by the defendant after the filing of the suit, accordingly, fresh ledger account Ex.PW1/2 was filed and now the principal as per plaintiff is Rs.30,56,538/-. On perusal of the Ledger Account Ex.PW1/2, it is analyzed that there is a debit entry of Rs.63,261/-, the bifurcation of the said amount is as below:
Date Account Description Debit Credit Balance
Amount Amount Amount
23.08.2022 DL10228 Fees for Notice 2,100.00 2,100.00
Legal Advocate (S.G.)
Fees
27.12.2022 DL4421 Mediation Fees 1,000.00 3,100.00
Rent Rates and Civil Suit (S.G.) -
Taxes / 24.11.2022
22-23/DLJ
23319
20.04.2023 DL10228 Case Fees 2,500/- 5,600/-
CS (Comm) No. 412/2023 Saraogi Super Sales Private Limited Vs. Sh. Jata Shankar Prasad Page No. 10 of 14
Legal Advocate Mediation (S.G.)
Fees
05.08.2023 DL10078 Security Deposit in 56,661.00 62,261.00
Security Court (V.B.)
Deposit in
Court
25.08.2023 DL4421 Misc. Expenses for 1,000.00 63,261.00
Rent Rates and filing case
Taxes /
23-24/DLJ
18900
23. The basis of this journal debit entry in the ledger account is not stated in the plaint. The plaintiff, thus, is not entitled to the above said amount as stated in the ledger Ex.PW1/2. Moreover, if the ledger account Ex.PW1/2 is analyzed there is an outstanding amount of Rs.12,44,903/- as on 04.01.2019 when a payment of Rs.1,11,722 was debited towards interest charges. Similarly, an amount of Rs.1,00,246/- was debited as interest charges till 20.03.2019 and the outstanding balance comes to Rs.21,22,965/-. On 31.08.2019, also interest charges of Rs.79,250 was debited and outstanding balance comes to Rs.3,24,779/-. The basis of these debit entries of interest in the ledger account is not stated in the plaint, moreso, when an amount of Rs.24,88,028/- separately claimed as interest. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has fairly conceded that the amount of these debit entries qua interest charges may be deducted from the principal amount. The total of these debit interest entries comes to Rs.2,91,218/-.
24. Perusal of ledger account Ex.PW1/2 further reveals that pursuant to Invoice no.19-20/AHDS5299 amounting to Rs.25,637/-, Invoice no.19-20/MTBS5087 amounting to Rs.81,742/-, Invoice no. 19-20/MTBS5224 amounting to Rs.23,560/- and 19-20/AHDS6874 amounting to Rs.24,136/-, the E-way bills were not filed, the CS (Comm) No. 412/2023 Saraogi Super Sales Private Limited Vs. Sh. Jata Shankar Prasad Page No. 11 of 14 total of these 4 Invoices comes to Rs.1,55,075/-. As the E-way bills in respect of these invoices are not filed, plaintiff has failed to prove the delivery of goods against these invoices.
25. Though, ld. counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi RFA(OS) 13/2002 titled as Bharath Skins Corporation vs. Taneja Skins Company Pvt. Ltd. and has stated that as the present suit has been instituted on the basis of the mutual account maintained between the parties which is current and open, therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Bharath Skins Corporation vs. Taneja Skins Company Pvt. Ltd. the outstanding / balance amount as the per ledger account should be taken into account for decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, however, the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Bharath Skins Corporation vs. Taneja Skins Company Pvt. Ltd. decided on 21st December, 2011 was on the issue of limitation and the relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereinbelow:
"23. The upshot of the above discussion is that Article 14 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to suits for recovery of money due on a running and current but a non- mutual account between the buyer and seller i.e. an account of the kind with which we are dealing.
24. There being no Article in the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 dealing with suits for recovery of money due on running and current but non-mutual accounts, in such circumstances, the residual article viz. Article 113 applies to such suits.
25. Under Article 113, the period for limitation for filing a suit is three years and the same begins to run when the right to sue CS (Comm) No. 412/2023 Saraogi Super Sales Private Limited Vs. Sh. Jata Shankar Prasad Page No. 12 of 14 would accrue when claim was denied in response to the legal notice......"
In the said judgment, nowhere the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that the entries in the running and current ledger account are to be taken true on its face value.
26. There is no supporting document such as E-way bills/GST Record in support of abvovesaid these 4 Invoices amounting to Rs.1,55,075/-. The counsel has failed to explain and give any details with respect to the E-way bills/GST Record of these 4 Invoices amounting to Rs.1,55,075/- as has been claimed/debited against the defendant. As no supporting document has been filed in respect of these 4 Invoices, therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to the amount i.e. Rs.1,55,075/- as well as Rs.2,91,218/-(entries regarding interest) as already discussed.
27. As per current Ledger Account Ex.PW1/2, the outstanding balance was Rs.30,56,538/- as this fact that a further payment of Rs.10,000/-was made by the defendant was admitted by the AR of the plaintiff and an application under Order XI Rule 1 (12) CPC was allowed and fresh ledger account statement was taken on record vide order dated 03.07.2024. Thus, after deducting an amount of Rs.10,000/- which is the payment made by the defendant after recording of plaintiff's evidence, the principal amount remaining is Rs.26,10,245/-(i.e.Rs.30,66,538 - Rs.10,000 - Rs.1,55,075 - Rs.2,91,218). Plaintiff is thus, entitled to principal amount of Rs.26,10,245/-. Issue no. (iii) is thus, decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue No.(iv)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
CS (Comm) No. 412/2023 Saraogi Super Sales Private Limited Vs. Sh. Jata Shankar Prasad Page No. 13 of 14
28. Plaintiff has claimed an amount of Rs.24,88,028/- as interest along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum on the principal amount from the filing of the suit till its realization. However, plaintiff has not quantified or bifurcated the interest amount of Rs.24,88,028/- for the period prior to filing of the suit, as per Order VII Rule 2A CPC. Though, there is a stipulation on the invoices Ex.PW1/3 (colly) that interest @ 18% per annum will be charged if the payment is not made within 60 days. However, it is a settled law that such kind of unilateral appended terms and conditions on the invoices are not binding and do not constitute a valid contract between the parties. However, it is also a fact that payment of the due amount has not been made by the defendant and plaintiff is entitled to interest at a reasonable rate on the outstanding amount. Thus, it is directed that the plaintiff shall be entitled to the interest @ 9% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.26,10,245/- from 20.04.2020, i.e. after 60 days from the last sale i.e. 19.02.2020 (February having 29 days and March, having 31 days) till its realisation. Issue no. (iv) is thus, decided accordingly.
29. In view of the unrebutted testimony of PW1 and the documents proved on record, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for an amount of Rs.26,10,245/- as principal with interest @ 9% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.26,10,245/-, from 20.04.2020 till its realisation alongwith cost to the extent of court fees and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Digitally signed File be consigned to record room. KIRAN BANSAL
Date:
by KIRAN
BANSAL 2024.12.13
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT
15:50:54
+0530
on 13.12.2024 (Kiran Bansal)
District Judge, Commercial Court-02
Shahdara, Karkardooma
Delhi/13.12.2024
CS (Comm) No. 412/2023 Saraogi Super Sales Private Limited Vs. Sh. Jata Shankar Prasad Page No. 14 of 14