Delhi District Court
Surinder Mohan Jindal vs Krishan Lal on 24 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH.RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-05,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM.) No.524/2024
(Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja)
CNR No. DLWT01-005507-2024
Mr. Surinder Mohan Jindal
S/o Mr. Moti Ram Jindal
Proprietor of
M/s Jindal Paper Mart
R/o B-134, Sudhra Colony,
Sarai Rohilla, Delhi-110 035.
Office at:-
982/5, Goyal Market,
Chhota Chippiwara,
Chawri Bazar, Delhi-110 006.
........Plaintiff
Through:-Mr. Archit Singhal along with
Ms. Ritu Jain and Ms.Kritika advocates.
Versus
Mr. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja
S/o Late Sh. Manohar Lal Suneja
Proprietor of
Global Enterprises,
R/o BF-15, Third Floor,
BF Block, Tagore Garden, Delhi-110 027.
Office at:-
C-159, Room No.201-A,
Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I,
South-West Delhi, Delhi-110 028.
Also at:-
B-234, Naraina Industrial Area,
Digitally
signed by
CS (COMM.) No.524/2024
Raj Raj Kumar
Tripathi (Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 1 of 22
Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.24
14:14:54
+0530
Phase-I, South-West Delhi, Delhi-110 028.
......Defendant
Mr. Rishi Manchanda along with
Mr. Siddharth Mullick, advocates
Date of filing of suit : 27.06.2024
Arguments heard on : 12.02.2026
Date of Judgment : 24.02.2026
JUDGMENT:
1.1 This is a suit filed by plaintiff against defendant for seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.1,01,97,217/- (Rupees One Crore One Lakh Ninety Seven Thousand Two Hundred Seventeen only) along with pendente lite and future interest @ 30% per annum and cost of the suit.
Brief facts of the case:-
2.1 Plaintiff Mr.Surinder Mohan Jindal, proprietor of M/s Jindal Paper Mart, is inter alia engaged in the business of paper & boards (hereinafter to be referred as 'products'). 2.2 Mr.Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja, proprietor of M/s Global Enterprises, is also engaged in the wholesale and retail business of paper and board materials.
2.3 Defendant approached the plaintiff and expressed his desire to have business dealings with him. He placed orders upon plaintiff as per his requirements, who duly supplied the desired products to him as per agreed terms and conditions. 2.4 As per plaintiff, defendant placed various orders at different point of time. Defendant used to make part payments availing some credit, which was allowed by plaintiff in good Raj Kumar faith, trust and believing the assurance given by defendant that Tripathi Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2026.02.24 CS (COMM.) No.524/2024 14:15:00 +0530 (Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 2 of 22 payment will be made shortly.
2.5 Plaintiff raised and issued various invoices against the goods supplied to defendant. He claims to have maintained a running account of defendant. As per the ledger account, an amount of Rs.94,86,217/- is due and payable by defendant. 2.6 Plaintiff made several requests to defendant through e-mail, telephonic communications, messages and by sending personal messenger to his office for releasing the outstanding dues, who kept on assuring to pay the same within a short period but failed to honour his promises.
2.7 Constrained by the acts of defendant, plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 26.03.2024 to him, demanding the release of outstanding amount, who despite service of the same, failed to clear the payment. Hence, the present suit. 2.8 Before filing of the suit, plaintiff filed an application for Pre-Institution Mediation before West District Legal Services Authority, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 12.04.2024 in compliance of section 12A of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, where due to non-appearance and non-participation by defendant despite issuance of notices, the process of mediation was treated as non- starter vide Report dated 13.05.2024.
Defence of defendant 3.1 Defendant contested the suit by way of filing written statement. In the written statement, he contended that the sole intention of filing the present suit by plaintiff is to extort money from him and to unjustly enrich himself at his cost. Plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and concealed the true, Digitally signed by Raj Raj Kumar Tripathi Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.24 14:15:06 CS (COMM.) No.524/2024 +0530 (Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 3 of 22 crucial and material facts, relevant for adjudication of controversy from this Court. No cause of action has arisen in favour of plaintiff and against defendant. He has filed the present suit with malafide intentions to cause harassment, loss and mental agony to defendant.
