Delhi District Court
Dileep Sharma Prop Of Silverline ... vs Ansh Rana Prop Of Ar Enterprises on 12 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GUPTA
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-05
TIS HAZARI COURTS, WEST: DELHI
CNR No. DLWT010076132025
CS (Comm)/647/2025
Dileep Sharma
(Proprietor of M/s Silver Line Incorporation)
Plot No. 181, Swarn Park Industrial Area,
Mundka, Delhi-110041
.... PLAINTIFF
Versus
Ansh Rana
B-20, Manglol Puri Industrial Area,
Phase-II, North West
New Delhi-110083
.... DEFENDANT
Date of Institution of Case :01.08.2025
Date of Arguments :11.11.2025
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment :12.11.2025
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1.The Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.20,21,398/- (Rupees Twenty Lac Twenty-One Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety-Eight Only) alongwith cost and interest. In nutshell, the case of the plaintiff is as under: -
(i) That the plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and supply of laminated textiles fabrics and other ancillary things. The Defendant is Page 1 of 7 CS (Comm)647/2025 engaged in the business of trading of the shoes and other ancillary things. The plaintiff and the defendant have been in business relation for more than 4 years, where the defendant used to place purchase orders for supply of the goods in consideration thereof, the plaintiff used to supply the same from time to time under respective GST invoices duly raised and submitted for the payment.
(ii) That the plaintiff firm initially supplied goods to the defendant vide Invoice dated 04.07.2020, followed by several subsequent supplies duly made against respective invoices raised in consideration of the purchase orders placed by the defendant.
During the Financial Year 2020-2021, the plaintiff supplied goods worth ₹44,34,018/- vide 109 GST invoices. Against the said supplies, the defendant made on-account payment of ₹10,08,369/-, leaving an outstanding balance of ₹34,25,649/-, which was carried forward as the opening balance for the next financial year.
(iii) That during the Financial Year 2021-2022, the defendant further purchased goods worth ₹2,45,728/- vide 06 GST invoices raised between 08.04.2021 and 02.09.2021. In part payment thereof, the defendant paid ₹2,00,000/-, leaving an outstanding balance of ₹34,71,398/-, which was carried forward as the opening balance for the subsequent financial year.
Page 2 of 7CS (Comm)647/2025
(iv) That during the Financial Year 2022-2023, owing to the substantial outstanding dues of ₹34,71,398/-, the plaintiff refused to make further supplies. The defendant, however, made on-account payments totaling ₹10,00,000/- between 18.06.2022 and 19.01.2023, thereby reducing the outstanding to ₹24,71,398/-, which was carried forward as the opening balance for the next financial year.
(v) That upon the plaintiff's continuous and persistent persuasion for recovery of its dues, the defendant made further payments totaling ₹4,50,000/- between 14.04.2023 and 14.10.2023, thereby reducing the outstanding balance to ₹20,21,398/-.
(vi) That the Plaintif's office regularly made follow-ups to recover the outstanding aforesaid amount, but the defendant kept making excuses to make the payment. Thus, the defendant failed to maintain the sanctity of business relation, despite acknowledging the outstanding dues vide furnishing of the statement of account as maintained by the defendant. Thus, the defendant committed a willful default with his contractual obligations to make payment of the goods so supplied.
(vii) That to demand the outstanding balance amount, plaintiff served the defendant with a legal demand notice calling upon the defendant to clear the outstanding dues, yet no payment was made. Consequently, the plaintiff initiated pre-institution mediation proceedings before the DLSA, wherein a non-starter report was issued on 11.07.2025 Page 3 of 7 CS (Comm)647/2025
(viii) That the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.20,21,398/- alongwith, pendente lite, and future interest @12% p.a.
2. The defendant was duly served via WhatsApp as well as Email. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the defendant on 20.09.2025. Accordingly, the defendant was proceeded ex parte, and the matter was listed for ex parte evidence of the plaintiff.
3. In ex-parte evidence, the plaintiff, examined himself, as PW1. In his affidavit, Ex.PW1/1, PW1 reiterated the claim made by him in the plaint. PW1 has brought on record the following documents:
i. Printout of Registration Certificates is Ex. PW1/A ii. Certified copy of statement/ledger account for FY 2020-2021 and copy of 109 invoices are Ex. PW1/B &Ex. PW1/C (colly) iii. Certified copy of statement/ledger account for FY 2021-2021 and copy of 06 invoices are Ex. PW1/D &Ex. PW1/E (colly) iv. Certified copy of statement/ledger account for FY 2022-2023 is Ex. PW1/F v. Certified copy of statement/ledger account for FY 2023-2024 is Ex. PW1/G vi. Email and attachment of statement of accounts is Ex. PW1/H (colly) vii. Office copy of legal notice alongwith postal receipts and Whatsapp service proof and email service proof are Ex. PW1/I viii. NSR is Ex. PW1/J ix. Certificate u/s 63(4) BSA is Ex. PW1/K.
