Delhi District Court
Sab Impex Pvt Ltd Through Its Ar Sh Manish ... vs Skm Capacitors Through Its Proprietor ... on 20 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. BRIJESH KUMAR GARG
DISTRICT JUDGE COMMERCIAL COURT-01, SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 495/23
CNR No. DLSH01-005665-2023
M/s SAB IMPEX PVT. LTD.
Through its Director/AR Sh. Manish Jain,
Office at : 9/1852, Gali No.2,
Kailash Nagar, Delhi-110 031.
.....Plaintiff
Versus
M/s SKM CAPACITORS
Through its Proprietor Mrs. Anita Gupta,
At : (1) A6/1 & 12, South Side of G.T. Road,
Industrial Area, Ghaziabad-201 001 (U.P.).
(2) 206, F-Block, 64C/9, Sector-40,
Noida-201 301 (U.P.).
Mob : 9811179175, 8375022459
Email ID : [email protected]
.....Defendant
Date of filing of the case : 12.09.2023
Date of conclusion of the final arguments : 04.08.2025
Date of judgment : 20.08.2025
JUDGMENT
The present commercial suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,27,825/-, along with pendentelite and future interest @24% per annum, has been filed, on behalf of the plaintiff, wherein, it is stated that the plaintiff is a private limited company and deals in electronics and electrical items, and the defendant, Digitally signed by BRIJESH BRIJESH KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.08.20 GARG 15:19:50 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.495/23 page 1 of 15 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi who is running her business of trading of electronics and electrical items, in the name and style of 'M/s SKM Capacitors', used to purchase goods from the plaintiff, on credit basis.
2. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff supplied goods to the defendant against the various invoices and as per the ledger account, maintained by the plaintiff, an amount of Rs.10,27,825/- was due and payable by the defendant, as on 31.03.2021.
3. It is further stated in the plaint that despite regular talks and demands, since March, 2021, the defendant has failed to make the payment of the due amount, by giving lame excuses, on one pretext or the other. Therefore, a legal notice, dated 28.12.2022, was also served upon the defendant, on 02.01.2023. But, despite service of the legal notice, no payment has been made by the defendant, and hence, the present suit.
4. After filing of the present suit, the summons of the suit for settlement of issues were duly served upon the defendant. In compliance, the defendant filed her written statement, wherein, it is stated that the defendant is an old lady and is suffering from various old-age related disesases, and therefore, she has authorized her husband, Sh. Rajeev Gupta, to defend the suit, on her behalf.
5. It is further stated in the written statement that only an amount of Rs.25,548/- was due or payable by the defendant, and therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that the amount of goods, purchased by the BRIJESH Digitally by BRIJESH signed KUMAR Date: 2025.08.20 KUMAR GARG GARG 15:20:12 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.495/23 page 2 of 15 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi defendant from the plaintiff, was duly paid to the plaintiff and no amount, except the aforesaid amount of Rs.25,548/-, is due or payable by the defendant. It is further stated that the defendant has never purchased any goods on credit basis. It is denied by the defendant that a legal notice dated 28.12.2022, was served upon her on 02.01.2023. It has been prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed with exemplary and compensatory costs.
6. Replication to the written statement of the defendant was also filed, on behalf of the plaintiff, wherein, the contents of the written statement have been denied and the contents of the plaint have been reiterated and reaffirmed, as correct.
7. After completion of pleadings, the first case management hearing was conducted on 18.01.2024 and from the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed, as under:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim/recover the amount of Rs.10,27,825/- from the defendant, as claimed in the plaint? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest from the defendant? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
3. Relief.
8. Vide order dated 18.01.2024, with the consent of the parties, a local commissioner was also appointed to record the evidence of the parties, and in compliance, the Ld. Local Commissioner recorded the evidence of the parties and submitted the record of evidence, alongwith her report, in the court, on Digitally signed by BRIJESH BRIJESH KUMAR GARG KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.08.20 CS (Comm.) No.495/23 page 3 of 15 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi 15:20:29 +0530 23.02.2024.
9. During trial, the plaintiff has examined its AR Sh.Manish Jain, as PW-1. Whereas, the defendant has examined her special attorney as DW-1.
