Delhi District Court
Pet Kraft Through Its Partner Sh Ayan ... vs Ankur Goyal, Proprietor Dazz Daicor on 12 August, 2025
Pet Kraft Vs. Ankur Goyal Prop. Of Dazz Daicor
DLCT010176322023
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK GARG,
DISTRICT JUDGE-COMMERCIAL COURT-09
(CENTRAL DISTRICT), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CIVIL SUIT (COMMERCIAL) NO.:- 1591/2023
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Pet Kraft
Through its Partner Sh. Ayan Alam
At : 3193, 1st Floor, B.G. Road,
Azad Market, Delhi-110006
Also At: 472, Rooma Industrial Area
Rooma, Kanpur-208008 ... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Ankur Goyal, Proprietor
Dazz Daicor
At: 324, Pocket-L,
Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi-110076 ... Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.4,33,548/-
Date of institution : 15/12/2023
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 12/08/2025
Date of Judgment : 12/08/2025
CS (Comm.) No. 1591/2023 Page 1 of 12
Pet Kraft Vs. Ankur Goyal Prop. Of Dazz Daicor
::- J U D G M E N T -::
1.By way of present judgment, this court shall adjudi- cate upon suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs.4,33,548/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 12% per annum.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
2. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present suit, as stated in the plaint, are as under:-
i. The plaintiff is a partnership firm incorporated in the year 1992 having office at the above men- tioned address and is engaged in the business of pro- ducing best quality dried beef pet treats & rawhide chew treats etc. for domestic & export market.
ii. Mr. Ayan Alam is the partner of the plaintiff firm who is empowered to file the suit and is well conversant with the facts of the case.
iii. Defendant is the proprietor of M/s Dazz Daicor having office at the above said address and is engaged in the business of constructing stalls in var-CS (Comm.) No. 1591/2023 Page 2 of 12
Pet Kraft Vs. Ankur Goyal Prop. Of Dazz Daicor ious international exhibitions and designing the same.
iv. The defendant had constructed booth for the plaintiff at Interzoo Trade Show, Germany in 2018 and considering the services proved by the defen- dant back in 2018, plaintiff once again accepted the offer made by defendant for construction booth at Interzoo Trade Show, Germany, in 2022 which was supposed to begin from 24/05/2022 till 27/05/2022.
v. On 26/03/2022, the plaintiff accepted the final price proposed by the defendant for construction of booth at the cost of 7500 Euros and agreed to make the advance payment of 60% of the total amount.
vi. On 12/04/2022, the defendant emailed the in- voice bearing no. DDI/22-23/April/004 in Euros and also whatsapp the same with payment terms to the plaintiff according to which , 60% of the decided amount (4500 Euros) was to be paid in advance and remaining 40% (3000 Euros) was to be paid at the time of handing over the booth.
vii. On 13/04/2022, the plaintiff bank Union Bank, having its branch at Civil Lines, Kanpur, rejected the CS (Comm.) No. 1591/2023 Page 3 of 12 Pet Kraft Vs. Ankur Goyal Prop. Of Dazz Daicor request to pay the amount in Euros citing the reason that the defendant's firm is an Indian company. When the plaintiff informed the defendant about the said fact, he immediately e-mailed the invoice bear- ing no. 5/04/2022 for 4500 Euros (Rs.3,72,145/-) from his foreign associate and instructed the plaintiff to proceed with the payments immediately into his associate's account.
viii. Accordingly on 21.05.22, upon assurances, presentation and under pressure of the defendant, plaintiff made the payment through his bank (Union Bank of India) for an amount of Rs.3,72,145/- to third party vendor (foreign associate of the defen- dant) in Account No. LT063250027182889730 of Mr. Michal Fribel having account with Revolut Bank, Siedlec, Poland Bank.
ix. On 12/05/2022, the defendant informed the plaintiff that due to some problems with the vendor, he cannot construct the booth for the plaintiff at In- terzoo Trade Show, Germany, 2022 and assured the plaintiff that he will soon return the amount of 4500 Euros (Rs.3,72,145/-).
