Delhi District Court
M/S Sudhir Power Ltd vs M/S China First Metallurgical ... on 1 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAVINDER BEDI
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
CS (COMM) 692/22
M/s Sudhir Power Ltd.
Through its AR Mr. Rajinder Yada,
Having Registered Office at:
507, International Trade Tower,
Nehru Place, New Delhi
........Plaintiff
Versus
M/s China First Metallurgical Const. (I) Pvt. Ltd.
Office at : A-25, Media Village Society,
Phase-14, Greater Noida, UP.-201310
Also at :
Plot No.7, Sector-VI, Ecotest,
Village Luksar, Opp. Kasna Central Jail,
Greater Noida, UP-230310
Also at :
Flat No.B/1302, 13th Floor,
Bhoomi Paradise Sector-11,
Sanpada (East) Navi Mumbai,
Maharashtra-400705
...Defendant
Date of Institution of Suit : 15.07.2022
Date of Final Arguments : 18.03.2026
Date of Final Judgment : 01.04.2026
Plaintiff is represented by Counsel Mr. A.C. David.
Defendant is ex-parte.
CS (Comm) No.692/22 Page no. 1/ 10
M/s Sudhir Power Ltd. Vs. M/s. China First Metallurgical Const. (I) P. Ltd.
JUDGMENT
1. Present suit is instituted by Plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs.25,24,075.60/- alongwith an interest pendent-lite and future @12% per annum against the Defendant.
2. It is necessary to take note of the material facts as mentioned in the plaint.
● Plaintiff is a Body Corporate and is engaged in the field of Power Supply, installation and a manufacturing of DG Sets for Commercial purposes along with scissor lifts. The suit is filed through Mr. Rajender Yadav (Manager Legal) of the company, who is authorized by Plaintiff's Board Resolution passed by Board of Directors dated 28.09.2018 and is well conversant with facts and circumstances of the matter.
● Defendant is a Company, being run through its directors, who are responsible for day to day affairs of the defendant. The case of Plaintiff is that the defendant had approached the plaintiff and requested for supply of DG sets and Scissor Lifts on rent. Plaintiff supplied the requisite scissor lifts (hereinafter as equipments) to the defendant initially on monthly rental of Rs.45,000/- by way of a Work Order dated 08.03.2018, besides two DG sets on monthly rental basis.
CS (Comm) No.692/22 Page no. 2/ 10 M/s Sudhir Power Ltd. Vs. M/s. China First Metallurgical Const. (I) P. Ltd. ● The defendant made payments against the monthly rents of equipments. However, since January, 2019, defendant started failing to make such rental payments against the equipment supplied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested the defendant time and again to make such payments. It was only on great persuasion of Plaintiff that the defendant issued a cheque bearing no. 968282 dated 16.05.2019 amounting to Rs. 4,74,644/- drawn on Citi Bank branch, Connaught Place, New Delhi towards the partial discharge of its liability towards the rents in the name of Plaintiff. When the cheque was deposited with its banker at HDFC Bank, it was returned dishonoured with remarks 'insufficient funds'.
● The same was informed to the directors of the defendant on 17.05.2019 Plaintiff was constrained to file a Complaint under Section-138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter as The NI Act) before the court of Ld. MM. During pendency of the said complaint, Defendant made payment of Rs.4,74,644/- on 23.09.2019 to plaintiff. After this payment, Defendant has not paid anything against the outstanding dues.
● As per Ledger Account maintained by Plaintiff of defendant in ordinary course of its business, there is a debit balance of Rs.19,71,934/- as principal outstanding dues towards the plaintiff. Plaintiff states that defendant is also liable to pay an interest of Rs.5,52,141.52 @ 12% per annum on the dues payable. Plaintiff got served a Legal Notice dated CS (Comm) No.692/22 Page no. 3/ 10 M/s Sudhir Power Ltd. Vs. M/s. China First Metallurgical Const. (I) P. Ltd. 06.06.2019 to Defendant through its Counsel Mr. A.C. David at both available addresses of Defendant. However, the defendant refused to receive the same as is discernible from the endorsement on the postal remarks on speed post envelop dated 12.06.2019.
● Plaintiff approached the Mediation Center on 16.09.2019 for Pre-
Institution Mediation as per the provisions of The CC Act, 2015. However, Defendant did not appear and the same resulted in issuance of a Non-Starter Report on 21.11.2019.