10. After completion of trial, final arguments were concluded by Sh. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate, for the Plaintiff and Ms. Asha Singh, Advocate, for the defendant, on 04.08.2025.
11. It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff has proved its case by leading its' evidence and has also proved the various documents on record. It was further argued that the defendant has admitted the supply of goods, against all the invoices and all the invoices have been shown in its ledger account and the witness of the defendant has also accepted this fact during his cross-examination. He has further argued that the plaintiff has not received cash payments from the defendant, except an amount of Rs.29,205/-, and therefore, the suit of the plaintiff may be decreed, with interest and costs. He has further argued that Sh.Rajeev Gupta, the SPA of the defendant, was not authorized to depose on her behalf. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has also filed his written arguments and has relied upon the following judgments, in support of his contentions :
(i) 'Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Ors. vs. IndusInd Bank Ltd.
and Ors.', reported as, '(2005) 2 SCC 217'; and
(ii) 'Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao', reported as, 'AIR 1999 SCC 1441'.
12. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel forBRIJESH the defendant has Digitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.08.20 GARG 15:20:42 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.495/23 page 4 of 15 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi argued that the present suit has been instituted by Sh.Manish Jain, in the capacity of its director. But, the said Manish Jain was not competent to institute the present suit, on behalf of the plaintiff, as no board resolution in his favour could be proved, during the trial, as no minute book was produced either before the Ld. Local Commissioner or before the court, for perusal. She has further argued that even as per the board resolution dated 29.08.2023, Ex.PW1/7, the said Manish Jain was not authorized to depose before the court, on its behalf. She has further argued that the defendant used to make payments to the plaintiff, in cash also and this fact has been admitted by PW-1 Manish Jain, during his cross-examination. She has further argued that only an amount of Rs.25,548/- was due or payable by the defendant. She has further argued that the plaintiff has forged and fabricated the ledger account and has not mentioned the cash receipts in it, and therefore, the suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed with costs. The Ld. Counsel for the defendant has also filed her written arguments and has also relied upon the following judgments, in support of her contentions :
(i) 'Ishwar Dass vs. Sohan Lal', reported as, 'AIR 2000 SC 426'; and
(ii) 'Dharam Chand Joshi vs. Satya Narayan Bazaz', reported as, 'AIR 1993 GAU 35'.
13. I have carefully perused the case file and I have also given my considered thoughts to the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsels for the parties. I have also perused the written arguments and the judgments filed by the Ld. Counsels for the BRIJESH by BRIJESH Digitally signed KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.08.20 GARG 15:20:56 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.495/23 page 5 of 15 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi parties, in support of their contentions. My findings on the various issues are as under:
Issue No. 1Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim/recover the amount of Rs.10,27,825/- from the defendant, as claimed in the plaint? OPP
14. The burden to prove this issue lies on the plaintiff and in support of its contentions, the plaintiff has examined its director/AR Sh.Manish Jain, as PW-1. He has filed his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, wherein, he has reproduced the entire contents of the plaint. It is reiterated in the affidavit that the plaintiff is a private limited company and deals in electronics and electrical items and vide resolution dated 31.08.2023, he was authorized to pursue the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff company. It is further stated that the plaintiff had supplied the goods to the defendant for a long period, on 15 days' credit basis, and as per the ledger account, an amount of Rs.10,27,825/- was outstanding against the defendant, as on 31.03.2021. It is further stated that despite regular demands, the defendant has failed to pay the due amount by giving lame excuses, on one pretext or the other. Therefore, a legal notice dated 28.12.2022, was also served upon her. But, despite service of the legal notice, no payment was made by the defendant. A copy of extract of board resolution, dated 31.08.2023, has been filed on record as Ex.PW1/1, and a copy of the legal notice dated 28.12.2022, alongwith its postal receipt and tracking report, has been filed on record as Ex.PW1/3 and Digitally signed BRIJESH by BRIJESH KUMAR GARG KUMAR Date:
GARG 2025.08.20
15:21:37 +0530
CS (Comm.) No.495/23 page 6 of 15 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
Ex.PW1/4 respectively. A copy of the ledger account for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2019 to 01.04.2022 has been filed on record as Ex.PW1/5 (Colly.). The copies of the various tax invoices have been placed on record as Ex.PW1/6 (Colly.).
