Delhi District Court
Shri Rahul Bhardwaj vs M/S Varuna Warehousing Private Ltd on 29 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. LALIT KUMAR
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMM-02),
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) 565/23
Rahul Bhardwaj
Prop. M/s K.R Infosystems
Having its Registered Office at:
267/9, Kalkaji, DDA Flats Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110019 ..... Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Private Limited
Through its Directors/Managing Directors
Address:
Plot No. 572, Pace City-II,
Sector-37, Gurugram 122001,
Haryana ..... Defendant
Date of Institution: 08.06.2023
Arguments concluded on: 24.01.2026
Date of Judgment: 29.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I shall decide the present suit filed by Shri Rahul Bhardwaj (hereinafter referred as plaintiff) seeking relief of recovery of Rs. 5,54,498/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Eight Only) from M/s Varuna Warehousing Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred as defendant).
CS (COMM)-565/2023 Rahul Bhardwaj Vs. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Private Limited Page 1 of 20 The crux of facts stated in brief is noted below:
Case of the plaintiff;
2. (a). The plaintiff is proprietor of M/s K.R. Infosystems and running his business of CCTV, Electrical and Networking Services and having Complete IT & Security Surveillance Solutions.
(b). That the defendant no. l is a Private Limited Company duly registered under the Companies' Act, 1956 and the Defendant No.2 is one of the Directors of the Defendant No.1 and is fully responsible for all the day to day working of the Defendant No.1. Besides the Defendant No.2, the other Directors of the Defendant No.1 are also jointly and severally liable for all the day to day working of the Defendant No.l. The Defendants approached the plaintiff for the supply & installation of Electricals, CCTV Security Surveillance and Networking systems and there were/are business dealings between the defendants and the plaintiff for the last number of years. The Defendants are well aware that the plaintiff is master of their field and having good experience in this field. It was agreed upon between the defendant and the plaintiff that all disputes subject to Delhi Jurisdiction only. All the orders were placed at Delhi and admittedly all the payments were received by the plaintiff at Delhi.
(c). That the defendant is having business dealings with the plaintiff for the last more than 3 years for the supply & CS (COMM)-565/2023 Rahul Bhardwaj Vs. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Private Limited Page 2 of 20 installation of CCTV, Electrical and Networking systems and has started placing the orders of the above said items at their abovesaid office as well as across the Country which includes Tauru, Patna, Ahmedabad, Combatore, Indore, Rudrapur, Nagpur, Cuttack, Bangalore etc. etc.
(d). That the plaintiff has completed the contract as given/placed by the defendant from time to time. For the work done by the plaintiff, the plaintiff started raising invoices/bills to the defendant and part payments were received from the defendant time to time. The various terms and conditions are duly mentioned in the invoices/quotations so issued by the plaintiff to the defendant which have been duly acknowledged/received by the defendant. The said bill/invoices/offers were sent to the defendant by e-mail as well as physical copies were also supplied to the defendant.
(e). That more than 7 persons were sent by the plaintiff who went to the project office and remained/stayed there in the Hotel and spent lot of money and even the plaintiff has also visited separately to all project site and the entire work was done under the supervision of the plaintiff. That thereafter the plaintiff quoted the bill and the defendants accepted the same and acknowledged their liability. The said invoices/bills were submitted on 30.11.2021 which was duly received. That not only this, even on earlier occasions also, a quotation was raised after the receipt of the order by the plaintiff at Delhi and after the acceptance of the CS (COMM)-565/2023 Rahul Bhardwaj Vs. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Private Limited Page 3 of 20 orders at Delhi only, the items were arranged and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants and after completion of the work, the payment was made by the defendant and received by the plaintiff at his bank account maintained in Canara Bank, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
(f). That all the works were done by the plaintiff after spending lot of money. Even in the Bangalore project/work, the plaintiff raised the bill for a sum of Rs.9,29,056/- (Rupees nine lakhs twenty-nine thousand and fifty-six only) which is due against the defendant. However, part of the payment was received in terms of the agreement amounting to Rs.3,74,558/- on 20.11.2021 which was paid in advance. The said payment was made at the bank account of the plaintiff maintained in Canara Bank, Nehru Place, New Delhi. The said work was completed by the plaintiff on 25.12.2021 which was duly accepted and acted upon. The plaintiff asked the defendant to pay the balance amount but defendant put off the matter on one pretext or the other. As on 30.03.2022, a sum of Rs. 5,54,498/- (Five Lakh Fifty-Four Thousand Four Hundred & Ninety-Eight) is due against the defendant at Bangalore Project.