3.2 He further contended that the suit filed by plaintiff is hopelessly barred by law of limitation as he is claiming the amount for the invoices pertaining to the year 2018 onwards.
Plaintiff filed the present suit in June 2024 i.e. after a period of six years. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 3.3 As per defendant, the parties are known to each other for last more than twenty five years and they are engaged in the business of paper and paper boards. He submits that in 2018, plaintiff approached him and communicated that he is facing sever losses in his business and his business sales are drastically going down. Plaintiff intended to take financial assistance from various banks and financial institutions and for the same, he required help and assistance of defendant. 3.4 Plaintiff also requested defendant to start business dealings with him and accordingly, he started purchasing goods from plaintiff to help him. Plaintiff raised invoices against defendant, who made payment in terms of invoices. 3.5 Defendant contends that besides actual dealings, plaintiff also raised various extra invoices in his favour, without actual trading of goods to show his (plaintiff) business on a higher side. As per defendant, plaintiff communicated him that in order to further increase sales of his business and to show trading on the Digitally signed by higher side, he would generate bills in his (defendant's) firm's Raj Raj Kumar Tripathi Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.24 14:15:13 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.524/2024 (Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 4 of 22 name i.e. Global Enterprises without actual trading of goods which would help him (plaintiff) to show his sales on a higher side and would enable him to take loans and financial assistance from the banks i.e. HDFC bank, Tata Capital, ICICI Bank, Standard Chartered bank etc. amounting Rs.40,00,000/-, which plaintiff was unable to repay.
3.6 It is submitted that the parties were in business dealings with each other till October, 2020 and thereafter, defendant had closed down his business and had made the entire payment to plaintiff till 2021 regarding the purchases made by him and nothing is due and payable by him towards plaintiff. 3.7 Defendant avers that he returned the benefits on the bills issued by plaintiff to him by depositing the cash in plaintiff's bank account and by handing over cash to him on his specific demand. He alleged that plaintiff filed the present false and frivolous suit on the basis of fabricated bills generated by him.
Denying all the other averments and allegations of the plaint, defendant prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary cost. Issues 4.1 From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 07.01.2026:-
(i) Whether the suit filed by plaintiff is barred by law of limitation as alleged in para no.9 of the preliminary objections of the written statement?OPD.
(ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,01,97,217/- as prayed for? OPP.
(iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
Raj Kumar (iv) Relief. Tripathi Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2026.02.24 14:15:19 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.524/2024
(Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 5 of 22 Evidence of parties
5.1 In support of his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW1. He filed his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.PW1/A, wherein he has reiterated and reaffirmed the same facts as stated in the plaint.
5.2 Before coming to the testimony of PW1, the documents relied upon by him are put in a tabulated form as under:-
S.No. Details of Document Exhibit Mark
1. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex.PW1/1
2. GST details of his firm Ex.PW1/2
3. Copy of GST details of defendant firm Ex.PW1/3 4. Copy of invoices Ex.PW1/4 (colly) 5. E-way bills Ex.PW1/5 (colly.)
6. Copy of proof of delivery Ex.PW1/6 (colly.)
7. Copy of ledger account Ex.PW1/7
8. Certificate u/s 65B of The Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW1/8
9. Original legal notice dated 26.03.2024 Ex.PW1/9
10. Original postal receipts and tracking report Ex.PW1/10
11. Copy of legal notice sent via whatsapp dated Ex.PW1/11 30.03.2024 6.1 On the other hand, in his defence, defendant examined himself as DW1. He filed his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.DW1/A, wherein, he has deposed on the lines of defence taken in the written statement. Findings and Observations:
Digitally signed by
7.1 I have heard and considered the rival submissions of Raj Raj Kumar Tripathi Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.24 14:15:26 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.524/2024 (Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 6 of 22 both the parties and perused the material on record.