15. During the trial, this witness was also subjected to a lengthy cross-examination, on behalf of the defendant, wherein, this witness has deposed that he was 10 th fail and was unable to understand English language. This fact is very relevant, in view of the fact that all the documents and pleadings, etc. are in English language.
16. During his cross-examination, PW-1 Manish Jain has further deposed that there were two directors in the plaintiff company. He has admitted that no minute book was filed on record, in support of the authenticity of the extract of board resolution, dated 31.08.2023, Ex.PW1/7.
17. Perusal of the record further shows that even during the recording of his evidence, before the Ld. Local Commissioner, on 07.02.2024, the original minute book was not produced by this witness. But, thereafter, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff moved an application under Order VII Rule 14 r/w Order XI CPC, on 18.09.2024, for filing the certificate of incorporation of the plaintiff company, alongwith a copy of the minutes of the meeting/ board resolution dated 31.08.2023. The said application was allowed by this court, vide order dated 08.10.2024. Thereafter, another application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff, under Order XVIII r/w Sec. 151 CPC, for leading additional evidence. The said applicationBRIJESH was also allowed byDigitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR GARG KUMAR Date: 2025.08.20 GARG 15:21:48 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.495/23 page 7 of 15 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi the court vide order dated 07.03.2025. Thereafter, PW-1 filed his additional affidavit Ex.PW1/B and also tendered the copy of minute book / board resolution and copy of certificate of incorporation of plaintiff company, as Ex.PW1/7 and Ex.PW1/8, respectively. At that time, the original minute book was also produced by him for perusal of the court. Therefore, the objection of the Ld. Counsel for the defendant, that PW-1 Manish Jain was not authorized, either to file or institute the present suit or to depose on behalf of the plaintiff company, is devoid of any merits.
18. During his cross-examination, PW-1 Manish Jain has admitted that he was having business dealings with the defendant since the year 2018 and he used to receive payments from the defendant, in cash, also. He has further deposed that he also used to issue receipts to his customers, including the defendant, as and when the payments in cash were received from them. He has further deposed that the said cash receipts were used to be printed on the letter-head of the plaintiff company and he had issued various cash receipts to the defendant against the cash payments made by her to the plaintiff company. He has admitted that no receipt of cash payment was filed by him on record.
19. It is very relevant to note that the ledger account Ex.PW1/5 (collectively), does not mention any cash receipt, during the period w.e.f. 06.10.2018 to 15.05.2020. During his cross- examination, this witness has admitted that the business transactions between the parties had started in the year 2018, and he used to receive cash payments from the defendant, as well as Digitally signed BRIJESH by BRIJESH KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.08.20 GARG 15:21:56 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.495/23 page 8 of 15 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi from his other customers. The ledger account Ex.PW1/5 mentions only three cash receipts, i.e., receipt of Rs.10,000/- on 15.05.2020, Rs.9,205/- on 01.10.2020 and Rs.10,000/- on 10.10.2020. Except these three entries worth a total amount of Rs.29,205/-, there is no other entry regarding the cash receipt from the defendant. During the trial, the defendant has also filed a copy of his ledger account, wherein, a large number of cash payments have been reflected during the period w.e.f. 08.12.2018 to 05.02.2020. But, none of the parties have filed any cash receipts on record.