(g). That the plaintiff sent various emails to the defendant in this regard but despite receipt of the said emails, the defendant put off the matter on one pretext or the other. That after failing in all efforts, the plaintiff also got issued a legal demand notice dated 05.05.2022 to the defendants in this regard thereby calling CS (COMM)-565/2023 Rahul Bhardwaj Vs. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Private Limited Page 4 of 20 upon the defendant to make the payment of the due amount but despite receipt of the said legal demand notice, the defendant have failed to make the payment of the said amount. It is further submitted that the cause of action arose in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant when the defendant failed to make the payment, further on 05.05.2022, when legal notice was served upon the defendant and again when the pre mediation proceedings were failed between the parties. It is further submitted that this court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present suit as the parties to the suit resides as well as work for gain at Delhi and the entire transaction between the parties took place at Delhi, the order were placed to the plaintiff at Delhi only and the payments were also made to the plaintiff by the defendant at Delhi only.
Case of the defendant;
3. (a). Written Statement has been filed on behalf of defendant in which he has submitted that the plaintiff has moved this false and frivolous suit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
(b). It is further submitted that nothing of the sort the plaintiff claimed can be raised within the terms and scope of the suit as the plaintiff has claimed undue amount and has raised a false dispute in order to avoid the claim of the defendants who have paid the entire amount of the settled terms of the dispute and nothing is due to the plaintiff against the defendants.
CS (COMM)-565/2023 Rahul Bhardwaj Vs. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Private Limited Page 5 of 20
(c). It is further submitted that the defendant No.2 has been made party illegally to the suit and as such she does not need to reply the plaint separately because the liability of the wife of the Director does not lie in the company and the name of defendant No.2 is liable to deleted from the array of the parties. That the plaintiff has not come to this court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts in order to dole out money from the defendant illegally and without any basis.
(d). It is further submitted that since the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and as such the same is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C and that the plaintiff has falsely filed the suit in Delhi and this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as the entire order was placed at Gurgaon and the goods were supplied by the defendant at Gurgaon (Haryana) as such the suit is not maintainable in the present form before this Court and is liable to be dismissed with special costs.
(e). That the claim of the plaintiff has been made without consideration and no amount least the amount of Rs.5.54,498/- is due or payable by the defendants as falsely claimed in the present suit.
Defendant has denied all the para wise contents of the suit.
4. Replication to the WS of defendant has been filed on behalf of plaintiff, reiterating the submissions made in the plaint.
CS (COMM)-565/2023 Rahul Bhardwaj Vs. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Private Limited Page 6 of 20
5.(a). The present suit was instituted on 08.06.2023 and summons were issued upon the defendant on 26.08.2023 by Ld. Predecessor of this court. On 04.11.2023, appearance has been filed on behalf of both the defendants and defendants were directed to file WS. WS alongwith statement of truth, affidavit of admission/denial of documents and application under order VIII Rule 1 CPC for condonation of delay in the filing the WS alongwith application for deletion of name of defendant no.2 from array of parties have been moved on behalf of defendant on 09.12.2023. Vide order dated 03.02.2024, the application of defendant under order VIII Rule 1 CPC was allowed and WS filed on behalf of defendant was taken on record and vide order dated 13.03.2024, the application of defendant for deletion of name of defendant no.2 from array of parties has also been allowed.
(b). Thereafter, replication has been filed on behalf of plaintiff and after conducting the admission/denial of documents, following issues were framed vide order dated 13.03.2024 by Ld. Predecessor of this court.
1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as per the mandate of Commercial Courts Act, 2015? OPD
2. Whether the defendant has made full and final payment qua the claimed amount to the plaintiff and there is no cause of action in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant?OPD
3. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit?OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of sum of Rs. 5,54,498/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Four CS (COMM)-565/2023 Rahul Bhardwaj Vs. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Private Limited Page 7 of 20 Hundred and Ninety Eight Only)?OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any pendente lite and future interest on the decreetal amount, if yes, then at what rate? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled to cost of the suit? OPP
7. Relief.
Thereafter, matter was fixed for plaintiff's evidence.
