Delhi District Court
Vatsal Mittal vs Sunil Kumar Gupta And Anr on 20 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. REETESH SINGH, DISTRICT
JUDGE
COMMERCIAL COURT-04, SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm.) No. 276/2020
CNR No. DL SH01-000725-2020
In the matter of :-
Sh. Vatsal Mittal
Proprietor of M/s R.R. Cotfab
NR Cross River Mall,
Delhi-110092
......Plaintiff
(Through Sh. Vinay Kumar, Ld. Counsel)
VERSUS
Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta
Proprietor of M/s BI-AR Textiles
IX/134, Gali No.6
Saraswati Bhandar,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031
........... Defendant
(Through Sh. Daljeet Dhiman, Ld. Counsel)
Date of institution of the case : 20.02.2020
Date of final arguments : 12.12.2023
Date of Order : 20.12.2023
1. This suit has been filed by Sh. Vatsal Mittal, a Proprietor of M/s
R.R. Cotfab against Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta, Proprietor of M/s BI-AR
Textiles praying for a decree for recovery of Rs. 6,40,801/-(Rupees Six
CS (Comm.) No. 276/20 Page No. 1 /16
Lakh Forty Thousand Eight Hundred One Only) along with interest
pendent lite and future @ 12% p.a. and costs of the suit.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF
2. The plaintiff has averred that he is a wholesale supplier of all kinds
of fabrics. The defendant placed two orders for purchasing fabrics on
credit with assurance of payment against while the plaintiff raised two
invoices dated 09.01.2019 for Rs.4,28,773/- and dated 11.01.2019 for
Rs.4,12,028/-, (total coming to Rs.8,40,801/-). It is averred that the
defendant signed on both the invoices as token of having taken delivery
of fabrics. On 06.02.2019 defendant made part payment of Rs.1,50,000/-
through cheque and another payment of Rs.50,000/- on 19.08.2019
through cheque. It is averred that as per the ledger statement, an amount
of Rs.6,40,801/- was outstanding against the defendant.
3. The plaintiff has further averrred that he requested the defendant
several times to make payment of the outstanding amount but the
defendant did not do so. The plaintiff sent a legal demand notice dated
14.11.2019 to the defendant which he deliberately did not receive. It is
averred that the defendant is liable to make payment of Rs.6,40,801/- to
the plaintiff along with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 15.11.2019. Plaintiff
made an application on 20.12.2019 under Section 12 A of the
Commercial Courts Act 2015 for pre-institution mediation before the
Shahdara DLSA where the defendant did not appear due to which it was
closed as Non-Starter on 23.01.2020. Thereafter the plaintiff filed the
present suit.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
4. In his written statement, the defendant has raised preliminary
objections to the effect that the suit has not been framed as per guidelines
of the Hon'ble High Court; that the plaintiff had suppressed the correct
facts from the court; that the alleged transactions are fictitious and bogus.
CS (Comm.) No. 276/20 Page No. 2 /16
It is averred that the defendant had never placed orders vide invoice
dated 09.01.2019 and 11.01.2019. It is averred that the signature of the
defendant as proof of delivery on the said invoices was obtained by the
plaintiff forcibly and with false representation. It is averred that last
invoice raised by the plaintiff was number 1988 dated 18.09.2018 after
which accounts were tallied between the parties. The final outstanding
qua the defendant was Rs.3,05,432/- against which defendant paid
Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- the plaintiff by cheque. Defendant has
averred that the remaining amount against "Kacha Bills/Challans" was
paid by the defendant in cash to the plaintiff. It is averred that after the
said payments, the plaintiff approached the defendant with the bogus
invoices and forced the defendant to sign on the same on the pretext that
he wanted to show some transactions in the account and assured the
defendant that he should not worry about the same since accounts
between them had already been settled.
5. In his preliminary objections the defendant has further averred that
the parties were dealing with each other in the year 2018 only and
whatever material was received was on "Kacha Bills/Challans". It is
averred that the plaintiff used to supply sub-standard material and same
was returned to him but the plaintiff with malafide intentions has raised
invoices against the defendant. It is averred that the plaintiff has not filed
those "Kacha Bills/Challans" only to make illegal gains from the
defendant. Defendant has further averred that the plaintiff is aware that
disputes/cases are pending between the defendant and his daughter-in-
law and the plaintiff is taking benefit of the situation and has filed the
present bogus suit.
6. In the para wise reply to the plaint, the defendant has taken the
same stand as averred by him in his preliminary objections.
CS (Comm.) No. 276/20 Page No. 3 /16
REPLICATION AND ISSUES FRAMED
7. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the
defendant in which he reiterated his averments made in the plaint and
denied the averments of the defendant to the contrary in the written
statement.
8. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed
by order dated 31.01.2023:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed
in the pliant i.e. a decree for recovery of a sum of
Rs.6,40,801/- along with pendent lite and future interest
@ 12% per annum till the entire amount is received by
the plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant? OPP
2. Relief."
EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF
9. The plaintiff led evidence and examined himself as PW-1. He
deposed by way of his affidavit Ex.PW-1/1. He relied upon the
following documents:-
(a) Print out of Search Result based on GSTIN?UIN
No.07ANMPM5912G1ZV of plaintiff, vide Ex.PW-1/1
(b) Print out of Search Result based on GSTIN/UIN
No.07AASPK0632J1ZK of defendant vide Ex.PW-1/2.
(c) Tax and Invoices No. RRC/02023/18-19 and
RRC/0204/18-19 vide Ex.PW-1/3.
(d) Certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 of Sh. Vatsal Mittal vide Ex.PW-1/5.
(e) Ledger account statement of plaintiff's proprietorship
firm, Ex.PW-/4.
(f) Legal demand notice dated 14.11.2019 and its postal
receipt dated 15.11.2019 and tracking report, Ex.PW-
CS (Comm.) No. 276/20 Page No. 4 /16
1/6, Ex.PW-1/7, Ex.PW-1/8, Ex.PW-1/9 and Ex.PW-
1/10.
10. The plaintiff PW-1 was cross-examined by Sh. Daljeet Dhiman,
Ld. Counsel for the defendant. After examining himself as PW-1, the
plaintiff closed his evidence on 14.11.2022.
11. Matter was thereafter fixed for defence evidence. However, the
defendant on 01.12.2023 filed the following four applications-
(i) application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to permit
the defendant to take expert opinion of handwriting and finger
print expert;
(ii) application under Section 151 of the CPC for condonation
of delay in filing list of witnesses;
(iii) application under Order XI Rule 10 of the CPC for
bringing on record audio conversation in pen drive with
transcription;
(iv) application for recalling PW-1 for cross-examination for
the tape recorded conversation.
12. By order dated 20.02.2023 the Ld. Predecessor of this Court
allowed the applications at serial Nos. (i) and (ii) but rejected the
applications at serial Nos. (iii) and (iv). Against the rejection of the said
two applications, the defendant filed CM(M) 447/2023 titled Sunil
Kumar Gupta Vs. Vatsal Mittal before the Hon'ble High Court. The said
matter was listed before the Hon'ble High Court on 20.03.2023,
23.03.2023, 01.05.2023, 09.05.2023, 10.05.2023, 12.07.2023, 04.08.2023
and 09.10.2023.
13. On 04.08.2023, the defendant (petitioner before the Hon'ble High
Court) sought an adjournment which was opposed by the plaintiff
(respondent before the Hon'ble High Court) on the ground that the
defendant was not tendering his evidence and was stalling proceedings before the Trial Court i.e. this court. The Hon'ble High Court on CS (Comm.) No. 276/20 Page No. 5 /16 04.08.2023 granted an adjournment to the defendant and adjourned the matter to 29.01.2024 but was pleased to pass the following direction:-
"3. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the Petitioner is directed to ensure that he proceeds with the trial and recording of his evidence before the Trial Court, on the next date of hearing, failing which, it is hereby directed that the rights of the defendant to lead evidence shall stand closed."
14. The suit was listed before this court on 15.09.2023 for defence evidence. The defendant did not comply with the direction dated 04.08.2023 of the Hon'ble High Court and failed to lead evidence in defence. This court, in compliance of order dated 04.08.2023 of the Hon'ble High Court, closed the right of the defendant to lead evidence and posted the matter for final arguments on 03.10.2023.
15. On 03.10.2023, the defendant in person Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta informed this court that his right to lead defence evidence had been closed in pursuance of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court but his petition before the Hon'ble High Court was still pending and if this court decided the suit, his petition before the Hon'ble High Court would be rendered infructuous. He stated that he would seek a clarification in this regard from the Hon'ble High Court. This court vide order dated 03.10.2023 granted time to the defendant to seek appropriate clarification from the Hon'ble High Court and posted the matter for 09.11.2023.
16. On 09.11.2023, the parties informed this court that the defendant had filed CM Application No. 52163 of 2023 in CM(M) 447/2023 titled Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs. Vatsal Mittal before the Hon'ble High Court which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court by order dated 09.10.2023. The parties placed on record copy of CM Application No. 52163 of 2023 filed by the defendant. The defendant in his application had averred that on 15.09.2023 this Court had closed his right to lead CS (Comm.) No. 276/20 Page No. 6 /16 evidence and had fixed the suit for final arguments on 03.10.2023. Copy of the order dated 15.09.2023 of this Court was annexed to the said application by the defendant. In para 4 of his application the defendant had made the following averments:-
"4. That it is expedient, if this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased that the Stay Application of the petitioner filed with the present petition may kindly be heard and the stay on hearing the final arguments and passing the judgment, may kindly be granted otherwise purpose of this Petition shall be frustrated and the present petition shall become infructuous which may cause great injury to the petitioner."
17. Further, in the prayer of the said application, the defendant sought the following relief:-
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hear the petition and the stay application of the petitioner at the early stage and stay on hearing the final arguments and passing the judgment by the Ld. Trial Court may kindly be passed, in the interest of justice."
18. The Hon'ble High Court however was pleased to dismiss the said application of the defendant by order dated 09.10.2023. In para 3 of the said order, the Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to observe as under:-
"3. This Court finds no reason to advance the date of hearing or grant a stay of the proceedings before the Trial Court."
19. In view of the fact that the Hon'ble High Court declined grant of stay of proceedings before this court, this court by order dated 09.11.2023 posted the matter for final arguments.
CS (Comm.) No. 276/20 Page No. 7 /16ARGUMENTS OF THE PLAINTIFF
20. Arguments were addressed on behalf of the plaintiff by Sh. Vinay Kumar, Ld. Counsel who submitted that the suit of the plaintiff was based on the two invoices dated 09.01.2019 and 11.01.2019 Ex.PW-1/3 (Colly). He submitted that the defendant has admitted his signatures on both the invoices. He submitted that the total value of goods supplied against the said two invoices is Rs.8,40,801/- against which the defendant has made payment of Rs.2,00,000/- leaving a balance of Rs.6,40,801/- recovery of which has been sought by the plaintiff. He submitted that defendant had taken a false stand in the written statement that his signatures on the said invoices were obtained by the plaintiff forcibly and with false representation. He submitted that the defendant falsely claimed business transactions on the basis of "Kacha Bills/Challans" . He submitted that even otherwise the defendant did not lead any evidence in defence. He submitted that the plaintiff was entitled to the decree as prayed for.
ARGUMENTS OF DEFENDANT
21. Sh. Daljeet Dhiman, Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that the plaintiff PW-1 during his cross-examination has deposed that no purchase order was given by the defendant. PW-1 has admitted that the legal notice was not served on the defendant and that the same was addressed to a premises which the defendant had left long back. He submitted that the addresses in the invoices Ex.PW-1/3 (Colly) were old addresses. He submitted that plaintiff has not placed on record any e-way bills regarding transport and delivery of the goods allegedly sold vide the said invoices.
22. Sh. Daljeet Dhiman, Ld. Counsel for the defendant further submitted that defendant had filed on record a copy of delivery challan mentioning invoice No. 1988 of the firm of the plaintiff M/s R.R. Cotfab CS (Comm.) No. 276/20 Page No. 8 /16 vide Ex.PW-1/D1 in which calculations were made in hand regarding supplies and the same being settled for Rs.3,05,912/-. He submitted that during cross-examination of PW-1 the original of the said document was also placed on record vide Ex.PW-1/D2. He submitted that these documents were settlement of account between the parties after which the defendant paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff (Rs.1,50,000/- on 06.02.2019 plus Rs.50,000/- on 19.08.2019) and paid the balance of Rs.1,05,912/- in cash to the plaintiff. He submitted that there was no other transaction between the parties. He submitted that the plaintiff had obtained the signatures of the defendant on the invoices Ex.PW- 1/3(Colly) under the false pretext of using the same for some accounting transactions. He submitted that PW-1 during his cross- examination has deposed that he did not know how 3,141.20 metres of cloth was delivered to the defendant. He submitted that such a large quantity of cloth would have required some degree of transportation. He submitted that in the absence of any poof of transportation of such a large quantity of cloth, it was clear that the material mentioned in the said invoices were never delivered to the defendant. He submitted that the defendant did not owe any money to the plaintiff. Sh. Daljeet Dhiman, Ld. Counsel for the defendant relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Abdul Wahid Vs. Nilofer & Anr in Civil Appeal No. 14445 of 2021 decided on 14.12.2023.
FINDINGS
23. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and have perused the record of this case. My findings issue wise are as under:-
CS (Comm.) No. 276/20 Page No. 9 /16ISSUE NO.1:-
24. The suit of the plaintiff is based on the two invoices dated 09.01.2019 for Rs.4,28,773/- and dated 11.01.2019 for Rs.4,12.028/- Ex.PW-1/3 (Colly). The total value of both the invoices is Rs.8,40,801/-. Admittedly, the defendant has paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the plaintiff on 06.02.2019 and Rs.50,000/- on 19.08.2019 i.e. Rs.2,00,000/-. As per the plaintiff the said payments were towards part discharge of the principal amount of Rs.8,40,801/- leaving a balance of Rs.6,40,801/-. However as per the defendant, he made the said payments while finally settling accounts with the plaintiff.
25. As far as the signatures of the defendant on the two invoices Ex.PW-1/3 (Colly) are concerned, there is no dispute regarding the same. In para 5 of the preliminary objections in his written statement, the defendant has made the following averments:-
"5. That the defendant No.1 has never placed such orders as alleged in the plaint against which two alleged tax invoices vide invoice No. RRC/0203/18-19 amount of Rs.4,28,773/- dated 09.01.2019 in invoice No. RRC/0204/18-19 amounting of Rs.4,12,028/- dated 11.01.2019 were raised. It is pertinent to mentioned here that the alleged receiving on the said bogus tax invoices was not with free will. It was obtained by the plaintiff forcibly and with false representation. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff used to raise bogus bills and received payments on the same."
26. In the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, a signature of a purchaser on an invoice would give rise to an inference that the purchaser has bought the goods mentioned in the invoice and that he has received delivery of such goods. Thus, ordinarily the signatures of the defendant on the invoices Ex.PW-
CS (Comm.) No. 276/20 Page No. 10 /161/3 (Colly) will operate as an acknowledgement of having purchased the goods mentioned in the invoices and having taken delivery of the same.
27. The defendant has taken a stand that the invoices in question do no reflect the real transactions between the parties. Case of the defendant is that he did business with the plaintiff on "Kacha Bills/Challans" and that the last invoice raised by the plaintiff was number 1988 dated 18.09.2018. Defendant contended that the parties had tallied their accounts as per which Rs.3,05,432/- was due from the defendant against which defendant paid Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- by cheques and he paid the remaining amount in cash to the plaintiff. Defendant was to prove this defence raised by him.
28. As per record, the defendant, with his written statement had filed one document which is a photocopy of delivery challan No.1988 of R.R. Cotfab (firm of plaintiff). The same mentions the other party as "APS Creations". The document represents thus transactions of the plaintiff with "APS Creations". In the plaint, the defendant Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta is described to be the Proprietor of M/s BI-AR Textiles. In the entire written statement, the defendant has not made any averment regarding his association with any firm/concern/entity with the name of "APS Creations". It is not the case of the defendant that he used to deal with the plaintiff against "Kacha Bills/Challans" under the trade name or firm/concern/entity with the name of "APS Creations".
29. Another copy of the delivery challan No.1988 of R.R. Cotfab was put to PW-1 in his cross-examination which was marked as Ex.PW- 1/D1. This copy of the document has certain figures written in original in pen in blue colour over the photocopy of the document. Thereafter original copy of delivery challan No.1988 of R.R. Cotfab was put to PW- 1 in his cross-examination which was marked as Ex.PW-1/D2. This CS (Comm.) No. 276/20 Page No. 11 /16 original copy does not have the figures written in blue pen in original which appear only on Ex.PW-1/D1. Thus, three copies of delivery challan No.1988 of R.R. Cotfab were placed on the record by the defendant, i.e. one photocopy, then copy Ex.PW-1/D1 which has certain figures written in original in blue pen and the copy Ex.PW-1/D2 which is the original copy of delivery challan No.1988 of R.R. Cotfab which does not have the figures written in original in pen which appear on Ex.PW- 1/D1.
30. The said documents i.e. copy of delivery challan No.1988 of R.R. Cotfab, Ex.PW-1/D1 and Ex.PW-1/D2 do not mention the name of the defendant or of his firm M/s BI-AR Textiles. Document as such does not explain or establish any transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant. This is apart from the fact that the defendant has not led evidence in defence to prove the said document.
31. It had been submitted on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff PW-1 in cross-examination has deposed that he could not confirm whether the calculations in blue ink in original on Ex.PW-1/D1 were in his handwriting which means that he has not denied his handwriting on the same. What is material however are the suggestions given thereafter by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant to PW-1 during cross-examination. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of PW-1 recorded on 14.11.2022 is reproduced as under:-
"I have never dealt with any firm by name of M/s A.P.S. Creations.
At this stage, the witness is confronted to document which is now Ex. PW1/D1. It is correct that the said Ex. PW1/D1 pertains to my firm only but I cannot say whether it is filled in my handwriting. It is wrong to suggest that I CS (Comm.) No. 276/20 Page No. 12 /16 am deposing falsely with mala fide intention. I cannot confirm whether the calculations which is in blue ink over the Ex. PW1/D1 is in my handwriting or not. It is wrong to suggest that I used to raise bills/invoices in the name of bogus firms. It is further wrong to suggest that I do such thing just only for tax evasion.
At this stage, the witness is again confronted to the original invoice no. 1988 which is now Ex. PW1/D2. The handwriting on this Ex. PW1/D2 seems to be mine (vol. I cannot confirm)."
32. The Ld. Counsel for the defendant has suggested to PW-1 (which he denied) that he i.e. the plaintiff used to raise bills/invoices in the name of bogus firms which would mean that the document Ex.PW-1/D1, as per the defendant, had been raised by the plaintiff against a bogus firm M/s APS Creations. This further strengthens the inference that the defendant was not related in any manner to M/s APS Creations whose name is mentioned in the document Ex.PW-1/D1. In such circumstances, the said document Ex.PW-1/D1 cannot establish the defence of the defendant that he dealt with the plaintiff only on "Kacha Bills/Challans"
and that the document Ex.PW-1/D1 was proof of settlement of accounts with the plaintiff.
33. The defendant had contended that after reaching settlement with the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.3,05,432/-, he paid Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff and paid the balance amount in cash which would be Rs.1,05,912/-. The document Ex.PW-1/D1 bears date of 18.09.2018. As contended by the plaintiff and admitted by the defendant, defendant has paid to the plaintiff Rs.1,50,000/- on 06.02.2019 and Rs.50,000/- on 19.08.2019. It is hard to believe that in the ordinary course of human conduct, an amount settled in the year 2018 would be received by a person after such a time gap and in installments. This is to be considered along with the fact that the defendant has not mentioned CS (Comm.) No. 276/20 Page No. 13 /16 any date on which he paid the balance amount of Rs.1,05,912/- in cash to the plaintiff. No proof in the form of any written acknowledgment has been produced by the defendant regarding payment of Rs.1,05,912/- to the plaintiff.
34. As per the defendant, he had signed on the invoices Ex.PW-1/3 (Colly) dated 09.01.2019 and 11.01.2019 and that his signature "was obtained by the plaintiff forcibly and with false representation". Defendant has paid the amounts of Rs.1,50,000/- on 06.02.2019 and Rs.50,000/- on 19.08.2019 to the plaintiff. Defendant has relied upon a written document Ex.PW-1/D1 in is defence. If what the defendant has contended would be true, then the defendant, in all probability would have obtained the signatures of the plaintiff after paying the balance settled amount of Rs.1,05,912/- in cash. There is no such document with the defendant which give rise to doubts about the defence raised by the defendant.
35. One is also to consider the fact that as per the defendant his transactions with the plaintiff were on "Kacha Bills/Challans". This would imply that the transactions between him and the plaintiff were made in cash and not accounted for through banking channels. In such circumstances, it would not stand to reason that the defendant would have paid Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff through banking channels. Only inference which can arise that these were part payments made by the defendant towards the goods which he purchased from the plaintiff vide the invoices Ex.PW-1/3 (Colly).
36. As recorded above, the defence raised by the defendant was that his signatures on the invoices Ex.PW-1/3 (Colly) were obtained by the plaintiff forcibly and through misrepresentation and that he had settled CS (Comm.) No. 276/20 Page No. 14 /16 his dues with the plaintiff vide the document delivery challan No.1988 of R.R. Cotfab. In such circumstances, the onus to prove such defence was on the defendant. The defendant has failed to discharge the onus on him.
37. Lastly, the Ld. Counsel for the defendant had relied on the judgment in the cases of Mohammed Abdul Wahid Vs. Nilofer & Anr (supra). The said judgment holds that a document, not accompanied with the plaint or written statement, can be produced during cross- examination of not only a witness but also to a party to a suit, for the limited purpose of effective cross-examination or to jog the memory of the witness or party. In the present case the Ld. Counsel for the defendant has confronted the plaintiff PW-1 with the documents Ex.PW- 1/D1 and Ex.PW-1/D2. However, this court has held that the said documents do not prove the defence raised by the defendant.
38. Hence for the reasons recorded above, the plaintiff has proved that he supplied goods to the defendant vide invoices Ex.PW-1/3 (Colly) for a total amount of Rs.8,40,801/- against which the defendant has made payment of Rs.2,00,000/- leaving a balance of Rs.6,40,801/-. Plaintiff is held to be entitled to recovery of Rs.6,40,801/- from the defendant.
39. The plaintiff has prayed for grant of pendent lite and future interest @ 12% p.a. The said rate of interest seems to be excessive. No particular rate of interest towards outstanding payment is mentioned in the invoices Ex.PW-1/3 (Colly). Grant of simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of recovery shall meet the ends of justice. Plaintiff shall be entitled to costs of the suit.
CS (Comm.) No. 276/20 Page No. 15 /16ISSUE NO-2: RELIEF
40. For the reasons recorded above, suit of the plaintiff is decreed in the following manner:-
(a) Plaintiff is granted a decree for recovery of Rs.6,40,801/- against the defendant along with simple interest pendent lite and future @ 9 % per annum w.e.f the date of filing of the suit till the date of recovery against the defendant; and
(b) Plaintiff shall be entitled to costs of the suit along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of recovery against the defendant.
41. Decree sheet be drawn. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open (REETESH SINGH)
court on this 20th day DISTRICT JUDGE
of December 2023 (COMMERCIAL COURT)-04
SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS,
DELHI
CS (Comm.) No. 276/20 Page No. 16 /16