4. After examination of PW1, the exparte evidence of the plaintiff was closed, and final arguments have been heard. It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the plaintiff has proved his case through his own testimony. Ld. Counsel also referred to all the documents brought on record by the Page 4 of 7 CS (Comm)647/2025 plaintiff/PW1. Thus, Ld. Counsel submitted that the suit of the plaintiff may be decreed
5. I have perused the record carefully. The plaintiff, Sh. Dileep Rana has been examined, as PW1, who reiterated the claim and contentions made in the plaint in his affidavit, Ex. PW1/1. PW1 has deposed that the plaintiff had received the orders from the defendant, and accordingly, the goods were supplied to him against the invoices, and there remained an outstanding amount of Rs. 20,21,398/- against the defendant. PW1 further deposed that the plaintiff supplied the goods to the defendant and the defendant is liable to pay interest @12% p.a. To prove the same, PW1 has brought on record the relevant invoices raised by the plaintiff upon the defendant as Ex.PW1/C(colly) and Ex.PW1/E(colly). As far as the delivery of goods/acknowledgement is concerned, the goods, alongwith invoices, were duly supplied to the defendant through transport, the vehicle details of which stand recorded on the invoices. It is clear from a perusal of the Section 33 and 39 of Sales & Goods Act that once the goods are handed over to a carrier (whether named by the buyer or not) for the purpose of delivery upon the buyer then the same is considered as delivery of the goods upon the buyer unless the same is rebutted/disputed. Thus, in view of the aforesaid provisions of the Sales of Goods Act as well as the unrebutted testimony of PW1, the goods dispatched by the plaintiff are deemed to have been delivered to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff has brought on record sufficient proof by way of exhibiting the relevant documents Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/H qua business transactions. These documents have been supported by the Certificate under Section 63 of BSA, 2023 (Ex. PW1/K).
Page 5 of 7CS (Comm)647/2025 A legal notice dated 01.02.2025 (Ex.PW1/I) was served upon the defendant by the plaintiff through post as well as through WhatsApp, however there has been no reply to the same by the defendant and an adverse inference can be drawn from the same that the defendant did not rebut the claim of the plaintiff by sending a reply as he was liable to pay the outstanding amount. The ledger accounts shows that there is an outstanding balance of Rs. 20,21,398/-. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to this outstanding amount. Since the outstanding amount has not been paid by the defendant, the plaintiff has also claimed interest @12% p.a. As per unrebutted testimony of PW1, the defendant has not paid the due amount despite receipt of the goods and despite demanding the same from the defendant on various occasions; therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the interest on the due amount. In the present case, it is evident that the defendant had acknowledged the outstanding amount as on 14.04.2023 and 19.09.2023 as he shared the statement of account with the plaintiff through email pertaining to the period w.e.f 01.04.2023 to 30.06.2023 & 01.04.2022 to 03.07.2024 (as maintained by the defendant). It also pertinent to mention that no written agreement was executed between the parties about the payment of pre-suit interest on delayed payment. Thus, under these facts and circumstances, as far as the pendentelite and future interest is concerned, in view of the provisions of Section 4 of Interest Act and Section 34 of CPC, the same is at the discretion of the Court. Thus, given the facts and circumstances, the plaintiff is awarded pendentelite and future interest @9% p.a.
6. Thus, from the aforesaid discussions, it is clear that the plaintiff, through the unrebutted and unchallenged testimony of PW1, Page 6 of 7 CS (Comm)647/2025 has successfully proved on record that the defendant has failed to make the payment of the abovementioned balance amount to the plaintiff. I find no ground to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff, and therefore, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.20,21,398/- (Rupees Twenty Lac Twenty-One Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety-Eight Only) from the defendant. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed for a sum of Rs.20,21,398/- against the defendant alongwith costs. Plaintiff is awarded pendentelite and future interest @9% per annum. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court on 12.11.2025 Digitally signed by AJAY GUPTA AJAY Date:
GUPTA 2025.11.12 16:30:47 +0530 (Ajay Gupta) District Judge (Commercial Court)-05 West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 12.11.2025 Page 7 of 7 CS (Comm)647/2025