Evidence of PW-1
6. (a). The matter then was kept for evidence. In order to prove the case plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1, who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He also relied upon following documents:
1. Copy of the purchase order dated 18.11.2021 sent on email as Ex.PW1/1.
2. Copy of the ledger as Ex.PW1/2.
3. Copy of quotation/proposals dated 09.11.2021 as Ex.PW1/3.
4. Copy of quotation/proposals dated 26.11.2021 as Ex.PW1/4.
5. Copy of quotation/proposals dated 16.12.2021 as Ex.PW1/5.
6. Copy of quotation/proposals dated 18.12.2021 as Ex.PW1/6.
7. Copy of invoice/bill (running into 4 pages) as Ex.PW1/7.
8. Certificate under section 65B IEA/63 BSA of 2023 as Ex.PW1/8.
(b). He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant. His cross-examination is reproduced as under:
"It is correct that no document showing the registered office of my firm has been filed on record. (Vol. I have GST registration certificate to the said effect and I can bring the same, if required). It is wrong to suggest that I have no registered address as mentioned in memo of parties/invoices filed in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that I CS (COMM)-565/2023 Rahul Bhardwaj Vs. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Private Limited Page 8 of 20 have filed a false suit on the basis of false address. The purchase order on behalf of defendant was placed by Sh. Mohit Arora. The defendant has approached us at our address and thereafter, talks of purchase were happened there. The defendant has searched the plaintiff firm through online portal "Just Dial". It is correct that no document in regard of aforesaid statement pertaining to Just Dial has been placed on the record. It is correct that the defendant during their visit to our registered office has placed their purchase order. The purchase order was given by the defendant through email. No agreement was signed between Sh. Mohit Arora or any other person on behalf of defendant and myself during his visit at my registered office. The purchase order was placed by the defendant through Sh. Mohit Arora somewhere in November 2021. I do not remember the exact date when I first visited the defendant company after November 2021 though since 2019, I regularly provided my services to the defendant and has carried out multiple visits to their company prior to November 2021 and thereafter also. All my transactions with my other customers also are online and no cash transaction was ever done. The defendant has placed the order for the work to be done outside Delhi. As far as I remember I have not done any job for defendant in Gurugram. I have sent a legal notice besides various emails demanding the entire arrears/dues from the defendant for the work I have done. It is wrong to suggest that no legal notice has been sent to the defendant. After installation of all the cameras the requisite user ID and password were duly provided to the authorised person present at the site then and there. However, I do not know the name of the authorised person from the defendant side to whom the user ID and password were duly provided at the relevant period. After installation of the cameras at the site no document/receipt was taken from the defendant regarding completion of work. (Vol. No such receipt was taken as the site was already under construction). It is correct that after completion of all the assigned work we used to inform the representative of defendant namely Sh. Mohit Arora to check all the work done by the plaintiff at their site and thereafter, Sh. Mohit Arora send the local incharge at the site to carry out the inspection regarding the work done by the plaintiff at the site. No, I have not demanded any document/receipt from the defendant/authorised person regarding the work done by me at the site. It is correct that I have submitted my invoices in my GST account maintained at online GST portal. No document has been filed on record to show that defendant and their authorised person has ever given any receiving to me showing the work and the payment therein. The ledger filed by me also served upon the defendant through email. It is correct that I have not filed any email showing that ledger has been served upon the defendant. (Vol. However, I can produce the same email). It is wrong to suggest that I have falsely alleged that the ledger filed by me also served upon the defendant through email. It is correct that regarding the dues, I have met with Mohit Arora who ensure that the payment will be made to you. It is wrong to suggest that the work done by me for the defendant was not complete and there were damages (objected to by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff being beyond pleadings). It is further wrong to suggest that no receipt has CS (COMM)-565/2023 Rahul Bhardwaj Vs. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Private Limited Page 9 of 20 been filed on the record as the work done by me was not complete. It is further wrong to suggest that no dues is left on the part of defendant to be paid to me as I have taken the entire amount in cash/in accounts (objected to by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff being beyond pleadings). The amount claimed in the present case is due against one invoice and the same is already on record. I do not remember the name of the local Incharge who carry out the inspection after completion of all the job assigned to me at the given site, however, the said local Incharge was instructed by Sh. Mohit Arora to do the needful on their behalf. It is wrong to suggest that no inspection was carried out at the given site or the requisite user ID and password was not provided to the said local Incharge. It is wrong to suggest that no order was placed by the defendant for any site as alleged by you in the present suit in Delhi. It is wrong to suggest that in all the meetings I used to visit the office of defendant situated at Gurgaon and/or no transaction has been placed in Delhi. It is wrong to suggest that the amount claimed in the present suit is not due towards the defendant. It is wrong to suggest that a false and a frivolous suit has been filed by me to harass the defendant. It is wrong to suggest that there is no liability due towards me".
