Delhi District Court
Prakash Brothers vs M/S Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Through ... on 28 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-02
SHAHDARA DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
CS(Comm) No. 390/2022
DLSH010038352022
In the matter of
Prakash Brothers
11681, Gali No.1, Sat Nagar,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005
and also at
B-75, Greater Kailash - I,
New Delhi - 110048
(Through its Authorized Partner Mr. Alok Gupta) .... Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales
1/6435, First Floor, Street No.5,
Gali Bihari Mandir, East Rohtash Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi - 110032
(An Indian Partnership firm
represented through its partner Mr. Sanjeev Kalra)
.... Defendant
Date of Institution :06.06.2022
Date of final arguments :11.02.2025
Date of conclusion :19.03.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit filed against the defendant for recovery of Rs.37,46,358/- along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum till its realization.
1.1 Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff is engaged in the business of trading and selling wide variety of goods including textiles and textile piece goods for the last several years and is carrying on its business for gain at Karol Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.1 of 37 Bagh and Sh. Alok Gupta is one of the partners of plaintiff firm who has been authorized by other partner to initiate, institute, sign, verify, depose and prosecute the present suit for and on behalf of plaintiff as he has been handling commercial matters with third parties. It is stated that defendant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of wide variety of goods, namely, clothing readymade garments, apparels and textiles under the name and style of 'Shree Radhey Krishna Sales' whereby the defendant is a partnership firm and at the time of entering into transactions with the plaintiff, it was represented by Sh. Sanjeev Kalra and the said Sanjeev Kalra is managing and conducting the day to day affairs and business of said firm and holding himself out to be sole proprietor of the said firm, however, later it came into the knowledge of plaintiff that Sh. Sanjeev Kalra is only one of partners of said firm.
1.2 It is stated that in 2012-2013, defendant had approached the plaintiff for supply of various goods, namely, 'Textiles and Textile fabrics' on credit basis and plaintiff believing said representations of defendant supplied various goods to defendant firm on credit basis of 60 days subject to condition that defendant shall make timely payments and in case of default, defendant shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% after the credit of 60 days. It was also agreed between the plaintiff and defendant that in case of dishonoring of cheque, the defendant shall be liable to pay the applicable bank charges upon such dishonor.
1.3 It is stated that upon sale of said goods to defendant, the receipt of said goods was duly acknowledged by the defendant through its authorized representative and the sales for Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.2 of 37 said goods was made through sales invoices and further in case of any discrepancy/defect in fabric so delivered, the same was to be informed to plaintiff's office within 72 hours and the said sales invoices were duly received by defendant whereby he accepted all the terms and conditions in toto and never disputed the same at any point of time. It is stated that after delivery of said goods at several points of time and after lapse of credit period, the plaintiff requested the defendant to make the outstanding payments along with outstanding interest accrued, however, the defendant made several excuses to gain time. It is stated that the entire transactions of sale were concluded in 2015-2016, but defendant defaulted in payment of said admitted outstanding business debts/liability.
1.4 Further, it is stated that after several reminders, defendant made certain part payments in financial year 2014- 2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 as well as 2017-2018 and based upon defendant's representations to make further payments in time, the plaintiff kept on relying on the defendant's false and misleading representations. It is stated that as per ledger account as on 31.03.2016, a total outstanding of Rs.26,82,700/- still remained to be paid and in the year 2016 - 2017, the defendant made certain part payments thereby leaving a balance of Rs.24,82,700/- as on 31.03.2017. Further, in the year 2017-2018, defendant made a last payment of Rs.50,000/- in the month of May, 2017 which is being reflected in the books of accounts and as on 31.03.2018, an admitted balance of Rs.24,32,700/- was outstanding against the defendant.
1.5 It is stated that plaintiff served a legal demand notice 21.04.2018 upon the defendant thereby calling upon the Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.3 of 37 defendant to make the payment of outstanding amount along with interest accrued, however, the defendant neither replied nor initiated any efforts to make the payment. It is stated that as on date, the defendant is liable to pay the following amount:
Particulars Amount Admitted outstanding Principal Rs.24,32,700/- amount (A) Agreed rate of interest @ 18% Rs.13,13,658/-
on the outstanding amount (B) Total due (A+B) Rs.37,46,358/- 1.6 It is stated that cause of action arose as the defendant
failed to make the payment despite issuance of legal notice and the cause of action is still continuing. It is further stated that the present suit has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation as has been extended by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re: Suo Moto Writ Petition No.3 of 2020. It is further stated that requisite court fees of Rs.39,432/- has been affixed on the plaint. It is further stated that this court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. Non Starter Report under Rule 3(4) and (6) was also issued. Along with this plaint, affidavit and statement of truth of Sh. Alok Gupta is filed.
1.7 The plaintiff during the course of proceedings has filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint wherein the permission was sought to amend the memo of parties and para 4 of the plaint. By virtue of the said application, the plaintiff has stated that initially the plaintiff has filed the suit impleading the defendant as proprietorship firm. However, it is stated that on basis of the averments of the defendant in his WS, the plaintiff wants to change the capacity of the defendant from proprietorship firm to the partnership firm Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.4 of 37 being represented by its partner Sh. Sanjeev Kalra. The consequential change was also sought to be incorporated in para 4 of the plaint. The said application of the plaintiff was allowed vide order dated 22.09.2023 and defendant was directed to file the WS to amended plaint.
2. It is pertinent to mention that vide order dated 18.11.2023, ld. counsel for defendant submitted that he does not wish to file WS to the amended plaint and his earlier WS be read as WS to the amended plaint and as no fresh WS has been filed by the defendant, therefore, on 19.12.2023, ld. counsel for plaintiff submitted that they do not wish to file any further replication.
3. In the WS, it is stated that Prakash Brothers has no legal entity in the eyes of law and the suit is thus, defective and not properly filed and is liable for dismissal.
3.1 It is stated that present suit is also barred by limitation because as per the plaintiff, the goods/clothes were lastly sold on 08.05.2015 through Invoice/Bill whose recovery is sought raised in 2013-2015, thus, the present suit filed by plaintiff in the year 2022 i.e. after more than 7 years is time barred. It is further stated that there is no acknowledgment of defendant and the acknowledgment must be made within limitation period as acknowledgment of time barred debt cannot save limitation. It is further stated that the suit is without any cause of action. It is stated that the present suit is barred by Section 69 of Indian Partnership Act and the reconstitution of partnership deed dated 22.08.2017 is unregistered. It is further stated that the present suit is regarding the transaction held in the Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.5 of 37 year 2015 as alleged by plaintiff, however, plaintiff has not filed partnership deed of the period 2012-2015. It is averred that an unregistered firm has no right to sue and therefore, a plaint filed by plaintiff has no legal effect, thus, the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that plaintiff intentionally has not filed manual ledger on record and intentionally filed only computer typed copy ledger account. It is further averred that the ledger account of plaintiff is incomplete and is not showing cash entries/payment made by defendant and the true facts are that plaintiff has filed incomplete, forged and fabricated ledger account. Defendant has averred that the amount claimed in the plaint by the plaintiff includes the interest as well, but, there is no such privy of contract for interest in between the parties and the interest claimed has not been specified as to for which period the interest has been claimed as required under Order VII Rule 2A CPC.
3.2 Further, it is stated that plaintiff has moved the present suit on false and frivolous grounds against the defendant, thus, the plaintiff is liable to be prosecuted under Section 340 Cr.PC. It is stated that plaintiff has filed false affidavit under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, Certificate by way of affidavit under Order XI Rule 6 (3) CPC and false affidavit alongwith plaint, just to harass or blackmail the defendant and plaintiff is trying to give financial loss to the defendant by filing false affidavit on oath before this court. Further, it is stated that suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. It is further stated that the suit has not been signed, verified or instituted by a duly authorized person on behalf of plaintiff so the same is liable to be dismissed. Further, it is stated that the firm "Shree Radhey Krishna Sales" is Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.6 of 37 partnership firm which has been closed long back in the year 2018-19 and the said firm is no more in existence. Defendant has not admitted any outstanding business debts and submitted that all the payments were made in the year 2017 to the plaintiff. Defendant has further denied that the sales invoices along with goods were duly received by the defendant.
Rest of the material contents of the plaint are denied by the defendant and prayer has been made for dismissal of the suit with heavy cost.
4. Replication to the WS has been filed wherein it is stated that suit of the plaintiff is maintainable in the present form without any demur or objection of any nature whatsoever. It is submitted that defendant has always been making the payment in parts in respect of goods supplied by plaintiff and as such defendant firm had a running business ledger account with plaintiff. It is further submitted that defendant used to purchase goods from plaintiff whereby the defendant used to make part payments in relation to said transactions and the same was not attributable to any specific sales invoices whereby the said transactions were duly entered into the running ledger account being open, running and and non mutual account. Plaintiff denied that the present suit is barred by Section 69 of Indian Partnership Act and stated that the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm and has placed on record partnership deed as well as Form B (Rule 8) i.e. acknowledgment of registration of firm issued by Registrar of Firms and registration is prior to the institution of present suit. Plaintiff further denied that they intentionally did not filed manual ledger and filed computer typed incomplete ledger.
Remaining averments made in the WS are denied and the averments made in the plaint are reiterated. Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.7 of 37
5. During admission/denial, the defendant has not admitted any document of the plaintiff and has denied all the documents of the plaintiff. On the otherhand, the plaintiff has also denied all the documents of the defendant and, therefore, exercise of admission/denial was not carried out. Thereafter, on completion of the pleadings of parties, following issues are framed for consideration:
(i) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Limitation? OPD
(ii)Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act? OPD
(iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree? If so, to what amount. OPP
(iv)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest? If so, at what rate and for which period. OPP
(v). Relief.
6. In support of its case, plaintiff has examined Sh. Alok Gupta, Partner of Prakash Brothers as PW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit on 31.01.2024 which is Ex.PW1/A and has relied upon the following documents:
• Copy of partnership deed of the plaintiff Firm as Mark A(Colly);
• Registration certificate issued by the Registrar of Firms in relation of plaintiff's Firm as Ex.PW1/1; • Certificate issued by the Registrar of the Firm w.r.t.
changes in constitution of the partnership firm as Ex.PW1/2;
• Authorization letter issued by the plaintiff Firm in favour of deponent/Alok Gupta as Ex.PW1/3. Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.8 of 37 • Printout of the GST registration certificate of the plaintiff Firm as Ex.PW1/4;
• Copy of rent agreement in relation to office premises of the plaintiff as Mark B;
• Carbon copy of the sale invoices issued by the plaintiff to the defendant as Ex.PW1/6 to PW1/16; • The ledger account in relation to the transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant as Ex.PW1/17 to PW1/24; • Copy of the legal demand notice as Ex.PW1/25; • Speed Post and Courier Receipts of the said legal demand notice as Ex.PW1/26 & PW1/27 and Ex.PW1/30 & PW1/31;
• Tracking report of speed post as Ex.PW1/28 & PW1/29; • Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/32;
• Certificate under Order XI Rule 6(3) CPC as Ex.PW1/33; • Non-starter Report as Ex.PW1/34. He was cross examined at length on behalf of defendant.