Issue wise findings are as under:-
Issue no.(i) Whether the suit filed by plaintiff is barred by law of limitation as alleged in para no.9 of the preliminary objections of the written statement?OPD.
8.1 Onus to prove this issue lies on defendant. 8.2 In para no.9 of the written statement, defendant contended that plaintiff's suit is hopelessly barred by law of limitation as he is claiming the amount for the invoices pertaining to the year 2018 onwards. Plaintiff has filed the present suit in June, 2024 i.e. after a period of six years. Therefore, the suit of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
8.3 Per contra, learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that defendant has admitted the terms and conditions of invoice and subsequently made payment to plaintiff as per the invoices raised again him. He submitted that the total liability of defendant comes to Rs.1,01,97,217/- which he failed to pay despite issuance and service of legal notice. He further submitted that the defendant lastly made payment of Rs.30,000/- on 31.12.2023, thereby admitting the subsisting business relationship with plaintiff. He submitted that plaintiff has filed the present suit within three years from the date of last payment made by defendant and thus, the suit is well within limitation. 8.4 PW1 has proved the ledger account of defendant as Ex.PW1/7. The said ledger is showing debit and credit entries in Raj Kumar Tripathi respect of transactions between the parties. Defendant has failed Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2026.02.24 to point out any discrepancy in respect of debit and credit entries 14:15:32 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.524/2024 (Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 7 of 22 in the ledger account maintained by plaintiff. The said ledger reflects that defendant lastly made payment of Rs.30,000/- to plaintiff on 31.12.2023. Plaintiff filed the present suit on 27.06.2024 i.e. within three years from the date of last payment made by defendant. Thus, the suit filed by plaintiff is found to be well within limitation.
8.5 In view of above, in the opinion of this Court, defendant has failed to discharge the onus to prove the issue. According, issue no.(i) is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no.(ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,01,97,217/- as prayed for?OPP.
9.1 Onus to prove this issue lies on plaintiff. 9.2 In order to discharge the onus to prove the issue, plaintiff Mr. Surinder Mohan Jindal examined himself as PW1. He filed his evidence by way affidavit, Ex.PW1/A, wherein, he has deposed and corroborated about the facts as mentioned in the plaint. He proved the documents, Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/11 as mentioned in para no.5.2 of the judgment. 9.3 PW1, in his affidavit of evidence, has deposed that defendant approached him for purchase of products and he supplied/delivered the desired products against invoices (Ex.PW1/4-colly.). He further deposed that defendant made part payments against the invoices. He proved the ledger account as Ex.PW1/7 showing the payments made by defendant from time to time. As per, Ex.PW1/7, an amount of Rs.94,86,217/- remained Digitally signed by outstanding and payable by defendant. Plaintiff served a legal Raj Raj Kumar Tripathi Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.24 14:15:38 CS (COMM.) No.524/2024 +0530 (Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 8 of 22 notice (Ex.PW1/9) to defendant via whatsapp (Ex.PW1/11), who despite service of the same, failed to pay the outstanding amount. The invoices, Ex.PW1/4 (colly.), e-way bills, Ex.PW1/5 (colly.), proof of delivery Ex.PW1/6 (colly.) and copy of ledger account, Ex.PW1/7 have been supported by a Certificate u/s 65 B of The Indian Evidence Act,1872 Ex.PW1/8. 9.4 To prove his case, plaintiff also got examined a witness namely Mr. Mohit from GST Department, Vyapar Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi as PW2. PW2 was authorized vide Authority Letter, Ex.PW2/1 to produce the summoned record to the Court. He brought the documents i.e. GSTR-2A (Ex.PW2/3-
colly.) and GSTR-3B (Ex.PW2/4-colly.). He also produced letter no.DT&T/GSTO/W-104/2023-24/03 dated 28.01.2026 (Ex.PW2/5) and Certificate u/s 63 of The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Ex.PW2/2) in support of documents Ex.PW2/3 (colly.) and Ex.PW2/4 (colly.).