● The Plaintiff is entitled for the principal dues of Rs.25,24,075.60/- from Defendant alongwith an interest @12% per annum pendente-lite and future. Plaint avers that the subject matter of the instant suit falls in category of "Commercial Dispute" as defined under Section 2 (1) (c) of The Commercial Court Act, 2015 (hereafter as The CC Act).
3. Summons of the suit were served upon Defendant company. The record shows that Defendant was served on 30.03.2024. However, it did not appear despite service. The Defendant also did not file its written statement despite time granted to them. Resultantly by Order dated 08.10.2024, right of Defendant to file written statement stood closed and the matter was proceeded ex-parte qua Defendant.
4. Even though the defendant remained ex-parte, still in an ex- parte case, the Court must confirm that the plaintiff's case is prima facie CS (Comm) No.692/22 Page no. 4/ 10 M/s Sudhir Power Ltd. Vs. M/s. China First Metallurgical Const. (I) P. Ltd. established. The mere absence of the defendant does not allow for the presumption that Plaintiff's entire case is true. While it is customary that no issues are framed in such cases, this does not relieve Plaintiff of the responsibility to prove its case. The Plaintiff is required to satisfy the Court with its evidence, and its burden is not lessened simply because of the defendant's absence. (Reliance; Nagar Palika Nigam v. Motilal, 1977 SCC OnLine MP 19) and C.N. Ramappa Gowda v. C.C. Chandregowda, (2012) 5 SCC .
5. Plaintiff in support of its case has examined its Dy. Manager (Legal) / AR, Mr. Akshit David, as PW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex.PW1/A and proved upon the following documents:
• Board Resolution dated 28.09.2018 in his favour as Ex.PW1/1 . • Board Resolution dated 14.01.2025 in his favour as Ex.PW1/2 • Master Data of the plaintiff company is Ex.PW1/3. • Master Data of the defendant company is Ex.PW1/4. • Certificate of commencement of business of the plaintiff company is Ex.PW1/5.
• Certificate incorporation of the plaintiff company is Ex.PW1/6. • Certificate of change of name of the plaintiff company from "Sudhir Genset Limited to Sudhir Power Limited" is Ex.PW1/7. • Memorandum of Association of plaintiff company is marked as Mark-A and Copy of Article of Association of plaintiff company is Mark - B. • Work Orders dated 08.03.2018 and 19.04.2018 as Ex.PW1/8 and Ex.PW1/9 respectively.
CS (Comm) No.692/22 Page no. 5/ 10 M/s Sudhir Power Ltd. Vs. M/s. China First Metallurgical Const. (I) P. Ltd. • Purchase order dated 13.06.2017 as Ex.PW1/10. • Cheque bearing no. 968282 dated 16.05.2019 as Mark-C. • Bank memos are marked as Mark-D .
• Bank memo is marked as Mark-E. • Statement of ledger account of defendant maintained by Plaintiff is Ex.PW1/11.
• Legal Notice dated 06.06.2019 is Ex.PW1/12. • Postal receipts as Ex.PW1/13 and Ex.PW1/14. • Tracking reports as Ex.PW1/15 and Ex.PW1/16. • Original Returned Envelop is Ex.PW1/17. • Original Returned Envelop is Ex.PW1/18. • Non-Starter Report is Ex.PW1/19.
• Certificate under Section 63 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, as Ex. PW1/20.
6. I have heard submissions as addressed by Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff and perused the entire material on record.
7. From the documents on record, I find that Plaintiff has been successful to prove its case. The evidence is documentary in nature. The same is discernible from the work Orders, Purchase order and Statement of ledger account, exhibited as Ex.PW1/8 to Ex.PW1/11 respectively. Defendant has chosen not to appear or file its defence. An adverse inference has to be drawn against the Defendant, as under Section 119
(g) of the Bhartiya Sakshay Adhiniyam, 2023 [Vidhyadhar vs Manikrao & Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 573].
CS (Comm) No.692/22 Page no. 6/ 10 M/s Sudhir Power Ltd. Vs. M/s. China First Metallurgical Const. (I) P. Ltd.
8. On the point of territorial jurisdiction of this Court, Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff submits that part cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court as the Defendant placed its Work Orders with plaintiff and plaintiff raised its Invoices at its Office at Nehru Place, New Delhi, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Ld. Counsel submits that payments were also to be received from Defendant at the said office. Reliance is placed upon TKW Management Solutions Vs. Sherif Cargo & Anr. & the decision of Ajanta Raj Protein P. Ltd. Vs. Himanshu Food P. Ltd., in support of his arguments.
9. The record shows that the work Orders were raised by the plaintiff from its registered office at Nehru Place, New Delhi, where the office of plaintiff is also situated. Further, the DG Sets in question were also supplied from Nehru Place to Defendant. Further, in the Judgment of Satyapal Vs. Slick Auto Accessories Pvt. Ltd. (2014) SCC Online Del 998, it is held that where the place of payment is not fixed in the contract/ bill / Invoices, the parties have to follow the general rule that the payment has to be made at the place of the creditor. Where there is nothing to show as to the place of payment, even without following of principle that 'debtor must seek out the creditor', the Court has the jurisdiction to try the suit, where payment is made.
Thus part cause of action has accrued within the jurisdiction of this Court to clothe this Court with territorial jurisdiction.
CS (Comm) No.692/22 Page no. 7/ 10 M/s Sudhir Power Ltd. Vs. M/s. China First Metallurgical Const. (I) P. Ltd.
10. The suit is well within limitation as the claims of the plaintiff relate to the outstanding dues against the Defendant for the goods supplied on rent, against which Plaintiff received the part payment lastly made by Defendant on 16.05.2019 by way of cheque, which got dishonored with the remarks "insufficient funds". Plaintiff also resorted to the Mediation in terms of the Pre-institution Mediation which resulted in Non Starter Report dated 21.11.2019. Excluding the said period as well, the suit of the plaintiff instituted on 15.07.2022 is well within limitation.
11. It is fairly established by Plaintiff that Defendant did not clear the outstanding dues. The case of Plaintiff has gone un-challenged and duly corroborated by documents and I have no reason to disbelieve the version of Plaintiff qua the outstanding dues. Applying priori and posteriori reasoning, I am satisfied that Plaintiff has been able to prove its case against the Defendant for its claims to recovery of Rs.19,71,934/-.
Interest
12. On the aspect of interest on the principal dues of Rs.19,71,934/-, Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff has claimed an interest @12% per annum pendente-lite and future interest till realization.
13. Apropos the interest @12% per annum as claimed by plaintiff, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as 'M/s. Jindal CS (Comm) No.692/22 Page no. 8/ 10 M/s Sudhir Power Ltd. Vs. M/s. China First Metallurgical Const. (I) P. Ltd. Realcon Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs M/s. Laxmi Narain Ram Dass & Co, (para-
4) has observed as follows :
"4. The Supreme Court in a line of judgments has held that in view of changed economic scenario where there has been consistent fall in rates of interest, Courts must in accordance with the changed circumstances grant lesser rates of interest. These judgments of the Supreme Court are Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, (2005) 6 SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (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 v. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC)" ..........(emphasis supplied).
14. Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of R.F.A. No.823 of 2004 titled as Shri Sanjay Mittal Versus Sunil Jain (decided on 07.12.2018) has held that higher rates of interest, which are against public policy, can be struck down by the Courts.
15. Keeping in view the mandate of settled law and Section-34 CPC, the interest of justice would be served if Plaintiff is granted simple rate of interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.19,71,934/- till realization.
Hence, plaintiff is hereby granted simple rate of interest @ 9% per annum from 19.09.2022 i.e. the date of institution on Rs.19,71,934/- till its realization.
CS (Comm) No.692/22 Page no. 9/ 10 M/s Sudhir Power Ltd. Vs. M/s. China First Metallurgical Const. (I) P. Ltd.
Relief
16. From the discussion as adumbrated herein-above, the suit of the Plaintiff stands decreed against the Defendant. The Plaintiff is entitled for :
a) a decree against the Defendant for a sum of Rs.19,71,934/- alongwith simple rate of interest @ 9% p.a from 19.09.2022, till its realization.
b) Cost of the suit alongwith Pleader's fee against the Defendant.
Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed DR by DR
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
Date: 2026.04.01
BEDI
Announced in open 18:30:28 +0530
Court on 01.04.2026 (Dr. Ravinder Bedi)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
South-East District, Saket Courts/New Delhi CS (Comm) No.692/22 Page no. 10/ 10 M/s Sudhir Power Ltd. Vs. M/s. China First Metallurgical Const. (I) P. Ltd.