20. It is also very relevant to note that the ledger account Ex.PW1/5 (Colly.)7, is filed by the plaintiff only for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2019 to 01.04.2022. Perusal of this ledger account Ex.PW1/5 (Colly.), shows that there is an opening debit balance of Rs.11,11,708/-, as on 01.04.2019. This opening balance has been brought forward from previous years. But, there is no detail of any sale / purchase or receipt of payment, for the period w.e.f. 06.10.2018 to 01.04.2019. Therefore, from this ledger account Ex.PW1/5 (Colly.) and the admission of the PW-1 Manish Jain that the plaintiff was having business relations with the defendant since the year 2018, it is clear that the plaintiff has deliberately and intentionally not filed the complete ledger account and has intentionally and malafidely concealed the fact of receipt of cash payments from the defendant during the period w.e.f. 08.12.2018 onwards. In the absence of any ledger account, prior to 01.04.2019, the plaintiff has failed to explain the debit balance of Rs.11,11,708/-, which was shown as opening balance in the Digitally signed BRIJESH by BRIJESH KUMAR GARG KUMAR Date:
GARG 2025.08.20
15:22:02 +0530
CS (Comm.) No.495/23 page 9 of 15 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
ledger account Ex.PW1/5 (Colly.), as on 01.04.2019.
21. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled as, 'Ishwar Dass Jain (Dead) Thr. Lrs vs. Sohan Lal (Dead) By Lrs', reported as, 'AIR 2000 SC 426', as relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for defendant, as under :
"Now under Section 34 of the Evidence Act, entries in "account books" regularly kept in the course of business are admissible though they by themselves cannot create any liability. Section 34 reads as follows:
"Section 34: Entries in books of account when relevant - Entries in books of account, regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability".
It will be noticed that sanctity is attached in the law of evidence to books of account if the books are indeed "account books i.e. in original and if they show, on their face, that they are kept in the "regular course of business". Such sanctity, in our opinion, cannot attach to private extracts of alleged account books where the original accounts are not filed into Court. This is because, from the extracts, it cannot be discovered whether the accounts are kept in the regular course of business or if there are any interpolations or whether the interpolations are in a different ink or whether the accounts are in the form of a book with continuous page-numbering. Hence, if the original books have not been produced, it is not possible to know whether the entries relating to payment of rent are entries made in the regular course of business."
(emphasis supplied)
22. During the trial, in support of her contentions, the defendant has also examined her Special Attorney Sh.Rajeev Gupta, as DW-1. In his affidavit Ex.DW1/A, this witness has also reproduced the entire contents of the written statement. He has also filed the original special power of attorney, dated 06.12.2023, executed by the defendant in his favour, as Digitally signed by BRIJESH BRIJESH KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.08.20 GARG 15:22:16 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.495/23 page 10 of 15 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi Ex.DW1/1. In the affidavit Ex.DW1/A, this witness has reiterated that the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts and the amount of goods, purchased by the defendant from the plaintiff, stands duly paid and no amount was due against the defendant, except an amount of Rs.25,548/-. It is again reiterated that the ledger account filed by the plaintiff is false and fabricated. It is further stated that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any interest from the defendant.
23. During the trial, this witness was also subjected to a lengthy cross-examination on behalf of the plaintiff, wherein, this witness has deposed that the defendant was his wife and M/s SKM Capacitors is her proprietorship concern, wherein, he was looking after the work, like production, accounts, sales and purchase, as a manager. This witness has further deposed that he used to maintain computerized books of accounts of M/s SKM Capacitors. He has further deposed that the defendant was having business dealings with the plaintiff for last several years and defendant used to have business dealings with Sh.Manish Jain. During his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that no cash receipt has been filed on record by him. But, he volunteered that no receipt of cash payment was issued to him by the plaintiff. He has further admitted that the defendant had already availed all the tax input regarding GST tax invoices. But, during the trial, this witness has failed to prove any of his documents, in accordance with law. Furthermore, the defendant has failed to examine herself during the trial, despite ample opportunities, and has therefore, concealed the best available BRIJESH Digitally by BRIJESH signed KUMAR Date: 2025.08.20 KUMAR GARG GARG 15:22:24 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.495/23 page 11 of 15 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi evidence on her behalf, from the court.
24. In case titled as, 'S. Kesari Hanuman Goud vs Anjum Jehan & Ors.', reported as, '(2013) 12 SCC 64', it was held as under :
"13. It is a settled legal proposition that the power of attorney holder cannot depose in place of the principal. Provisions of Order III, Rules 1 and 2 CPC empower the holder of the power of attorney to "act" on behalf of the principal. The word "acts"
employed therein is confined only to "acts" done by the power- of-attorney holder, in exercise of the power granted to him by virtue of the instrument. The term "acts", would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In other words, if the power-of-attorney holder has preferred any "acts" in pursuance of the power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for acts done by the principal, and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of a matter, as regards which, only the principal can have personal knowledge and in respect of which, the principal is entitled to be cross-examined. (See: Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1441; Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217; M/s Shankar Finance and Investment vs. State of A.P. & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 422; and Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha, (2010) 10 SCC 512)."