9.5 On the other hand, to prove his defence, defendant himself entered into the witness box and examined himself as DW1. He filed his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.DW1/A, wherein, he has deposed on the lines of defence taken in the written statement.
9.6 It is well settled that in a civil case, the evidence is weighed on the scale of "preponderance of probabilities". 9.7 In the case in hand, as far as delivery of goods/acknowledgment is concerned, PW1 has brought on record, proof of delivery as Ex.PW1/6 (colly.) along with e-way bills, Ex.PW1/5 (colly.). The vehicle numbers through which the goods Raj Kumar were transported are mentioned in tax invoices, Ex.PW1/4 (colly.) Tripathi Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2026.02.24 14:15:44 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.524/2024 (Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 9 of 22 and e-way bills, Ex.PW1/5 (colly.). The proof of delivery clearly shows that goods were received by defendant. The defendant, in the affidavit of admission/denial dated 06.01.2026 qua plaintiff's documents, has admitted receipt of invoices and e-way bills. Thus, plaintiff has brought on record sufficient proof by way of exhibiting the documents, Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/11 qua business transactions and the outstanding amount. 9.8 Learned counsel for defendant submitted that plaintiff has filed 491 invoices with the present suit. However, in support of said invoices, he has filed only 21 e-way bills and 24 delivery notes (out of which only 17 bears the signature of defendant) which clearly demonstrate that all other invoices without the e-way bills and delivery notes are entry bills (extra invoices/sham transactions) and were only generated by plaintiff to show his sales on the higher side without there being any actual delivery of goods from plaintiff to defendant. 9.9 He further submitted that since plaintiff has failed to file the corresponding e-way bills and delivery notes regarding the alleged invoices, therefore, he has failed to prove that the goods were in fact actually delivered by him to defendant and an adverse inference should be drawn against plaintiff. Relying upon the judgments titled as Mohinder Kumar Gandhi v. Praveen Kumar RFA (COMM) 489/2025 dated 08.10.2025 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi; M/s Anant Raj Industries v. M/s DLF Construction & Engineering 2011 SCC OnLine Del 854 and J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Dynamic Cement Traders 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4817, counsel for defendant submitted that as Digitally signed by plaintiff has failed to prove the delivery of goods regarding each Raj Raj Kumar Tripathi Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.24 14:16:05 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.524/2024 (Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 10 of 22 and every invoice, he is not entitled for recovery of the amount as prayed in the plaint.
9.10 Per contra, learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that pursuant to purchase orders placed by defendant, plaintiff supplied goods to him and raised invoices Ex.PW1/4 (colly.).
The defendant has admitted the invoices, e-way bills, Ex.PW1/5 (colly.) and delivery notes, Ex.PW1/6 (colly.). Plaintiff maintained a running ledger account with defendant, Ex.PW1/7 (colly.) showing an outstanding amount of Rs.94,86,217/- and after adding interest @ 30% per annum as per terms and conditions of invoices, the total liability of defendant comes to Rs.1,01,97,217/-. Defendant made last payment of Rs.30,000/- to plaintiff on 31.12.2023, thereby admitting the subsisting business relationship.
9.11 He further submitted that in order to prove the delivery of goods, plaintiff has examined PW2 Mr. Mohit, a witness from GST Department, who has proved the documents i.e. GSTR-2A, Ex.PW2/3 (colly.) and GSTR-3B, Ex.PW2/4 (colly.). He submitted that defendant has taken the GST input as reflected in GSTR-3B which clearly substantiates the delivery of goods to defendant. He argued that if the invoices are forged and fabricated as alleged, then how they are reflecting in 2A because as per GST Act, only those invoices which are received and goods are delivered can only be reflected in 2A. In support of his submissions, counsel for plaintiff placed reliance on judgment Haryana Medical Hall & Others v. Roshan Lal Aggarwal & Sons Pvt. Ltd. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8105.
