Delhi District Court
M/S E3 Panel Industries vs Murtuza Ali Proprietor Of M/S Burhani ... on 11 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAVINDER BEDI
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
CS (COMM) 534/2025
M/S E3 PANEL INDUSTRIES
Having Registered Office at:
11/3, Nehru Enclave, Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110019
Email id: [email protected]
through its Authorized Representative ........Plaintiff
Versus
MURTUZA ALI
(Proprietor of M/s Burhani Harware)
Having its Registered Office at:
25-C, Shopping Centre, Kota,
Rajasthan-324007
Also at:-
Shop No. 98, DP Nagar Pali,
Rajasthan- 306401 ...Defendant
Date of Institution of Suit : 04.07.2025
Date of Final Arguments : 11.04.2026
Date of Final Judgment : 11.04.2026
Plaintiff is represented by Counsel Mr. Sanjay Harjani.
Defendant is ex-parte.
Digitally signed
by DR
DR RAVINDER
RAVINDER BEDI
Date:
BEDI 2026.04.11
18:32:49 +0530
CS (Comm) No.534/2025 Page no. 1/ 9
M/s E3 PANEL INDUSTRIES Vs. MURTUZA ALI Proprietor of M/s Burhani Hardware.
JUDGMENT
1. Present suit is instituted by Plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs.5,70,456/- alongwith an interest pendent-lite and future @ 18% per annum against the Defendant.
2. It is necessary to take note of the material facts as mentioned in the plaint.
● Plaintiff is a registered Partnership Firm and is a trader of Almunium Composite Panels (ACP) Sheets under the name and style of M/s E3 Panel Industries. Mr. Pankaj Bansal is duly authorized by Partnership Firm to file the suit vide GPA dated 11.06.2025.
● The Defendant Mr. Murtuza Ali is the Proprietor of M/s Burhani Hardware. The defendant had approached Plaintiff at the above mentioned office of plaintiff for purchase of Aluminum Composite Panel Sheets in the February 2023. The Defendant placed orders with plaintiff at Nehru Enclave, New Delhi, expressing his desire to purchase the ACP sheets from Plaintiff. Plaintiff accordingly supplied the products as per the desired specifications, style and make to Defendant as per the orders. Defendant had been making part payment against Invoices raised by Plaintiff for such supply from time to time. However, the defendant became irregular in making such payments and as per the records, defendant is liable to make payment of outstanding due of Rs.4,04,067/-.
CS (Comm) No.534/2025 Page no. 2/ 9 M/s E3 PANEL INDUSTRIES Vs. MURTUZA ALI Proprietor of M/s Burhani Hardware.
Digitally signed DR by DR
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
Date: 2026.04.11
BEDI 18:32:55 +0530
● Plaintiff has been maintaining regular books of account, mutual, open and current account between the parties. Plaintiff states that Defendant is also liable to make an interest of 18% per annum on the outstanding dues as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the invoices issued by the plaintiff and duly accepted by the defendant.
● Plaintiff has paid in GST output tax on all the Invoices raised against the defendant. The defendant has also claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) in respect of these invoices and which establishes that the defendant has received all the goods covered under the Invoices. However, defendant has failed to clear the outstanding dues against the invoices.
● The transactions between the parties are between the period February 2023 to January 2024. The Plaintiff requested the defendant to clear the arrears. The Defendant in order to discharge his part liability issued a cheque dated 11.01.2024 of Rs.4,04,067/- to the Plaintiff. The same on its presentation got dishonoured with remarks "Funds Insufficient" dated 12.01.2024. Plaintiff has filed Complaint Case against Defendant under Section-138 of NI Act. Defendant was also informed about the dishonourment and was served with reminders to make payments.
● The Plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice dated 31.01.2024 upon the defendant through speed post and WhatsApp.
CS (Comm) No.534/2025 Page no. 3/ 9 M/s E3 PANEL INDUSTRIES Vs. MURTUZA ALI Proprietor of M/s Burhani Hardware.
Digitally signed by DR DR RAVINDER
RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date:
2026.04.11
18:32:59 +0530
The said notice however gone unresponded to. The Defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.4,04,067/- along with interest of Rs.1,66,389/- till date of filing of suit along with pendente-lite interest and future interest.
● Plaint avers that the subject matter of the instant suit falls in category of "Commercial Dispute" as defined under Section 2 (1)
(c) of The Commercial Court Act, 2015 (hereafter as The CC Act).
3. Summons of the suit were served upon the Defendant. The record shows that Defendant was served on 04.12.2025. However, he did not appear despite service. The Defendant also did not file its written statement despite time granted to them. Resultantly by Order dated 02.02.2026, right of Defendant to file written statement stood closed and the matter was proceeded ex-parte qua Defendant.
4. Though Defendant has not appeared and defended the suit, still the Plaintiff has to establish his own case in respect of its entitlement to recovery of outstanding dues, on preponderance of probabilities.
5. Plaintiff in support of its case has examined its AR, Mr. Pankaj Bansal, as PW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex.PW1/1 and proved upon the following documents :
• Registered partnership deed dated 01.02.2020 as Ex.PW1/1. • Original GPA dated 11.06.2025 in favour of Authorised Representative is Ex.PW-1/2.
• Non-Starter report dated 31.01.2025 Ex.PW-1/3.
CS (Comm) No.534/2025 Page no. 4/ 9 M/s E3 PANEL INDUSTRIES Vs. MURTUZA ALI Proprietor of M/s Burhani Hardware.
Digitally
signed by DR
RAVINDER
DR BEDI
RAVINDER
Date:
BEDI 2026.04.11
18:33:07
+0530
• True Printout of GST details of the defendant as per GST portal is Ex.PW-1/4.
• Invoices raised alongwith E-way bills is Ex.PW-1/5. • Ledger Account of the defendant as maintained by plaintiff is Ex.PW-1/6.
• GSTR1 filed by the plaintiff firm is Ex.PW-1/7. • Cheque bearing no. 877048, return memo and screenshot case details from the e-court portal is Ex.PW-1/8 (colly). • Legal demand notice dated 31.01.2024 is Ex.PW-1/9. • Original postal receipt dated 01.02.2024 along with tracking report is Ex.PW-1/10.
• Screenshot of service of legal notice dated 31.01.2024 via WhatsApp on Mobile No. 9413355352 is Ex.PW-1/11. • Affidavit under order XI Rule 6 of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 r/w Section 63 of BSA, 2023 in respect of electronic record is Ex.PW-1/12.
• Affidavit of Advocate Nancy Jain under Section 63 of BSA, 2023 is Ex.PW-1/13.
• Interest Calculation sheet is Ex.PW-1/14. • Self attested Aadhar Card of the AR is Ex.PW-1/15.
6. I have heard submissions as addressed by Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff and perused the entire material on record.
7. From the documents proved by Plaintiff in evidence, I find that Plaintiff has been successful to prove his case. The evidence is documentary in nature. The same is discernible from the Invoices alongwith e-way bills Ex.PW1/5, Ledger account Ex.PW-1/6 and certified copy of cheque alongwith cheque returning memo Ex.PW-1/8 (colly). The Defendant has chosen not to appear or file its defence. An adverse inference has to be drawn against the Defendant, as under
CS (Comm) No.534/2025 Page no. 5/ 9 M/s E3 PANEL INDUSTRIES Vs. MURTUZA ALI Proprietor of M/s Burhani Hardware.
Digitally
signed by DR
DR RAVINDER
BEDI
RAVINDER Date:
BEDI 2026.04.11
18:33:12
+0530
Section 119 (g) of the Bhartiya Sakshay Adhiniyam, 2023 [Vidhyadhar vs Manikrao & Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 573].
8. On the point of territorial jurisdiction of this Court, Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff submits that the part cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court as Defendant placed its Orders with plaintiff Nehru Enclave Office of Kalkaji and plaintiff raised its Invoices from the same Office. Ld. Counsel submits that payments were also to be received from Defendant at the said office. Reliance is placed upon Satyapal Vs. Slick Auto Accessories Pvt. Ltd. (2014) SCC Online Del 998 ; TKW Management Solutions Vs. Sherif Cargo & Anr. & the decision of Ajanta Raj Protein P. Ltd. Vs. Himanshu Food P. Ltd., in support of his arguments.
9. The record shows that the Orders were placed with Plaintiff and Invoices were raised by Plaintiff upon Defendant from its registered office at Nehru Enclave, Kalkaji, New Delhi, where the office of plaintiff is situated. Moreover, In the Judgment of Satyapal Vs. Slick (supra), it is held that where the place of payment is not fixed in the contract/ bill / Invoices, the parties have to follow the general rule that the payment has to be made at the place of the creditor.
10. From record, there is nothing to show as to the place of payment. Thus, even without following of principle that 'debtor must seek out the creditor', the Court has the jurisdiction to try the suit, where payment is made.
CS (Comm) No.534/2025 Page no. 6/ 9 M/s E3 PANEL INDUSTRIES Vs. MURTUZA ALI Proprietor of M/s Burhani Hardware.
Digitally
signed by DR
RAVINDER
DR BEDI
RAVINDER
Date:
BEDI 2026.04.11
18:33:17
+0530
11. The suit is well within limitation as the claims of the plaintiff relate to the outstanding dues against the Defendant for the Invoices raised by Plaintiff, for the year 2023. The suit of the plaintiff instituted on 04.07.2025 is well within limitation.
12. It is fairly established by Plaintiff that Defendant did not clear the outstanding dues. The case of Plaintiff has gone un-challenged and duly corroborated by documents and I have no reason to disbelieve the version of Plaintiff qua the outstanding dues. Applying priori and posteriori reasoning, I am satisfied that Plaintiff has been able to prove its case against the Defendant for its claims to recovery of Rs.4,04,067/-.
Interest
13. On the aspect of interest on the principal dues of Rs.4,04,067/-, ld. Counsel for Plaintiff has claimed an interest @18% per annum w.e.f. February, 2024 along-with interest pendente-lite and future till realization.
14. Apropos the interest @18 % per annum as claimed by plaintiff, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as 'M/s. Jindal Realcon Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs M/s. Laxmi Narain Ram Dass & Co, (para-
4) has observed as follows :
"4. The Supreme Court in a line of judgments has held that in view of changed economic scenario where there has been consistent fall in rates of interest, Courts must in accordance with the changed circumstances grant lesser rates of interest. These judgments of the Supreme Court are Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, (2005) 6 SCC CS (Comm) No.534/2025 Page no. 7/ 9 M/s E3 PANEL INDUSTRIES Vs. MURTUZA ALI Proprietor of M/s Burhani Hardware.
Digitally
signed by DR
RAVINDER
DR BEDI
RAVINDER
Date:
BEDI 2026.04.11
18:33:24
+0530
678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G. Harischandra, (2007) 2 SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan v. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC)" ..........(emphasis supplied).
15. Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of R.F.A. No.823 of 2004 titled as Shri Sanjay Mittal Versus Sunil Jain (decided on 07.12.2018) has held that higher rates of interest, which are against public policy, can be struck down by the Courts.
16. Keeping in view the mandate of settled law and Section-34 CPC, the interest of justice would be served if Plaintiff is granted simple rate of interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.4,04,067/-.
Hence, plaintiff is hereby granted simple rate of interest @ 9% per annum from February, 2024 on Rs.4,04,067/- along with interest pendent-lite and future, till its realization.
Relief
17. From the discussion as adumbrated herein-above, the suit of the Plaintiff stands decreed against the Defendant. The Plaintiff is entitled for :
a) a decree against the Defendant for a sum of Rs.4,04,067/-
(Rupees Four Lakhs Four Thousand and Sixty Seven only) alongwith simple rate of interest @9% p.a from February, 2024 till its actual realization.
CS (Comm) No.534/2025 Page no. 8/ 9 M/s E3 PANEL INDUSTRIES Vs. MURTUZA ALI Proprietor of M/s Burhani Hardware.
Digitally
signed by DR
RAVINDER
DR BEDI
RAVINDER
Date:
BEDI 2026.04.11
18:33:28
+0530
b) Cost of the suit alongwith Pleader's fee against the Defendant.
Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed DR by DR
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
Date: 2026.04.11
BEDI
Announced in open
18:33:33 +0530
Court on 11.04.2026 (Dr. Ravinder Bedi)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 South-East District, Saket Courts/New Delhi CS (Comm) No.534/2025 Page no. 9/ 9 M/s E3 PANEL INDUSTRIES Vs. MURTUZA ALI Proprietor of M/s Burhani Hardware.