(emphasis supplied)
25. In view of above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to establish on record that an amount of Rs.11,11,708/-, as shown as opening debit balance, as on 01.04.2019, in the ledger account Ex.PW1/5 (Colly.), was due or payable by the defendant as on 01.04.2019. In the present suit, as per the ledger account Ex.PW1/5 (Colly.), the plaintiff has claimed that an amount of Rs.1027825/- was due or payable by the defendant as on 12.03.2021. But, due to failure of any explanation about the debit opening balance of Rs.11,11,708/-, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to claim BRIJESH the said amount. Digitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.08.20 CS (Comm.) No.495/23 page 12 of 15 GARG D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi 15:22:35 +0530 Furthermore, if the opening debit balance of Rs.11,11,708/- is deleted as due amount, no amount shall be due or payable by the defendant. On the contrary, the plaintiff shall be liable to pay some amount to the defendant. However, the defendant has also admitted that an amount of Rs.25,548/- was due or payable by her, as on 12.03.2021. Therefore, this issue is decided accordingly, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, to the effect that the plaintiff was entitled to recover only an amount of Rs.25,548/- from the defendant, as on 12.03.2021.
Issue No. 2Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest from the defendant? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
26. The burden to prove this issue also lies on the plaintiff and in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, the plaintiff has claimed the interest on the due amount @24% per annum. The tax invoices Ex.PW1/6 (Colly.) also mention that an interest @18% per annum was chargeable, in case, the payment was not made within a period of 15 days. But, the interest, claimed by the plaintiff, either @24% or @18% per annum, appears to be highly excessive. Even the provisions of Section 34 of the CPC, provide the rate of interest only at a maximum of 6% per annum. But, as per the proviso to Section 34 CPC, the said rate of interest can exceed 6%, in case of commercial transactions.
27. It was also held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in case titled as, 'Mrs. Veena Jain vs. Sunil Sood', passed in, 'CS BRIJESH Digitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR GARG KUMAR Date: 2025.08.20 CS (Comm.) No.495/23 page 13 of 15 GARG 15:22:42 +0530 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi (OS) No.1177/2003', on 23.07.2012, as under :
"8. I am however not agreeable to grant the huge rate of 24% interest as claimed by the plaintiff. The Supreme Court in the recent chain of judgments reported as Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority and others, 2005 (6) SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others, 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 Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC) has mandated that Courts must reduce the high rates of interest on account of the consistent fall in the rates of interest in changed economic scenario. In my opinion, plaintiff will be thus entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the principal amount due of `27,84,947.50/-for the period prior to the filing of the suit i.e. from 10.5.2000 till the date of filing of the suit. Plaintiff will also be entitled to pendente lite and future interest till payment @ 9% per annum simple."
(emphasis supplied)
28. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is also entitled to claim interest @9% per annum on the due amount of Rs.25,548/-, w.e.f. 12.03.2021, till the date of its realization.
This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, accordingly.
Relief
29. In view of my findings on the various issues, as discussed above, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed, partly, in its favour and against the defendant, and a money decree is passed for an amount of Rs.25,548/-, with interest @9% per annum, w.e.f. 12.03.2021, till the date of its realization.
Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff BRIJESH Digitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR Date: 2025.08.20 KUMAR GARG CS (Comm.) No.495/23 page 14 of 15 GARG 15:22:50 +0530 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi and against the defendant.
It is ordered accordingly.
The decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed BRIJESH by BRIJESH
Announced in the open Court KUMAR Date:
KUMAR GARG
on this 20th Day of August, 2025 GARG 2025.08.20
15:23:01 +0530
BRIJESH KUMAR GARG
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
Shahdara Distt, KKD, Delhi
CS (Comm.) No.495/23 page 15 of 15 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi