Delhi District Court
Sh Pankaj Sachdeva vs Sh Ashok Singhal on 19 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. BRIJESH KUMAR GARG
DISTRICT JUDGE COMMERCIAL COURT-01,
SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 563/2024
CNR No. DLSH01-006807-2024
SH. PANKAJ SACHDEVA
S/O SH. SHYAM LAL SACHDEVA
R/O - K70, KRISHNA NAGAR,
DE;HI - 110 051
PROPRIETOR OF : -
M/s NEW HANU CREATION
(FORMAERLY KNOWN AS : M/S SHREE GURUJI
GARMENTS & M/S HANU CREATION)
OFFICE AT :
IX/6169, CORNER SHOP,
JAIN MANDIR GALI, PRATAP GALI,
GANDHI NAGAR, DELHI - 110 031.
Mob : +91-9811252343.
.....Plaintiff.
Versus
SH. ASHOK SINGHAL
PROPRIETOR OF :-
M/S SANSKRITI SUIT AND SAREE
OFFICE AT : - B-66/200C, B-BLOCK,
SHALIMAR GARDEN, EXTN. - II, SHAHIBABAD,
GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH - 201005.
ALSO AT :
Trading as M/S SHRI JI COLLECTION
SHOP NO. 548, 9/6360,
NEAR NETA JI GALI, GANDHI NAGAR,
DELHI - 110031.
Mob : + 91-9711988171
.... Defendant.
BRIJESH Digitally
by BRIJESH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR GARG
Date: 2025.07.19
GARG 12:59:41 +0530
CS (Comm.) No.563/24 page 1 of 9 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
Date of institution of the case : 05.11.2024
Date of conclusion of the final arguments : 15.05.2025
Date of judgment : 19.07.2025
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
The present commercial suit for recovery of a sum of
Rs.7,66,933.45p, along with pendetelite and future interest
@24% was instituted on behalf of the plaintiff, initially, u/o
XXXVII CPC. But the same was converted to an ordinary suit
for recovery, on the request of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff,
vide order dated 06.11.2024.
2. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff is running its
business of various kinds of apparels under the name and style of
M/s New Hanu Creation (formerly known as M/s Shree Guruji
Garments & M/s Hanu Creation), at Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, and
the defendant is also a trader and retailer of various kinds of
apparels and is running his business under the name and style of
M/s Sanskriti Suit and Saree, having his registered office at
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P.
3. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendant
approached the plaintiff and requested for supply of various
kinds of apparels, on credit basis, and after considering his
request, the plaintiff agreed to supply the same on 30 days' credit
basis and it was also made clear to the defendant, that, in case,
the payment is not made within 30 days, the defendant shall be
BRIJESH Digitally
by BRIJESH
signed
KUMAR Date: 2025.07.19
KUMAR GARG
GARG 12:59:55 +0530
CS (Comm.) No.563/24 page 2 of 9 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
liable to pay a penal interest @ 24% p.a.
4. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff supplied
various goods to the defendant w.e.f. 11.09.2018 to 01.10.2021
for a total sum of Rs.20,34,959.45, against various invoices. Out
of which, the defendant also made part payments of
Rs.16,67,773/- to the plaintiff. Therefore, as per the ledger
account, being maintained by the plaintiff, an amount of
Rs.3,67,186.45p was due and payable by the defendant as on
30.09.2024, on which, an interest of Rs.3,99,747/-, had also accrued.
5. It is further stated in the plaint that despite several intimations/demands/reminders and personal visits, the defendant has failed to pay the due amount, on one pretext or other.
6. It is further stated in the plaint that despite service of the legal notice dated 30.08.2024, the defendant has failed to make any payment and hence, the present suit.
7. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff had also approached the Shahdara District Legal Service Authority, for Pre-Institution Mediation and filed an application dated 23.09.2024, but none had appeared on behalf of the defendant. Therefore, a Non-Starter Report was issued by the Authority on 21.10.2024.