CS (Comm.) No. 1591/2023 Page 4 of 12Pet Kraft Vs. Ankur Goyal Prop. Of Dazz Daicor x. The defendant has not performed his part of the contract in terms of mutually agreed terms set between the plaintiff and the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.4,33,548/- (principal amount Rs.3,72,145/- + in- terest @ 12% from 13.04.22 to 30.08.23 Rs.61,403) against the defendant.
DEFENDANT'S CASE
3. In the written statement, the defendant contended in-
ter alia that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dis- missed as this court has no territorial jurisdiction to en- tertain this suit as no cause of action has been arisen in Delhi. It is further averred that the present suit is bad in law for mis-joinder / non-joinder of the necessary parties and it is further averred that defendant is neither neces- sary nor propr party in present suit.
4. It is further averred by the defendant that no agree-
ment/contract was ever signed by the plaintiff with the defendant. On 11.04.22, the defendant sent posters, con- tract and proforma invoice to the plaintiff wherein it was mentioned that 60% of the contract value to be paid via Bank Transfer with signing of contract till 15.04.2022 but the plaintiff never send signed contract/agreement to the defendant and sent messages on WhatApp no. of the de-
CS (Comm.) No. 1591/2023 Page 5 of 12Pet Kraft Vs. Ankur Goyal Prop. Of Dazz Daicor fendant on 12.04.22 stating Indian invoicing I don't want. Again on 12.04.22, defendant sent revised invoice in Eu- ros through mail mentioning the bank details of Mr. Michal Fribel.
5. Plaintiff asked defendant to send him the foreign vendor invoice as he does not want to pay GST and billing in India as he wants to save taxes. It was never agreed that plaintiff can pay directly to foreign vendor.
6. It is further averred that after making payment to vendor namely Mr. Michal Fribel, plaintiff was directly in touch with that vendor and was directly dealing with him. That's why, defendant left the assignment as plaintiff has not sent any signed contract to the defendant.
7. On 13.05.22, plaintiff sent messages on WhatsApp that he had finalized his booth with other and he just needed the boxes from the defendant at Interzoo. Accord- ingly, defendant sent acrylic boxes to the plaintiff but the plaintiff has not made the payment of Rs.20,000/- for the same to the defendant.
ISSUES
8. Perusal of record shows that on the basis of the pleadings following issues were settled on 30.05.2024 :
CS (Comm.) No. 1591/2023 Page 6 of 12Pet Kraft Vs. Ankur Goyal Prop. Of Dazz Daicor i. Whether this court does not have any territorial ju- risdiction to try this suit? (OPD) ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the amount as claimed in the plaint? (OPD)) iii. If the issue no. (ii) is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the pendente-lite and future in- terest, if so at what rate and for what period? (OPP) iv. Relief.
ISSUEWISE FINDINGS Issue No. 1
(i) Whether this court does not have any territorial ju risdiction to try this suit? (OPD)
9. The onus of proving this issue was on the defendant.
10. It is the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that it has principal place of business at 3193, First Floor, B.G. Road, Azad Market, Delhi -110006 and the defendant approached the plaintiff at the said office where all the meetings had taken place and the e-mails were also ex- changed between the parties in Delhi.
CS (Comm.) No. 1591/2023 Page 7 of 12Pet Kraft Vs. Ankur Goyal Prop. Of Dazz Daicor
11. Per contra, in the written statement, the defendant has denied that the plaintiff is maintaining office at the abovesaid address in Delhi or that any business trans- action took place here in Delhi.
12. As stated above, since there is no evidence of the plaintiff on record, the defendant also did not lead its evidence and hence the defendant has failed to lead any evidence or advance any arguments relating to the territorial jurisdiction of this court.
13. Hence this issue is accordingly decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue No. 2(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the amount as claimed in the plaint? (OPP)
14. The onus of proving this issue was on the plaintiff.
15. It is settled law that in civil cases, the party who as-
sert must prove its case on the touch stone of prepon- derance of probabilities.
16. In the present case, part examination-in-chief of PW1 Sh. Ayan Alam was conducted on 04.09.24 and CS (Comm.) No. 1591/2023 Page 8 of 12 Pet Kraft Vs. Ankur Goyal Prop. Of Dazz Daicor on the said date his further examination-in-chief was deferred as he had not brought the original partnership deed and had sought time to bring the same which was allowed by the court. However, thereafter, plaintiff was granted opportunities to complete its testimony but he failed to do so and further the plaintiff failed to tender any other witness in its favour.
17. Issues were framed in this case on 30.05.24 and as stated above, PW1 was partly examined on 04.09.2024 and his further examination was deferred for the next date i.e. 14.10.24.
18. On 14.10.24, adjournment was sought on behalf of plaintiff on the ground that PW1 could not come to the court as he was not well and his medical certificate was filed but no prescription was filed but the court gave time to the plaintiff and the matter was adjourned for 21.11.24 on which date, this court was not available.
19. On 27.02.25, again adjournment was sought on be-
half of plaintiff on the ground that the witness could not come to the court as he was to travel from U.P. and the flights were available at very exorbitant price due to Mahakumbha. Subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited in DLSA, last opportunity was granted to the plaintiff to lead the evidence and the matter was CS (Comm.) No. 1591/2023 Page 9 of 12 Pet Kraft Vs. Ankur Goyal Prop. Of Dazz Daicor adjourned to 25.03.25.
20. On 25.03.25, again PW1 was not present and an ap-
plication for exemption of PW1 from appearance was filed on his behalf which was dismissed by the court with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited in DLSA.
21. On 08.07.2025, again witness was not present and adjournment was sought on behalf of plaintiff on the ground that the witness could not come as he was not well. Although it was the fit case to close the plaintiff evidence but the court took a liberal view and further time was granted to the plaintiff to lead evidence but subject to cost of Rs.30,000/- out of which Rs.15,000/- was to be deposited in Advocate Welfare Fund and re- maining Rs.15,000/- was to be paid to the other side and the matter was adjourned to 12.08.25.
22. On 12.08.25, none appeared for the plaintiff and it was stated by the counsel for the defendant that no cost has been paid in terms of the previous order. It ap- peared to the court that even the cost in Advocate Wel- fare Fund was not deposited as no such receipt was filed in the court. In the totality of the circumstances, it appeared to the court that it was not a fit case to grant any further opportunity to the plaintiff to lead the evi- dence and hence the plaintiff's evidence was closed by CS (Comm.) No. 1591/2023 Page 10 of 12 Pet Kraft Vs. Ankur Goyal Prop. Of Dazz Daicor the court on 12.08.25.
23. Since there was no evidence on record on behalf of the plaintiff, Ld. Counsel for the defendant submitted that he also did not wish to lead any evidence on record and hence, DE was also closed.
24. Since plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence what-
soever, the burden cast upon him to prove his case re- mains undischarged. Mere pleadings without proof cannot be the basis for granting relief.
25. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Issue No. 3(iii) If the issue no. (ii) is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the pendente- lite and future interest, if so at what rate and for ` what period? (OPP)
26. Since the court has decided the issue no. 2 against the plaintiff, no order is being passed with regard to the interest and hence this issue is decided accordingly.
Issue No. 4 CS (Comm.) No. 1591/2023 Page 11 of 12Pet Kraft Vs. Ankur Goyal Prop. Of Dazz Daicor
(iv) Relief
27. In view of the above discussions, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
28. No order as to cost.
29. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally
signed by
DEEPAK DEEPAK GARG
Date:
GARG 2025.08.12
16:36:21
+0530
Announced in the open Court on (Deepak Garg)
Day of 12th August, 2025 Distt. Judge, (Comm. Court)-09,
Central District, THC : Delhi
CS (Comm.) No. 1591/2023 Page 12 of 12