Raj 9.12 He also invited attention of this Court to the Kumar Tripathi Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi CS (COMM.) No.524/2024 Date: 2026.02.24 14:16:10 +0530 (Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 11 of 22
provisions contained in section 16 (2) (b) of The Central Goods And Services Act, 2017 (in short "CGSA, 2017), Sub-Rules 11 and 12 of Rule 138 of The Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. He also placed reliance upon Sun Flag Iron & Steel Co. v. State of U.P. & Others MANU/UP/3652/2023. Referring to the above, learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that the goods were actually delivered to defendant and delivery of same stands proved on the strength of documents proved by plaintiff and the GST witness summoned by him. He prayed to decree the suit accordingly.
9.13 For ease of convenience, the relevant provisions contained u/s 138 of The Central Goods Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
"138. Information to be furnished prior to commencement of movement of goods and generation of e-way bill.
11) The details of the e-way bill generated under this rule shall be made available to the-
(a) supplier, if registered, where the information in Part A of FORM GST EWB-01 has been furnished by the recipient or the transporter; or
(b) recipient, if registered, where the information in Part A of FORM GST EWB-01 has been furnished by the supplier or the transporter, on the common portal, and the supplier or the recipient, as the case may be, shall communicate his acceptance or rejection of the consignment covered by the e-way bill (12) Where the person to whom the information specified in sub-rule (11) has been made available does not communicate his acceptance or rejection within seventy two hours of the details being made available to him on the common portal, it shall be deemed that he has accepted the said details."
(emphasis added) 9.14 A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions shows that Digitally signed by Raj Raj Kumar Tripathi Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.24 14:16:17 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.524/2024 (Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 12 of 22 Rule 138 (12) of CGST Rules, 2017 creates a statutory presumption that if the buyer does not reject the e-way bill within 72 hours on the GST portal, acceptance of goods is deemed. 9.15 In Sanjana Aggarwal v. Namashivai Apparel Pvt. Ltd. 2024:DHC:9987, it was held as under:-
"38. Rule 138 of CGST Rules provide for the rules for generation of "e-way bills". Sub-Rule (11) and (12) of Rule 138 of the CGST Rules provide that the details of "e-way bills" generated under Rule 138 of the CGST Rules shall be available on the common portal and the supplier or the recipient, as the case may be, shall communicate his acceptance or rejection of the assessment of the goods covered in the "e-way bills". Sub-Rule (12) of Rule 138 of the CGST Rules provides that if a rejection is not made available within 72 hours on the common portal or at the time of delivery, it shall be deemed that the recipient has accepted the goods."
9.16 Further, in the case of M/s Sun Flag Iron And Steel Company Ltd. (supra.), Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held as under:-
"12. The purpose of e-way bill is that the department should know the movement of goods. Once the e- way bill has been generated and same has not been canceled by the petitioner within the time prescribed under the Act, the movement of goods as well as genuineness of transaction in question cannot be disputed. The goods in question could not reach to its destination due to the breakdown of vehicle as stated above and after repair, the vehicle was ready for its onward journey but the same was intercepted in the intervening night of 2/3.6.2023. Since the authorities below have not recorded a finding that there was any intention of the petitioner to evade the payment of tax, the penalty is not justified".
9.17 In the case in hand, admittedly, defendant has never rejected or objected to the e-way bills. The e-way bills filed by Digitally Raj signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi plaintiff along with plaint have been admitted by defendant in his Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.24 14:16:24 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.524/2024 (Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 13 of 22 affidavit of admission/denial dated 06.01.2026. Thus, proof of delivery qua the goods supplied to defendant through e-way bills stands proved on record.
9.18 As far as delivery of goods qua other invoices are concerned, defendant has taken input tax credit as reflected in GSTR-3B (Ex.PW2/4-colly.) in respect of the invoices raised by plaintiff as reflected in GSTR-2A (Ex.PW2/3-colly.) which substantiates the delivery of goods to defendant. Chapter-V of CGSA, 2017 deals with input tax credit. For ease of reference, the provisions contained in section 16 of CGSA, 2017 are extracted herein below:-
"16. Eligibility and conditions for taking input tax credit. (1) Every registered person shall, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed and in the manner specified in section 49, be entitled to take credit of input tax charged on any supply of goods or services or both to him which are used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of his business and the said amount shall be credited to the electronic credit ledger of such person.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no registered person shall be entitled to the credit of any input tax in respect of any supply of goods or services or both to him unless-
(a) he is in possession of a tax invoice or debit note issued by a supplier registered under this Act or such other tax paying documents as may be prescribed; (aa) the details of the invoice or debit note referred to in clause (a) has been furnished by the supplier in the statement of outward supplies and such details have been communicated to the recipient of such invoice or debit note in the manner specified under section 37;]
(b) he has received the goods or services or both."
9.19 From the aforesaid and as the defendant has admittedly availed input tax credit in respect of the invoices Digitally signed by Tripathi CS (COMM.) No.524/2024 Raj Raj Kumar Kumar Date:
(Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Tripathi 2026.02.24 Page No. 14 of 22 14:16:31 +0530 raised by plaintiff, he is deemed to have received the goods. In Haryana Medical Hall and Others (supra), Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under:-
"The respondent had also produced GSTR returns, which were referred to by the learned Commercial Court. The contention that the said returns had no evidentiary value is erroneous. The said returns clearly indicated that the respondent had paid Central tax as well as State/UT tax and the benefit of such input tax credit of the said amount would be available to the appellants."
9.20 The defence of defendant that the entry bills were raised by plaintiff and there was no actual delivery of goods stands falsified by the documents Ex.PW2/3 (colly.) and Ex.PW2/4 (colly.) produced by PW2 Mr. Mohit. 9.21 It is pertinent to note that post GST cancellation of defendant, plaintiff raised the following four invoices:-
S.No. Page No. Invoice No. Date Amount (Rs.) 485 530 962 01.09.2020 53,077/-
489 531 964 07.10.2020 85,138/-
490 532 965 14.10.2020 90,180/-
491 533 966 29.10.2020 29,019/-
Total 2,57,414/-
9.22 Plaintiff has neither filed the delivery challans
acknowledged by defendant nor filed the e-way bills in respect of the aforesaid four invoices. Thus, he failed to prove the delivery of goods qua the aforesaid invoices. Accordingly, plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,57,414/- against invoice no.962,964, 965 and 966.
9.23 PW1 has proved the invoices raised upon defendant Digitally Raj signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi as Ex.PW1/4 (colly.) and ledger account as Ex.PW1/7. These Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.24 14:16:37 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.524/2024 (Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 15 of 22 documents are supported with requisite Certificate u/s 65B of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ex.PW1/8. 9.24 Section 28 of The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 relates to entries in books of account. It provides that the entries in the books of account, including those maintained in an electronic form, regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to enquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. 9.25 In the case of Dharam Chand Joshi v. Satya Narayan Bazaz AIR 1993 Gau 35, it was held that books of account being only corroborative evidence must be supported by some evidence. 9.26 Further, in the case of Jay Ambe Industries, proprietor Shri Dineshkumar Bajranglal Somani v. Garnet Speciality Paper Ltd. AIR 2022 Guj 90, it was held that without corroboration, entries in the ledger cannot be brought within the purview of section 34 of The Evidence Act. 9.27 In the case in hand, the ledger account, Ex.PW1/7 is supported with the invoices, Ex.PW1/4 (colly.) raised by plaintiff upon defendant towards supply of goods/products. All the payments made by defendant are duly reflected in the ledger account, Ex.PW1/7. Defendant, in his cross-examination, admitted that all the invoices of the plaintiff have been duly received by him. In reply to question no.11, defendant stated that he used to make part payment to plaintiff. Defendant has not filed any documentary proof on record i.e. ledger account, payment receipts, bank statement etc. to prove that he has made Digitally signed by Raj Raj Kumar Tripathi Kumar Date:
payment of the outstanding amount to plaintiff. He has further Tripathi 2026.02.24 14:16:43 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.524/2024 (Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 16 of 22 failed to point out any discrepancy in the ledger account, Ex.PW1/7 maintained by plaintiff in the regular course of business. Thus, there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the ledger account produced by plaintiff. 9.28 As per ledger account, Ex.PW1/7, an amount of Rs.94,86,217/- remained due and payable by defendant to plaintiff as on 31.12.2023. In para no.9.22, this Court has held that plaintiff is not entitled to recover an amount of Rs.2,57,414/-
from defendant since he has failed to prove the delivery of goods qua the said amount. Thus, plaintiff is held entitled to recover an amount of Rs.92,28,803/-.
9.29 Defendant claims to have made entire payment to plaintiff regarding the purchases made by him from plaintiff. As per defendant, there was nothing due and payable by him to plaintiff. The entire defence of defendant is based on the bald assertions made in the written statement. He has not filed any documentary proof or led any reliable evidence to substantiate the defence taken in the written statement. Thus, defendant has miserably failed to prove on record the defence as taken in the written statement. He has further failed to prove on record that the payment of the outstanding amount has been made to plaintiff. 9.30 The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for defendant are not found applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In Mohinder Kumar Gandhi's case (supra), independent witness from GST department was not examined to prove the delivery of goods upon defendant. However, in the Raj Kumar Tripathi present case, plaintiff has summoned PW2 Mr. Mohit from GST Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi department, who has proved GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B showing Date: 2026.02.24 14:16:50 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.524/2024 (Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 17 of 22 delivery of goods upon defendant.
9.31 In J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra), it was held that mere entry in the statement of account does not fasten any liability and the entries in the statement of account have to be proved by means of documents/vouchers of transactions. In the present case, the entries of the ledger account, Ex.PW1/7 have been corroborated with invoices Ex.PW1/4 (colly.). Thus, the entries made in the ledger account supported with invoices are relevant and admissible in the present facts and circumstances of the case in terms of section 28 of The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. 9.32 In Anant Raj Industries (supra), Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that simply by filing statement of account, a suit cannot be decreed for recovery of money unless the entries are proved which show the sale of goods. In that case, there was specific written proof from defendant disputing the three bills. There was no other document apart from the statement of account and invoices to prove the delivery of goods. However, in the present case, apart from e-way bills, the documents i.e. GSTR-2A, Ex.PW2/3 (colly.) and GSTR-3B, Ex.PW2/4 (colly.) have been proved by plaintiff to prove the delivery of goods upon defendant.
9.33 In view of above, plaintiff has succeeded to discharge the onus to prove the issue. Plaintiff is held entitled to recover an amount of Rs.92,28,803/- from defendant. Issue no.
(ii) is decided accordingly in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no.(iii) Digitally Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, at what rate and for signed by Raj Raj Kumar Tripathi Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.24 14:16:56 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.524/2024 (Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 18 of 22 which period? OPP.
10.1 Onus to prove this issue lies on plaintiff. 10.2 Plaintiff has claimed pendente lite and future interest @ 30% per annum. Plaintiff has relied upon the terms and conditions mentioned in tax invoices, Ex.PW1/4 (colly.) 10.3 Plaintiff has proved that there is an outstanding amount of Rs.92,28,803/- against defendant towards the invoices raised by him which he has failed to pay.
10.4 The business relationship between the parties is not disputed. Defendant, in his cross-examination, has admitted that he received all the invoices raised by plaintiff. Plaintiff has submitted that according to the terms of the invoices, defendant is liable to pay interest @ 30% per annum.
10.5 Plaintiff demanded the due amount from defendant by sending legal notice, Ex.PW1/9 through speed post as well as through whatsapp, Ex.PW1/11. However, the defendant failed to pay due amount despite due service of legal notice. Therefore, in terms of section 3 of The Interest Act, 1978, defendant is liable to pay the contractual interest, if the same is not unreasonable. 10.6 For ease of convenience, section 34 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which deals with interest is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
"34. Interest.- (1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any Raj Kumar period prior to the institution of the suit, with Tripathi further interest at such rate not exceeding six Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi per cent, per annum, as the Court deems Date: 2026.02.24 14:17:03 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.524/2024 (Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 19 of 22 reasonable on such principal sum, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit.
Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent, per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalized banks in relation to commercial transactions......".
10.7 The concept of awarding interest on delayed payment has been explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Authorized Officer, Karnataka Bank v. M/s RMS Granites Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.12294/2024, wherein, it was held as under:-
"It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say ten years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest on the principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B ten years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period. Hence equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B. [See: Alok Shanker Pandey v. Union of India: AIR 2007 SC 1198.]"
10.8 Further, in the case of Secretary, Irrigation Department Government of Orissa v. G.C. Roy (1992) 1 SCC 508, the constitution bench of Hon'ble Apex Court opined that a person deprived of use of money to which he is legitimately Raj Kumar Tripathi entitled has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2026.02.24 14:17:10 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.524/2024 (Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 20 of 22 by any name. It may be called interest, compensation or damages. This is also the principle of section 34 of The Civil Procedure Code.
10.9 In the case of M/s Tomorrowland Ltd. v. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. & Another SLP(C) No. 34338/2016 decided on 13.02.2025, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"49. It is trite law that under Section 34 of the CPC, the award of interest is a discretionary exercise steeped in equitable considerations. The law in this regard has been succinctly discussed in the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra & Ors.; (2002) 1 SCC 367, which states:
"Award of interest pendente lite or post-decree is discretionary with the Court as it is essentially governed by Section 34 of the CPC de hors the contract between the parties. In a given case if the Court finds that in the principal sum adjudged on the date of the suit, the component of interest is disproportionate with the component of the principal sum actually advanced, the Court may exercise its discretion in awarding interest pendente lite and post- decree interest at a lower rate or may even decline to award such interest. The discretion shall be exercised fairly, judiciously, and for not arbitrary or fanciful reasons.
Emphasis supplied"
10.10 In the case in hand, plaintiff has claimed pre-suit, pendente lite and future interest @ 30% per annum. The rate of interest claimed by plaintiff appears to be exorbitant and excessive. Thus, applying ratio of law laid down in the aforementioned cases with respect to grant of interest to the facts of the present case and as the transaction between the parties is commercial in nature, this Court is of the considered view that Digitally signed by Raj Raj Kumar Tripathi Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.24 14:17:16 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.524/2024 (Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 21 of 22 interest of justice shall be subserved, if plaintiff is granted interest @ 8% per annum on the delayed payment. 10.11 The issue no.(iii) is decided accordingly in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. Relief 11.1 For the forgoing reasons and discussions and findings returned on issue no.(i) to (iii), the suit of plaintiff is decreed with cost. Defendant is directed to pay an amount of Rs.92,28,803/- to plaintiff along with interest @ 8% per annum w.e.f. 01.01.2024 (last payment made by defendant on 31.12.2023) till the date of filing of the suit and from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 27.06.2024 till the date of actual payment. He is further directed to pay legal fees of Rs.11,000/- to plaintiff. 12.1 Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. 13.1 File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed by Dated: 24.02.2026 Raj Kumar Raj Kumar Tripathi Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.24 14:17:22 +0530 (RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI) District Judge (Commercial Court)-05, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS (COMM.) No.524/2024 (Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 22 of 22