7 (a). Thereafter, vide separate statement of plaintiff, PE was closed and matter was fixed for DE. In order to prove the case Defendant has examined AR for the defendant company Sh. Narender as DW-1, who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A. He also relied upon following documents:
1. Copy of GPA as Ex. DW1/1 (OSR).
2. Copy of purchase invoices as Mark A.
3. Copy of bills as Mark B.
4. Copy of PO schedule of quantity as Mark C.
(b). He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. His cross-examination is reproduced as under:
"I have been working in M/s Varuna Integrated Logistic Pvt. Ltd. since February, 2016 as Executive. It is correct that neither I have filed nor I have brought any document to show that I am working in the aforesaid company since February, 2016 as Executive. It is correct that no Board of Resolution has been filed in the present case by me. It is correct that in the entire written statement there is no CS (COMM)-565/2023 Rahul Bhardwaj Vs. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Private Limited Page 10 of 20 whisper about any Board of Resolution or its date of alleged execution as no such Board of Resolution has ever executed. It is correct that the General Power of Attorney dated 19.04.2021 was not executed by any Director of M/s Varuna Integrated Logistic Pvt. Ltd. in my favour. Vol. It has been executed by senior manager. It is wrong to suggest that GPA Ex.DW1/1 is not in respect of the present court case. It is correct that encircle point X in the GPA Ex.DW1/1 is blank (the original GPA is placed on record by the witness). It is correct that the documents Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3, Ex.PW1/4, Ex.PW1/5, Ex.PW1/6 are the quotations given by the plaintiff to the M/s Varuna Integrated Logistic Pvt. Ltd. It is correct that the document Ex.PW1/1 (colly running into three pages) are the purchase orders placed by the company (M/s Varuna Integrated Logistic Pvt. Ltd.) to the plaintiff on 18.11.2021. It is correct that the document Ex.PW1/7 (colly running into four pages) are the GST invoice dated 30.03.2022 raised by the plaintiff to M/s Varuna Integrated Logistic Pvt. Ltd. It is correct that in GST invoice Ex.PW1/7 outstanding amount of Rs.9,29,055/- (Marked as point Z) was raised by the plaintiff to defendant company i.e. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistic Pvt. Ltd. Vol. However, the amount is not correct according to the company. It is correct that the purchase invoice Mark-A and bills Mark-B, filed in the present case does not pertain to M/s Varuna Integrated Logistic Pvt. Ltd. Vol. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistic Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Varuna Warehousing are now part of (VARUNA GROUP). It is correct that no document showing payment from M/s Varuna Integrated Logistic Pvt. Ltd. had been given to plaintiff on account of the purchase order and the invoices exchanged. (Vol. The documents Mark-B (running in seven pages) showing the payment make to the plaintiff by M/s Varuna Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. are already on the present court file). It is wrong to suggest that the document Mark-B does not pertain to the payment made to the plaintiff in respect of the amount Rs.9,29,055/-. I cannot tell whether the amount of Rs.9,29,055/- due towards the plaintiff had been cleared or not. I cannot tell whether the entire goods mentioned in the purchase invoice were received by the company. It is correct that no bank account statement of the company has been filed in the present case to show that the amount of Rs.9,29,055/- was ever paid to the plaintiff by the company. It is correct that neither prior to the filing of the present suit nor during the pendency of the present suit any settlement of whatsoever nature has arrived between the plaintiff and the company. Whatever amount due towards the plaintiff has already been paid by the defendant. I cannot tell when was the last payment made to the plaintiff by the company, however, the payment record is already on the present file. It is correct that no payment was made to the plaintiff by the company after filing the present suit. The written statement alongwith statement of truth on the record was filed by me and it bears my signature on each and every page. The Written Statement was prepared on my instructions. It is correct that the contents of para no.8 in the written statement are correct. Vol. No amount is due towards the plaintiff as mentioned in para no.8 of WS.
It is wrong to suggest that no amount of Rs.5,54,498/- or 9,29,055/- was ever paid to the plaintiff by the company. It is correct that CS (COMM)-565/2023 Rahul Bhardwaj Vs. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Private Limited Page 11 of 20 defendant company i.e. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Pvt Ltd. is a private limited company. It is correct that since the company is a private limited company, the company files and maintains the record of business in the course of transactions which are as under: 1. Balance sheet. 2. Books of account.3. Bank accounts.4. Invoices/bills and GST returns including C-forms. It is correct that we have taken goods from the plaintiff, however, the business dealings are not for many years. The transaction which are done by the defendant company with the plaintiff are evident from the record of this Hon'ble Court i.e. invoices. I do not remember whether the defendant company has filed any balance sheet, books of account, C-form etc before this court. At this stage, the witness has been shown the court file and the witness submits that there is no document i.e. balance sheet, books of account, C-form filed before this court. It is wrong to suggest that due to dishonest and malafide intention, I have not produced a single document pertaining to transaction between the plaintiff and defendant company i.e. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Pvt Ltd. It is correct that I was not personally involved in the transaction done between the plaintiff and the defendant i.e. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Pvt Ltd. (Vol. However, the transaction was done by the defendant company). It is correct that no written complaint was ever lodged seeking IDs or passwords of the cameras duly installed by the plaintiff to the defendant. I do not remember whether any letter or communication was ever written to the plaintiff demanding IDs or passwords of the cameras duly installed by the plaintiff to the defendant. It is correct that I am neither maintaining nor supervising the accounts or the financial record of the defendant i.e. i.e. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Pvt Ltd. (Vol. The same was maintained by accounts department). No such document is on record to show that the defendant i.e. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Pvt Ltd. had made payment of Rs. 5,54,498/- or Rs. 9,29,055/- to the plaintiff against acknowledgment/receipt as no such payment was ever made. I do not remember the office address of the plaintiff. (Vol. However, the same is on record. I do not know whether the plaintiff is having its office at Delhi. At this stage, the witness has been shown document i.e. quotations Ex.PW1/3, Ex.PW1/4, Ex.PW1/5, Ex.PW1/6, ledger Ex.PW1/2, invoices Ex.PW1/7 (colly), to which witness states that all the documents bears the address of plaintiff i.e. K.R Info Systems, 267/9, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, New Delhi-19. It is wrong to suggest that the business transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant company had not held at the office of plaintiff. It is wrong to suggest that the defendant has never made any payment to the plaintiff towards the disputed amount of Rs. 5,54,498/- or Rs. 9,29,055/-. It is wrong to suggest that my statement that entire payment was made is false and unsupported by any document. It is wrong to suggest that the dues claimed in the suit are legally recoverable and subsisting. It is wrong to suggest that the plea regarding IDs and password of the cameras installed by the plaintiff are false, fabricated and are an afterthought. It is wrong to suggest that I have filed my evidence affidavit to mislead this court and evade lawful liability. It is wrong to suggest that I have no authority to appear and file WS or that the evidence affidavit or to depose in the CS (COMM)-565/2023 Rahul Bhardwaj Vs. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Private Limited Page 12 of 20 present suit as I have no written/oral authority in this regard. It is wrong to suggest that defendant is deliberately suppressing bank statements and other primary payment documents as no payment was ever made to the plaintiff by the defendant. It is wrong to suggest that the defendant deliberately concealed the legal demand notice sent by the plaintiff and failed to make the payment of the lawful liability due towards the plaintiff. It is wrong to suggest that despite service of notice dated 12.03.2024 original documents pertaining to the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant were not produced by the defendant deliberately. It is wrong to suggest that after receipt of notice under order 12 Rule 8 CPC and non reply of the abovementioned notice adverse inference may be drawn against the defendant company. It is wrong to suggest that the defendant's entire defence is false, concocted or devoid of any documentary evidence. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely".
8. Thereafter, vide separate statement of AR for defendant, DE was closed and matter was fixed for final arguments.
9. Final arguments heard. Record perused carefully. I have gone through the testimony of the plaintiff's witness and on the basis of documents, pleadings and testimony of witnesses, my issue wise findings are as follows:
Issue No.1: Whether the suit is not maintainable under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015? (OPD)
10. The onus to prove this issue lies upon the defendant. As per the averments in written statement, defendant has stated that since the plaintiff has raised undue claim against the defendant with an oblique and uncertain motive, as the defendant has already paid, the terms settled with plaintiff and no amount can now be claimed against the defendant. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable before this court. Even affidavit in lieu of evidence Ex. DW1/A CS (COMM)-565/2023 Rahul Bhardwaj Vs. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Private Limited Page 13 of 20 filed by the defendant maintaining on the similar line as in written statement. It is pertinent to mention that except the aforesaid bald assertion, nothing has been placed on record or any evidence has been led to this effect to prove the issue by the defendant. Whereas as per plant and affidavit in lieu of evidence of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/A, the plaintiff has been able to prove that the dispute arises out of commercial transactions for supply and installation of electrical CCTV surveillance and IT networking services for consideration, Purchase Order dated 18.11.2021 Ex. PW1/1, Ledger account Ex. PW1/2, Quotations Ex. PW1/3 to Ex. PW1/6 and Invoice/bill dated 30.03.2022 Ex. PW1/7 exceed the specified value, and pleadings are supported by Statement of Truth. The suit pertains to a commercial dispute arising out of ordinary transactions of merchants under Section 2(1)(c) of the Act. The specified value exceeds the statutory threshold. The defendant led no evidence to show non-compliance of Section 12A. Hence, the issue is decided against the defendant. Therefore, defendant failed to prove this issue, hence this issue is decided against the defendant.
Issue No.2: Whether the defendant has made full and final payment and no cause of action survives? (OPD)
11. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. The burden under Sections 101-103 BSA squarely lay upon the defendant. Defendant in lieu of evidence filed affidavit of Sh.
CS (COMM)-565/2023 Rahul Bhardwaj Vs. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Private Limited Page 14 of 20 Narendra as DW1, who has maintained in the similar line as in WS stating that the plaintiff has failed to supply the IDs or password of the cameras duly provided by the plaintiff in the premises of the defendant. The defendant has several time demanded the same from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has not turned up with the IDs and password thereof. Still the defendant has paid the entire amount to the plaintiff without any further hue and cry and and still the plaintiff has claimed the amount against the defendant which is not payable by the defendant. DW1, further deposed that there is no cause of action in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant as plaintiff being contractor has contracted for supply of camera at the premises of the defendant and the payment of the cameras were duly made and nothing remained to be paid and the suit has been filed to gain undue amount. It may be seen during cross-examination of DW1 on the aspect of non- providing of IDs and password of CCTV camera. The DW1 during his cross examination has admitted that no written complaint was ever made seeking ID or password of the cameras duly installed by the plaintiff to the defendant. Even he did not remember whether any letter or communication was ever written to the plaintiff demanding IDs or password of the camera duly installed by the plaintiff to the defendant. Moreover, crucial admissions by DW-1 that No bank statement produced to show payment. No balance sheet, books of account, or GST returns filed.
CS (COMM)-565/2023 Rahul Bhardwaj Vs. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Private Limited Page 15 of 20 DW1 Could not state whether Rs. 9,29,055/- or Rs. 5,54,498/- was ever paid. Rather admitted Ex.PW1/7 GST invoice and outstanding figure therein. DW1 also admitted that no settlement before or during pendency of suit. The defendant's plea of full payment thus remains bald, unsubstantiated and unsupported by primary evidence, attracting adverse inference under Section 114(g) BSA withholding of best evidence. Mere pleading of payment without proof is legally insufficient. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this issue is decided against the defendant.