8. It has been prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may be Digitally signed BRIJESH by BRIJESH KUMAR GARG KUMAR Date:
GARG 2025.07.19
13:00:07 +0530
CS (Comm.) No.563/24 page 3 of 9 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
decreed, in its favour and against the defendant, for the amount of Rs.7,66,933.45p, along with pendetelite and future interest @24% p.a.
9. After filing of the present suit, on the request of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, the present suit was converted to an ordinary suit for recovery and accordingly, the summons of the suit for settlement of issues were issued to the defendant. But, despite due service, none had appeared, on behalf of the defendant and no written statement was filed on his behalf. Therefore, vide orders dated 18.03.2025, the defendant was proceeded 'exparte'.
10. During the 'exparte' plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and has filed his affidavit Ex. PW1/1 and has proved the various documents on record, as Ex. PW1/A to PW1/G.
11. 'Exparte' final arguments were concluded by Sh. Sidhant Dhingra, Advocate for the plaintiff, on 15.05.2025. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has reiterated the contents of the plaint and the affidavit of the plaintiff Sh. Pankaj Sachdeva, Ex. PW1/1, and has prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
12. I have carefully perused the case file. I have also given my considered thoughts to the arguments, addressedDigitally by the Ld. signed BRIJESH by BRIJESH KUMAR GARG KUMAR Date:
2025.07.19 GARG 13:00:18 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.563/24 page 4 of 9 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi Counsel for the plaintiff.
13. Perusal of the record shows that the defendant has remained 'exparte', during the trial, and has failed to file any written statement, statement of truth or affidavit of admission/denial of the documents, as stipulated under the provisions of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
14. The dispute between the parties is commercial in nature and is covered within the ambit of section 2 (1) (c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case titled as, 'Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP, reported as 2019 SCC Online SC 1311' has held that provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the CC Act) are to be strictly followed and adhered to and no liberal interpretation of the provisions has to be given and it should be read with narrow sense. It was observed as follows:
"The object and purpose of the establishment of Commercial Courts, Commercial Divisions and Commercial Appellate Divisions of the High Court is to ensure that the cases involved in commercial disputes are disposed of expeditiously, fairly and at a reasonable cost to litigants. Keeping in view the object and purpose of the establishment of the Commercial Courts and fast tracking procedure provided under the Act, the statutory provisions of the Act and the words incorporated thereon are to be meaningfully interpreted for quick disposal of commercial litigations so as to benefit the litigants especially those who are engaged in trade and commerce which in turn will further economic growth of the country."
(emphasis supplied)
BRIJESH by BRIJESH
Digitally signed
KUMAR KUMAR GARG
Date: 2025.07.19
CS (Comm.) No.563/24 page 5 of 9
GARG 13:00:33 +0530
D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
16. This Court has the territorial jurisdiction over the present dispute in view of the contents of paragraph number 17 of the plaint and the fact that the parties are having their shop/Office at Gandhi Nagar. The goods were also supplied by the plaintiff, from his office/shop to the office/shop of the defendant at Gandhi Nagar. The plaintiff has also received part payments from the defendant at Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
17. This Court has the pecuniary jurisdiction over the present suit, which is for recovery of Rs.7,66,933.45p, along with interest, as the amount claimed by the plaintiff, is as per the specified value, as defined under section 2 (1) (c) and as per Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
18. The plaintiff had supplied the goods to the defendant during the period w.e.f. 11.09.2018 to 01.10.2021, for a total sum of Rs.20,34,959.45. The last payment was received by the plaintiff, from the defendant on 24.12.2021. The present suit has been instituted on 15.11.2024. Therefore, the present suit is well within the period of limitation.
19. The plaintiff has also filed an application for pre- litigation mediation on 23.09.2024, and a non starter report was issued by DLSA, Shahdara, District, Delhi on 21.10.2024. Therefore, the mandatory requirement of pre-litigation mediation, as required under Section 12-A of the Commercial Digitally signed BRIJESH by BRIJESH KUMAR GARG KUMAR Date:
GARG 2025.07.19
13:00:45 +0530
CS (Comm.) No.563/24 page 6 of 9 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
Courts Act, 2015, has been complied by the plaintiff.
20. The averments made in the affidavit Ex. PW1/1 have remained uncontroverted, unrebutted and unchallenged and can be presumed to be admitted as correct. The defendant has failed to contest the case or put up any defence. There is no reason to disbelieve the averments made in the plaint and the affidavit Ex. PW1/1. The relevant documents, which have been filed on record, appear to be of an unimpeachable character.
21. The contents of the plaint and the affidavit Ex. PW1/1 and the documents filed on record, i.e., the Registration Certificates of the plaintiff issued on 16.07.2018, 28.04.20219 and 06.09.2021 Ex. PW1/A (Colly) ; Details of Goods and Services Tax Return of the defendant, Ex. PW1/B (Colly); Copy of Ledger Account of the plaintiff Ex. PW1/C (Colly) ; Tax Invoices (Colly 35 pages) Ex. PW1/D ; Legal Demand Notice along with postal receipt dated 30.08.2024, Ex. PW1/E ; Certificate/ Affidavit u/o XI Rule 6 (3) CPC, as amended for the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Ex PW1/F, and the Non-Starter Report, issued by Shahdara District Legal Services Authority dated 21.10.2024, Ex. PW1/G, have all remained unchallenged, unrebutted and uncontroverted.
22. From the material on record, it is clear that an amount of Rs.3,67,186.44p (rounded off to Rs.3,67,190/-) was due and outstanding against the defendant as on 25.12.2021.
23. In the plaint, the plaintiff has claimed the interest, on the BRIJESH Digitally by BRIJESH signed KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.07.19 GARG 13:00:56 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.563/24 page 7 of 9 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi due amount @ 24% per annum. Some of the Tax Invoices, out of the 35 Invoices, Ex. PW1/D (Collectively) also mentions a condition that, in case, the payment was not made within the stipulated time of 30 days, an interest @24% per annum will be charged. But the interest @ 24% per annum appears to be highly excessive. Even the provisions of Section 34 of the CPC prescribe the interest only @ 6% per annum. But, as per the proviso to Section 34 CPC, the said rate of interest can exceed 6%, in case of Commercial Transactions.
24. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in case titled as, 'Mrs. Veena Jain vs. Sunil Sood', passed in, 'CS (OS) No.1177/2003', on 23.07.2012, as under :
"8. I am however not agreeable to grant the huge rate of 24% interest as claimed by the plaintiff. The Supreme Court in the recent chain of judgments reported as Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority and others, 2005 (6) SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others, 2006 (11) SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G.Harischandra, 2007 (2) SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC) has mandated that Courts must reduce the high rates of interest on account of the consistent fall in the rates of interest in changed economic scenario. In my opinion, plaintiff will be thus entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the principal amount due of `27,84,947.50/-for the period prior to the filing of the suit i.e. from 10.5.2000 till the date of filing of the suit.
Plaintiff will also be entitled to pendente lite and future interest till payment @ 9% per annum simple."
(emphasis supplied)
25. In view of the above judgment and keeping in view the prevailing rates of bank interest and the nature of business BRIJESH by BRIJESH Digitally signed KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.07.19 GARG 13:01:08 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.563/24 page 8 of 9 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi transactions between the parties, an interest @ 9% per annum is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, on the principal amount of Rs.3,67,190/-, w.e.f. 25.12.2021.
26. Accordingly, the present suit is hereby decreed, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, for an amount of Rs.3,67,190/- along with simple interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 25.12.2021 till its realization; with costs and expenses i.e. the fees of the counsel for the plaintiff, as provided under the High Court of Delhi, Rules.
The decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
Digitally signedBRIJESH by BRIJESH KUMAR GARG KUMAR Date:
Announced in the open Court on GARG
2025.07.19
13:01:17
this 19th day of July, 2025. +0530
BRIJESH KUMAR GARG
District Judge,
Commercial Court-01,
Shahdara District, KKD, Delhi/rs
CS (Comm.) No.563/24 page 9 of 9 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi