Delhi District Court
Shailsuta Logistrics Pvt Ltd vs Emami Ltd on 17 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAVINDER BEDI
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMM.)-12, (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
In the matter of:
CS (COMM) No. 123/2022
M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd.
having its Corporate Office at:
3/23 B, EMCA House, Ansari Road,
Daryaganj, Delhi-110002 ........Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Emami Ltd
through its Directors
having its registered office at:
687,Anandapur E.M Bypass,
Kolkata-700107 ......Defendant
Date of Institution of Suit : 12.01.2022
Date of Final Arguments : 04.07.2025
Date of Judgment : 17.07.2025
Plaintiff represented by Col. Mr. Kartik Bhardwaj and Col. Mr Raghu
Vasishth
Defendant represented by Col. Mr. Vinayak Thakur
Digitally signed
by RAVINDER
RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date:
2025.07.17
17:21:09 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 1/ 29
M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd
JUDGMENT
1. Present is a suit instituted by Plaintiff Company seeking recovery of Rs. 8,48,485/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum pendente-lite and future against the Defendant.
2. It is necessary to take note of the material facts as mentioned in the Plaint.
2.1 Plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its office at Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi. Plaintiff is into the business of logistics and carrier as per the specific demands of its customers. Plaintiff is a pioneer in its field and enjoys immense reputation and goodwill. Defendant is a registered company engaged in the business of personal and health care products.
2.2 Plaintiff's case is that Defendant approached the Plaintiff and expressed its interest in hiring its services for transportation of various healthcare and personal goods to different locations in India. Defendant assured the Plaintiff that the payments would be made on time for such services. Based upon the representations, Plaintiff started transporting several consignments of Defendant throughout India.
2.3. On 14.07.2018, as instructed, Plaintiff transported the
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.07.17
17:21:16 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 2/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd goods of Plaintiff (which were 'drugs and medicines') from Ambala to Patna. Plaintiff hired the services of a public carrier, vehicle no. HR 46C 3807 to carry the said consignment from Ambala to Patna and issued a Consignment Note dated 14.07.2018 to the Defendant with description of the goods therein alongwith the desired destination.
2.4 The driver of the said vehicle, however without any knowledge of Plaintiff was carrying alcohol alongwith goods of Defendant (as prohibited under Bihar Excise Prohibition Act, 2016). Plaintiff by an e-mail dated 21.07.2018 apprised the Defendant that the vehicle had been seized by police officials at PS Nadi, Patna (Bihar) and it would take considerable time to release the said vehicle. Plaintiff filed a Writ Petition no. 1981/2018 titled as Shailsuta Logistics Pvt Ltd v The State of Bihar& ors before Hon'ble High Court of Patna for release of vehicle. The vehicle was released to Plaintiff by Order dated 21.08.2018 and could be received by Plaintiff only on 12.09.2018.
2.5 Plaintiff was surprised to know that there was a shortage of goods in vehicle and besides, the goods were also damaged. This fact was brought to the knowledge of the Defendant, which by its communication dated 01.11.2018 enclosed a claim bill of Rs. 7,46,667/- towards the value of shortage/damage to the goods. Defendant also preferred an Insurance claim of Rs. 7,46,667/- with its insurer, but the Insurance Company rejected the claims of Defendant. Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.07.17 17:21:22 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 3/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd 2.6 On rejection of the claims, Plaintiff came to know that Defendant had illegally and without any justification adjusted the amount of Rs. 8,48,485/- from the running account of Plaintiff on account of alleged 'damage and shortage'. The instant suit of Plaintiff is for reclaiming this amount. Plaintiff sent reminders to the Defendant to recover back the adjusted amount of Rs. 8,48,485/- but to no avail. Plaintiff was constrained to issue a Legal Notice dated 22.11.2019 to the Defendant to recover such dues . Plaint avers that said Notice was replied by Defendant on 6.12.2019 wherein Defendant took false and frivolous defence.
2.7 The Defendant in furtherance of its malafide intention withheld the payment of Plaintiff, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Plaintiff, while incurring wrongful gain onto themselves. Plaint avers that the Plaintiff is also entitled for an interest @12% p.a. from the date when the payment became due.
2.8 Plaintiff approached Pre-Institution Mediation Process as per Section 12 A of The Commercial Courts Act (hereinafter as " The CC Act") before DLSA, Central, Tis Hazari. The Defendant did not appear despite service of Notice upon them. The same resulted into the issuance of Non-Starter Report. Plaint avers that subject matter of the suit is a "Commercial Dispute", as provided under Section2(1)(c)(i) of The Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.07.17 17:21:28 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 4/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Plaintiff has prayed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 8,48,485- against Defendant along-with interest pendente- lite and future @ 18% per annum from the date of filing suit till its realization.
3. Summons of suit were issued upon the Defendant. The Defendant appeared and contested the suit by filing his written Statement wherein it took certain preliminary objections inter-alia :
3.1 The suit of the Plaintiff deserved dismissal as Plaintiff was guilty of Supressio vari and Suggestio falsi. Plaintiff deliberately concealed the material fact i.e. the existence of the Transportation Contract dated 01.01.2016 (hereinafter referred to as TC) executed between parties. Both parties were bound by the terms and conditions of the TC and as per which, Plaintiff was under an obligation to transport the products of Defendant safely from Ambala to Patna, as per the Consignment Note dated 14.07.2018 (hereinafter referred as CN) of Plaintiff.
3.2 For recovery of its claims, Plaintiff relied only upon the CN issued for transportation. Plaintiff malafidely suppressed the existence of the TC dated 01.11.2016 between parties. The validity of the TC was for a period of 36 months i.e. from 01.01.2016 till 31.12.2018 with a provision for further extension, subject to mutual agreement. It was as Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.07.17 17:21:35 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 5/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd per terms of the TC that the Defendant used to place orders on the Plaintiff for outbound transportation of the finished products from pick up points and destinations. Various clauses relevant for the purpose of the subject matter are detailed in para no. 5 of the written statement. As per the terms of TC, Plaintiff being a "Service Provider" was responsible for the wrongful acts committed by the driver of the vehicle carrying goods.
As per Clause 6(d) and 12 of TC, it was Plaintiff's liability to bear full responsibility for any loss, damage or other consequences alongwith liability to indemnify the Defendant and right to terminate the contract.
3.3 The terms and conditions of the TC were to supersede the CN issued by the Plaintiff. The CN only showed that Plaintiff accepted the work i.e. transportation of goods for successful and timely delivery. Even if it is assumed that the said CN could define any rights, it clearly mentioned 'carriers are not responsible for leakage, breakage and accident for lorry and fire'. The Defendant had recovered its loss from Plaintiff as per Section 74 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 as per terms and conditions of the TC.
3.4. This Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain or try the suit. Defendant's office was situated in Kolkata and clause 17 of the TC specifically mentioned that only the Courts in Kolkata would have the exclusive jurisdiction over any civil dispute between parties. The Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.07.17 ____________________________________________________________________________ 17:21:42 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 6/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd cause of action if any, arose at Patna when the vehicle carrying the Defendant's goods was seized by Bihar police at Patna, while it was traveling from Ambala to Patna and no cause of action arose within jurisdiction of Central District, Delhi.
3.5 The suit was also not maintainable in view of the legal principle of Nullus Commudum Capere Protect De Injuria Sua Propria i.e no man can take advantage of his own wrong . Plaintiff by clever drafting had created a cause of action against the Defendant. Plaintiff by way of an e-mail dated 21.07.2018 informed the Defendant that vehicle carrying Defendant's goods from Ambala to Patna was seized by the police at PS Fatuha (Nadi), Bihar on the ground that it was found loaded with several cartons of liquor, which was in violation of the provisions of Bihar Excise Prohibition Act, 2016. Plaintiff acknowledged that the driver of vehicle had loaded upto 300 cartons of liquor in the said vehicle and police had seized the vehicle. On the same date i.e. 21.07.2018, Defendant by an e-mail replied to the Plaintiff that due to illegal activities of Plaintiff's truck driver, Defendant's goods were seized and also advised Plaintiff to take immediate steps to release the goods. Plaintiff filed a Criminal Writ Jurisdiction case no. 1981 of 2018 titled as Shailsuta Logistics Private Ltd v The State of Bihar & ors before the Hon'ble High Court for release of vehicle. By order dated 21.08.2018, the vehicle was released with certain directions and returned to the Plaintiff on 12.09.2018 i.e. after 22 days of said order.
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.07.17
17:21:49 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 7/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd 3.6 Plaintiff vide an e-mail dated 05.10.2018 informed the Defendant that there was a shortage/damage to the goods found in vehicle, which as per the calculation of Defendant was upto Rs. 15,54,909.75/- (Rs. 8,36,610.25/- (shortage) and Rs. 7,16,299.50/- (damage)). Defendant managed to make the damaged goods saleable and reduced the claim value to Rs. 8,48,485/-. The claim of Defendant was filed with its Insurer, but the Insurer sent an e-mail dated 01.11.2018 Ex. DW1/8 to the Defendant thereby rejecting such claim.
3.7 Defendant by an e-mail dated 16.11.2018 informed the Plaintiff about the rejection of the Insurance claims and further informed that such loss of Rs. 8,48,485/- borne by Defendant had to be recovered from the Plaintiff as per clause 12 (vi) of the TC. It was Plaintiff's responsibility to transport the goods to their destination and due to wrongful acts on part of Plaintiff, the said losses were recoverable from Plaintiff, as per the terms and conditions of TC. Defendant thus deducted the amount of Rs. 8,48,485/- from the running account of Plaintiff, as per terms of TC.
4. In the Replication, Plaintiff has reiterated its version in the plaint while refuting the contentions of Defendant. By Order dated Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.07.17 17:21:55 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 8/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd 27.11.2024, the following issues were settled for adjudication :-
Issue no. 1: Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD Issue no. 2: Whether the parties were governed by the Transportation Contract dated 01.01.2016 which was valid only for the period of 36 months i.e. between 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2018 with further extentable only as per mutual agreement? OPD Issue no. 3: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the amount as prayed in the prayer clause of the plaint? OPP Issue no. 4: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the amount. If so, at what rate and from what period? OPP Issue no 5: Relief.
5. Plaintiff in order to prove its case examined its AR Mr Dalip Singh as PW-1. PW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.
PW1/A and proved the board of resolution dated 30.01.2023 as Ex. PW-1/1; Consignment Note dated 14.07.2018 as Mark 'A'; Ledger account as Ex.PW-1/3; legal notice dated 22.11.2019 as Ex. PW-1/4 ; Reply Notice of Defendant dated 26.12.2019 as Mark 'B'; Non-starter report dated 20.10.2020 as Ex. PW-1/6 and the Affidavit of Plaintiff Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI ____________________________________________________________________________ BEDI Date: 2025.07.17 17:22:01 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 9/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd under Order XI Rule 6(3) of The CC Act as Ex. PW-1/7.
6. Defendant in order to prove its case examined its AR/Manager Sh Suman Pyne as DW-1. The DW1 tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit as Ex. DW1/A. DW-1 proved the power of attorney executed by the Defendant dated 23.07.2024 Mark 'A' ; Transportation Contract dated 01.01.2016 executed between parties as Ex. DW-1/2 ; Consignment Note dated 14.07.2018 as Mark 'B' , Email dated 21.07.2018 sent by defendant to the plaintiff as Ex. DW-1/4 ; True copy of the Email dated 21.07.2018 sent by plaintiff to the defendant as Ex. DW-1/5 ; Order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in CrWJ case no. 1981 of 2018 as Mark 'C' ; Email dated 05.10.2018 as Ex. DW-1/7 ; Email dated 01.11.2018 as Ex. DW-1/8 and an Email dated 16.11.2018 as Ex. DW-1/9.
7. I have heard final submissions as addressed by Ld. Counsel for parties and perused the entire record meticulously. The written synopsis of parties alongwith judicial precedents relied upon have also been considered.
As per Section-101 of The Indian Evidence Act, plaintiff must prove the existence of legal right in his favour. The onus is on the Plaintiff to positively establish its case on the basis of material available. Plaintiff cannot rely upon the weakness or absence of defence to discharge this onus. Once the Plaintiff discharges that onus and makes Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.07.17 ____________________________________________________________________________ 17:22:08 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 10/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd out a case which entitles him to a relief, onus shifts upon the Defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the Plaintiff to the same.
8. Order XVIII Rule 1 of CPC also recognizes the general rule that the Plaintiff in a suit must prove his case. The Latin maxim says:
ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat i.e the burden of proof is on him, who asserts and not on him who denies. The same is in consonance with sections 101 to 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Also as per settled law, if the evidence is not led by the party, an adverse inference may be drawn. Considering the principles as above and having looked into the entire record, my issue-wise findings are herein below :
Issue no. 2: Whether the parties were governed by the Transportation Contract dated 01.01.2016 which was valid only for the period of 36 months i.e. between 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2018 with further extentable only as per mutual agreement? OPD
9. Issue no.2 is taken up first. The onus to prove the same was upon the Defendant. Defendant examined Sh Suman Pyne as DW-1 who by way of an affidavit Ex. DW1/A deposed on the lines of averments taken in the written statement. DW-1 stated that he was the AR and Manager with Defendant company having its office at 687, Anandapur, Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.07.17 17:22:14 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 11/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd EM Byepass, Kolkata. He stated that parties were bound by the terms and conditions of the Transport Contract dated 01.01.2016 (TC) Ex. DW1/2. He stated that the Plaintiff deliberately concealed the existence of TC from Court. DW-1 in his cross-examination reiterated his stand and to the suggestion of Counsel for Plaintiff that TC was a forged document, DW-1 negated the same and stated that TC was bearing signatures of ARs of parties. DW-1 stated that the goods belonging to the Defendant were seized and deduction of the amounts was made only as per the terms of the TC Ex. DW1/2.
10. Ld. Counsel for Defendant at the outset submits that suit of Plaintiff was not maintainable being based on the suppression of material facts. Ld. Counsel submits that Plaintiff concealed the TC Ex. DW1/2 between parties and suit deserves dismissal on this count alone. Ld. Counsel submits that Plaintiff did not come up with anything in support of its case and even the CN brought on record was a mere xerox copy and loose document. Ld. Counsel argues that alleged plea of TC Ex. DW1/2 being a forged document was never taken by Plaintiff in pleadings. He argues that the TC bore signatures of Mr B.KSharma on Plaintiff's side and Mr B.K Sharma was duly authorized and acting under the authority of Plaintiff during the relevant time. He submits that as per Section 91 of the Evidence Act, when terms of TC were reduced in the form of a document and proved under law, any other evidence could not be allowed in proof of the same except the document itself.
Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.07.17
____________________________________________________________________________ 17:22:21 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 12/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd
11. Ld. Counsel has further pointed to e-mails sent by said Mr B.K Sharma, proved in evidence, which clearly suggest that he had been acting under the Plaintiff's authority, being its employee. Ld. Counsel submits that e-mails and communication exchanged between parties would suggest that DW-1 had specific knowledge of all events, which transpired between parties, but Plaintiff did not examine Mr B.K Sharma i.e. the best evidence available with them. He argues that once the onus of existence of TC was discharged by Defendant, the onus to dispel the same became even more pronounced upon Plaintiff, which it failed to do so.
12. Ld. Counsel for Defendant argues that even otherwise, Plaintiff failed to show any document governing the terms and conditions or relationship between parties. He argues that the TC Ex. DW1/2 was valid for a period of 36 months i.e. between 01.10.2016 to 31.12.2018 and cause of action accrued within this tenure. Ld. Counsel submits that photocopy of CN Mark A was only showing the consignment's description and destination, while the terms of the TC Ex. DW1/2 contained in detail, the terms and conditions, which parties were bound to the same. Ld. Counsel referred to the cross-examination of the PW-1, where he did not utter anything as to how relationship of parties was governed regarding the transactions.
Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.07.17 17:22:27 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 13/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd 13 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff argued that the Plaintiff had proved its case as the CN Mark A was issued to the Defendant and the same governed conditions between parties alongwith jurisdiction of Court specified therein. Ld. Counsel argued that the TC Ex. DW1/2 was an illegal document as it did not have signatures of Plaintiff on all pages besides it being an unstamped document. Ld. Counsel argued that the money was deducted illegally from the running account of Plaintiff on the premise of alleged terms of Ex. DW1/2 by the Defendant.
14. Having mulled over the record, I find that the TC Ex. DW1/2 between parties has been proved by Defendant. The Clause 12
(vi) of the Ex DW1/2 provides for the recourse to Defendant to make claims for any losses from the Plaintiff. The very basis of defence of Defendant has been this Contract containing terms and conditions between parties for a period of 36 months for outbound transportation of finished products from pick up points and destinations as mentioned thereunder. The TC bears the signatures of Mr B.K Sharma, an employee of the Plaintiff and who is still working with the Plaintiff.
15 The contention of Plaintiff that Ex. DW1/2 was false or forged came only at the stage of evidence. The same was not pleaded by Plaintiff anywhere in pleadings. To the averment in the written statement of the existence of Ex. DW1/2 between parties, the corresponding para no. 4 (a) of the Replication mentions " the contents of para no. 4 are Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.07.17 17:22:34 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 14/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd wrong and denied except the contents which form part of record". Once the Defendant took a categorical stand of the parties being bound by Ex. DW1/2, the onus shifted upon the Plaintiff to disprove the same in order to discharge the said burden.
16. However, Plaintiff utterly failed to establish the same, nor any witness was examined to establish the factum of any Contract other than Ex. DW1/2 between parties.
17. Plaintiff also failed to examine Mr B.K Sharma, the signatory to Ex.DW1/2, an important witness who was still working with Plaintiff and was into regular correspondence with the Defendant, acting under the authority of Plaintiff during the relevant period. Thus, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the Plaintiff that had the Plaintiff brought him in evidence, it would have contradicted Plaintiff's own version. In case of Vidhyadhar v Manikrao and another (1999) 3 SCC 573, the Supreme Court has held as under:
"16. Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy Council beginning from the decision Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI ____________________________________________________________________________ BEDI Date: 2025.07.17 17:22:41 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 15/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial Singh and Anr. . This was followed by the Lahore High Court in Kirpa Singh v. Ajaipal Singh and Ors. AIR (1930) Lahore 1 and the Bombay High Court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v. Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh AIR (1931) Bombay 97. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat also followed the Privy Council decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh's case (supra). The Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh v. Virender Nath and Anr. Held that if a party abstains from entering the witness box, it would give rise to an inference adverse against him. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bhagwan Dass v. Bhishan Chand and Ors. , drew a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box..."
The view taken in the case of Vidhyadhar v Manikrao and another (supra), was followed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another v Indusind Bank Ltd (2005) 2 SCC 217 as under:
" Apart from what has been stated, this Court in the case of Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao and Another, (1999) Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.07.17 17:22:47 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 16/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd 3 SCC 573 observed at page 583 SCC that "where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness-box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct".
18 In the Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shalu v Sandeep Soni (DOD as 03.02.2016) it was held that :
" 32. It is well settled that irrespective of the onus or the burden of proof, a party in possession of the best evidence, is bound to produce the same on record."
19. The Plaintiff did not respond to the Reply Notice Mark B sent by Defendant by filing any reply/response, concerning denial of TC Ex. DW1/2. Further, Plaintiff in its affidavit of admission-denial of documents of Defendant filed on 15.05.2024 denied the contents of its own document Mark A, while admitting only of its existence. Given the same, the faint plea of Plaintiff that parties were governed by the CN merits rejection. The CN Mark A is a mere xerox document and the same has not been proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act ;thus it has to be eschewed from consideration.
20. What can be discerned from record is that the Plaintiff while denying the existence of Ex. DW1/2 took the most convenient stand of Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.07.17 ____________________________________________________________________________ 17:22:53 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 17/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd the same being a forged document, but failed to explain the alleged forgery. It was for the Plaintiff to s tand on its own legs and prove its own case by adducing oral and or documentary evidence. ( Shri Saurav Jain & Anr. v. M/s A. B. P. Design & Anr (DOD as 05.08.2021 by Hon'ble Apex Court).
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Madan Mohan v. Sheel Gulati, 223 (2015) DLT 57 observed that mere self-serving ipse dixit can't be held to be discharge of onus of proof. The overall facts and circumstances coupled with the documents Ex. DW1/3 to Ex. DW1/9 would clearly establish that Plaintiff concealed the factum of the Ex. DW1/2 between parties, which governed the relationship between parties besides the stipulations concerning recovery of losses and compensation.
Having held thus, the Issue stands decided in favour of Defendant and against the Plaintiff.
Issue no. 1: Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD
21. Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff argues that this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the cause of action arose when the CN Mark A was issued by Plaintiff in favour of Defendant, mentioning "subject to Delhi jurisdiction" and the acceptance of Mark A by the Defendant is a form of acceptance of its terms and conditions. Ld. Counsel submits that the Legal Notice Ex. PW1/4 was also issued upon Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.07.17 17:23:00 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 18/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd the Defendant from Delhi and Defendant's reply was received at Delhi. He submits that Plaintiff has its head office at Delhi and as per the principle of Debtor must seek the Creditor, this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. Reliance is placed upon the decisions in TKW Management Solutions Pvt v Sherif Cargo and Anr, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 593, Shradha Wason and ors v Anil Goel and Anr, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1285 and Cypress Fincap Pvt Ltd v Vyogiswami Financial Consultants Ltd & ors , 2019 Scc Online Del 10065 to argue that in the absence of any Contract to the contrary, a debtor is bound to find the creditor for making payment - the place of payment is where the creditor resides.
22. Per contra, Ld. counsel for Defendant submits that this Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain or try the suit as Defendant's office was situated in Kolkata and clause 17 of the TC Ex.DW1/2 specifically mentioned that " All disputes under the contract shall be subject to the jurisdiction of Courts in Kolkata" , meaning thereby, only the Courts in Kolkata had the jurisdiction over the matter. between parties. Ld. Counsel submits that no part of cause of action also arose within Delhi and the part cause of action, if any, could be said to arise at Patna , when the vehicle carrying the Defendant's goods was seized at Patna, Ld. Counsel argues that mere sending a Legal Notice Ex. PW1/4 from Delhi would not confer jurisdiction upon the Courts at Central Delhi. Ld. Counsel argues that the CN Mark A is nothing but a Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.07.17 ____________________________________________________________________________ 17:23:06 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 19/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd Receipt of services to be delivered by Plaintiff and would not create any jurisdiction.
23. Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff submits that Plaintiff is a dominus litus and it is the Defendant who must seek the Plaintiff and not otherwise. He submits that at no point did the cause of action arise at Kolkata and the TC Ex. DW1/2 to that extent and its Clause 17 are void. Ld. Counsel submits that the exclusive jurisdiction clause or ouster clause is considered legal only when multiple courts would have jurisdiction and in furtherance of the same, jurisdiction is conferred on a particular Court. Reliance is placed upon Interglobe Aviation Ltd v N. Satchidnanad, (2011) 7 Supreme Court Cases 463.
24 Ld. Counsel for Defendant submits that the Defendant's primary defence has been that the instant suit has been filed on the basis of concealment of the TC Ex. DW1/2, which contains a jurisdiction clause, as per which the jurisdiction is vested in Kolkata Courts. To the plea of 'Debtor must seek out his Creditor ' taken by plaintiff, Ld. Counsel for Defendant submits that the same is not applicable here as the Defendant is not the debtor of Plaintiff and in the absence of any acknowledgment of Defendant of any debt or there being any relationship of debtor-creditor between parties, this principle is not applicable. Ld. Counsel submits that Plaintiff's case is not that there exists any debt owed by Defendant to Plaintiff and the principle applies Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.07.17 17:23:13 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 20/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd only in such cases where the Plaintiff avers non payment of pending dues and as such reliance placed by Plaintiff is misconceived.
25. Ld. Counsel for Defendant further submits that Plaintiff cannot escape the rigors of pre-requisite of Section 20 (a)(b) and (c) of CPC. .
26. It would be proper to refer to Section-20 of CPC which is set out as below :
"20. Other suits to be instituted where Defendants reside or cause of action arises - Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction
(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, xxx xxxx xxxx;
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."
(Explanation) -- A corporation shall be deemed to carry on Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.07.17 17:23:19 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 21/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd business at its sole or principal office in (India) or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.
27. As per Section-20 CPC, where Defendant neither resides nor carries on business nor any part of the cause of action arises within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court, such court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. (Bahrain Petroleum Co. Ltd. Vs. P.K Pappu & Anr., AIR 1966 SC 634). The principle underlying clauses (a) and (b) is that this suit has to be instituted at the place where Defendant is able to defend it without any difficulty. Under Clause (c), the suit can be filed, where the cause of action arose wholly or in part.
Where clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 are not applicable, only that court will be competent, where cause of action wholly or in part arises. (ONGC Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 711; Patel Roadways Limited Vs. Prasad Trading Company & Ors. (AIR 1992 SC 1514) ; M/s Bhaktawar Singh Bal Kishan Vs. Union of India and others (1988) 2 SCC 293 and Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta and Anr. Vs.Bombay Flour Mills P. Ltd. & Anr. (1995) 2 SCC 559).
28. It was for the Plaintiff to specifically aver in the plaint that the Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that in case, the Defendant was not residing or working for gain within Court's Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date:
2025.07.17 17:23:25 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 22/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd jurisdiction, the cause of action wholly or in part had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court to invoke the territorial jurisdiction.
29. It would be apposite to read para no. 19 of the Plaint relating to territorial jurisdiction, which is set out as :
" That the Plaintiff has its registered office at Delhi. The consignment note was issued at Delhi. The payments have to made at Delhi. The correspondence was done at Delhi. It was agreed between the parteis that in case of a dispute, the Delhi courts alone shall have jurisdiction. There is an exclusionary jurisdiction clause in the consignment note dated 14.07.2018 signed and consented by the Defendant which clearly mentions subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Therefore, the Hon'ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit".
30 The contention of Plaintiff is that its office is located in Delhi and CN was issued to Defendant at Delhi. The contention further is that CN mentions at its extreme right side as "subject to Delhi Jurisdiction" ; thereby this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The contention of Plaintiff is untenable and misplaced as firstly, Para no. 19 of the Plaint is not supported by any document to Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.07.17 17:23:31 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 23/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd show that CN was issued from Delhi or the payments were to be made at Delhi. CN Mark A also shows Plaintiff's corporate office is located at Noida. CN Mark A nowhere contains any exclusive jurisdiction clause and is only a stray document in xerox form; it cannot be read into evidence as observed in Issue no 2. Even otherwise, the jurisdiction mentioned in the printed formats or the Consignment Notes does not bind the parties unless the parties have the consensus ad-idem . The simple printed conditions on the bill or the CN, which restrict the jurisdiction to only one Court, cannot be a rider on the jurisdiction of another competent Court to entertain the suit.
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/s Victoria Motors Pvt Ltd v M/s Rai Automotive Systems (DOD 06.08.2014), held that simple printed conditions of the CN, restricting the jurisdiction to only one Court cannot operate as an ad- idem on the issue.
31. Secondly, the Reply Notice dated 26.12.2019 Mark B sent by Defendant to Plaintiff categorically mentions the TC Ex. DW1/2 between parties stipulating that only the Courts in Kolkata shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute between parties. The Plaintiff did not respond to the reply Notice of Defendant by filing any reply/response to the same. Further, the Plaintiff in its affidavit of admission-denial of documents dated 15.05.2024 denied the contents of the CN Mark A and as such, the reliance placed by Plaintiff on CN Mark A pales into insignificance. Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.07.17 17:23:37 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 24/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd 32 Defendant has proved the fact that parties were bound by Ex.DW1/2, which also contain jurisdiction at Clause 17, which shows that " All disputes under the contract shall be subject to the jurisdiction of Courts in Kolkata". Clause 17 unambigously mentions that only the Courts in Kolkata would have the exclusive jurisdiction and said clause is clear and specific. The accepted notion of TC binds the parties showing the presence of ad-idem. Clause 17 shows clear intent of parties to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts at Kolkata.
33. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs Associated Contractors; (2015) 1 SCC 32, has observed that the presentation of the Plaint in a Court contrary to the exclusion jurisdiction clause could not be said to be the proper presentation before the Court having the jurisdiction in the matter.
34. Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of Rakesh Kumar Verma vs HDFC Bank Ltd (DOD as 08.04.2025), observed as :
" While the general principle is that the suit could be instituted at any place where a substantial part of the cause of action arises, however, when a clause such as the one in the instant case exists, the jurisdiction will lie with Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.07.17 17:23:44 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 25/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd the court at the place which has been expressly agreed to by and between the parties, i.e., the courts in Bombay in the instant case..."
35. Reliance can further be placed upon the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court upholding the exclusive jurisdiction clause e.g Patel Roadways (supra); Angile Insulations v Davy Ashmore India Ltd (1995) 4 SCC 153; A.V.M Sales Corporation v Anuradha Chemicals P Ltd ; (2012) 2 SCC 315 and Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics P Ltd v Chand Mal Bradia (2005) 10 SCC 704.
36. Decision of Shradha Wasson (supra), Cypress (supra) and TKW Management (supra) relied upon by Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff are of no assistance to its case, as the said decisions are rendered in altogether different context and are on the facts clearly distinguishable. In TKW Management (supra) the amounts were payable within the jurisdiction of New Delhi as per the terms of the invoices filed by the Plaintiff and thus, the same is inapplicable to factual matrix.
37. The Defendant's registered office is at Kolkata. As per Clause 17 of TC Ex. DW1/2, only the Kolkata Courts would have the jurisdiction to entertain the disputes between parties. Further, no cause of action wholly or in part arose within the jurisdiction of Central Delhi and Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.07.17 17:23:51 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 26/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd in such circumstances, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The issue therefore stands decided in favour of Defendant and against the Plaintiff.
Issue no. 3: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the amount as prayed in the prayer clause of the plaint? OPP Issue no. 4: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the amount. If so, at what rate and from what period? OPP 38 The onus of proving these issues was upon the Plaintiff.
In view of the observations of this Court in Issue no. 1 and 2, there is no requirement to return any findings on these issues. This Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the existence of jurisdiction clause in the TC Ex. DW1/2 between parties. Plaintiff failed to discharge the primary onus under Section 104 of Bhartiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Section 101 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and failed to explain the suppression of material fact of existence of Ex. DW1/2 between parties.
The conduct of Plaintiff certainly amounts to deliberate concealment of facts from the Court, while approaching the Court asking Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.07.17 ____________________________________________________________________________ 17:23:57 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 27/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd for its claims by taking mere self serving stand of denial of Ex. DW1/2. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) through LRs vs Jagannath (dead) through LRs (DOD as 27.10.1993 ) observed that Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. It was observed that one who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. A person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court and his case can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
39. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the Plaintiff's case is based upon falsehood on account of suppression of the material facts and for which the Plaintiff is disentitled to claim the reliefs sought against Defendant.
Thus, the issues stand answered accordingly.
Relief 40 Keeping in view my findings on the Issue no. 1 and 2 , it is held that Plaintiff has failed to establish its case and its entitlement for the reliefs claimed. The suit of the Plaintiff stands dismissed.
41. Costs will follow the result in the suit. The Defendant's Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date:
2025.07.17 17:24:05 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 28/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd lawyer's fees is assessed as Rs. 50,000/-.
Decree sheet of dismissal be prepared and File be consigned to record room after completion of formalities.
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
Announced in open BEDI Date: 2025.07.17
17:24:11 +0530
Court on 17.07.2025 (Ravinder Bedi)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-12
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 123/2022 Page no. 29/ 29 M/s Shailsuta Logistic Pvt Ltd v M/s Emami Ltd