Issue No.3: Whether this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction? (OPD)
12. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. DW1 has deposed on the similar lines as in the WS that the entire order was placed at Gurgaon and the goods were supplied by the defendant at Gurgaon, (Haryana) as such the suit is not maintainable and this court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit. It may be seen that during the cross-examination of PW1 and DW1, it has been categorically surfaced that the transaction done through plaintiff's registered address at Kalkaji, New Delhi and there has been continuous business dealing between the plaintiff and defendant, issuance of purchase orders and acceptance of the quotations have been admitted ,execution and completion of work by the plaintiff, raising the invoices CS (COMM)-565/2023 Rahul Bhardwaj Vs. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Private Limited Page 16 of 20 maintaining a ledger account, outstanding balance due payable and no contemporaneous complaint regarding quality or performance. Further, the plaintiff has categorically stated and it was not denied that the purchase order was placed by the defendant through its representative Sh. Mohit Arora and the purchase order was sent through email and also the defendant has visited the plaintiffs registered office and place the order. Therefore, since Ex.PW1/1 (Purchase Order), Ex.PW1/3-PW1/7 (quotations/invoices), and DW-1's admissions establish that transactions were initiated, invoices raised, and payments received at Delhi.
DW-1 has expressly admitted during cross-examination that all plaintiff documents bears Delhi address and that business dealings took place at plaintiff's Delhi office. Under Section 20 of CPC, part cause of action having arisen at Delhi, jurisdiction is clearly attracted. Therefore, in view the above discussion, defendant has been unable to prove this issue, hence, Issue no.3 is also decided against the defendant.
Issue No.4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 5,54,498/-? (OPP): Issue No. 5: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future interest, and at what rate? (OPP) and Issue No.6: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs? (OPP)
13. All these issues are taken up together being interlinked. The onus to prove these issues were upon the plaintiff. To prove the CS (COMM)-565/2023 Rahul Bhardwaj Vs. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Private Limited Page 17 of 20 issues, the plaintiff has appeared as PW-1 (Plaintiff himself) tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A, relied upon the documents i.e. Purchase Order dated 18.11.2021 Ex.PW1/1, Ledger Ex.PW1/2, Quotations Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/6, GST Invoice dated 30.03.2022 Ex.PW1/7 and Section 65B BSA Certificate Ex.PW1/8. PW1 has proved the execution of work, issuance of invoices, and subsisting liability stand proved by documentary evidence and unchallenged admissions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi, AIR 1960 SC 100", held that admissions are the best evidence against the maker and dispense with proof. DW-1 unequivocally admitted the Purchase orders (Ex.PW1/1), GST invoice (Ex.PW1/7), absence of payment proof and existence of business transactions. In "Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi (supra)", the Supreme Court further clarified that admissions, even if not conclusive, shift the onus decisively. Defendant's evidence is wholly unreliable, unsupported, and evasive. The plaintiff has successfully discharged the burden under Sections 101-104 BSA.
No written agreement regarding interest has been proved. However, this being a commercial transaction, the plaintiff is entitled to reasonable interest under Section 34 CPC.
As per the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra AIR 2001, Supreme Court 3095, the grant of pendente-lite and future interest is a subject CS (COMM)-565/2023 Rahul Bhardwaj Vs. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Private Limited Page 18 of 20 matter of the discretion of the Court and not to be governed by the agreement between the parties. Accordingly in exercise of the discretionary power of this Court, I have granted pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of 7% p.a. to the Plaintiff because Section 34 of CPC, 1908 as well as the provisions of the Interest Act, 1978, contemplate grant of interest at the rate of 7% per annum.
In the interest of justice, interest @ 7% per annum pendente lite and future is found reasonable.
No evidence was led by defendants to show that the entire suit amount represents discount. In the absence of proof, this plea is rejected. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendants and in favour of plaintiff.
Issue No.7: Relief
14. In view of the findings on the aforesaid issues, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed as under:
(i). A decree for recovery of Rs. 5,54,498/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Eight Only) is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally.
(ii). The plaintiff shall be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum pendente-lite and future till realization.
(iii). The plaintiff is also awarded costs of the suit.
CS (COMM)-565/2023 Rahul Bhardwaj Vs. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Private Limited Page 19 of 20
15. Decree sheet be drawn by the Reader of this Court and file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced & dictated in the Digitally signed lalit by lalit kumar Date: open Court on this kumar 2026.01.29 16:59:36 +0530 29th January, 2026 (LALIT KUMAR) District Judge (Commercial Court-02) South-East, Saket Courts, ND 29.01.2026
CS (COMM)-565/2023 Rahul Bhardwaj Vs. M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Private Limited Page 20 of 20