6.1 A summoned witness Ms. Deepika Junior Assistant, District Magistrate, South East examined as PW2 brought the certified copies of plaintiff firm's registration, namely, Prakash Brothers whereby the following documents are attached :
(a) Notings of the office of the registrar (firm and societies), South and South-East, Delhi as Ex.PW2/1;
(b) Memorandum acknowledgment receipt of document (Form C) dated 17.12.2021 as Ex.PW2/2;
(c) Copy of application letter dated 30.11.2021 for reconstitution of partnership deed as Ex.PW2/3;
(d) Declaration/No objection dated 08.12.2012 as Ex.PW2/4;
(e) Form No.1 dated 07.12.2012 as Ex.PW2/5;
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.9 of 37 She was also cross examined by counsel for defendant. Thereafter, PE was closed on the statement of AR of plaintiff.
7. In rebuttal, defendant examined Sh. Sanjeev Kalra as DW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit on 05.07.2024 which is Ex.DW1/A and has relied upon the following documents:
• Statement of account as Ex.DW1/1 (colly); • Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.DW1/2.
Thereafter, DE was closed vide order dated 31.08.2024.
8. Ld. Counsel of the plaintiff has relied upon the following cases to support his contention:
Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ashoka Enterprises (India) 2018 SCC OnLine Delhi 11353 Navigators Visa Global Logistics Ltd. v. Thermoking Thr Its Proprietor Pradeep Khanna RFA (Comm) 18/2023 decided on 01.07.2024 Bharath Skins Corporation v. Taneja Skins Company Private Limited (2012) 186 DLT 290
9. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has relied upon the following cases:
J K Lakshmi Cement Ltd. v. Namit Plastic (P) Ltd and Ors.
160 (2009) DELHI LAW TIMES 340 Smti. Soma Saha v. The Global Educational Net (Genet) RFA No. 09 of 2019 decided on 22.01.2020 Vijay Kumar Satish Chander vs. Rajgopal 1996 (3) Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.10 of 37 BOMLR 176 Ramlal Mistry vs Commissioner of Tekari Municipality AIR 1961 Pat 485 Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V C Shukla and Ors.
III (1998) SLT 189 Ishwar Dass Jain (Dead) Thr. LRs. v. Sohan Lal (dead) by LRs.
10. The court has heard ld. counsel for the plaintiff as well as ld. counsel for the defendant and have also gone through the records of the case. The findings on the issues are as under :
Issue no.(i) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Limitation? OPD
11. The onus to prove the said issue was upon the defendant. It is argued that the goods/clothes were lastly sold on 08.05.2015 through invoice/bills raised in 2013-2015, however, the present suit is filed by plaintiff in 2022 after more than 7 years. It is further argued that there is no acknowledgment on behalf of defendant and acknowledgment of time barred debt cannot save limitation. Perusal of ledger account Ex.PW1/17 to PW1/24 in relation to transactions between plaintiff and defendant reveals that the last payment of Rs.50,000/- was made by the defendant on 29.05.2017. Taking into account this last payment, the period of limitation starts counting from 29.05.2017. The period consumed during the pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act is also to be excluded while computing limitation.
12. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that the Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.11 of 37 present case would be governed by the Article 14 of the Limitation Act and the period of limitation would start from date of last delivery of goods that is 08.05.2015 and the suit being filed in 2022 is barred by limitation. The Ld. Counsel for the defendant has relied upon J K Lakshmi Cement Ltd. v. Namit Plastic (P) Ltd and Ors. 160 (2009) DELHI LAW TIMES 340; Vijay Kumar Satish Chander vs. Rajgopal 1996 (3) BOMLR 176; Ramlal Mistry vs Commissioner of Tekari Municipality AIR 1961 Pat 485 and Smti. Soma Saha v. The Global Educational Net (Genet) RFA No. 09 of 2019. These cases are discussed herein below.
13. In the case of Vijay Kumar Satish Chander vs. Rajgopal 1996 (3) BOMLR 176, the plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of money against the defendant on basis of transaction of sale purchase of the clothes. The trial court decreed the suit. However, in appeal, Hon'ble HC has observed as follows:
"A plain reading of the provisions of section 20 of the Act makes it very clear that it would not be applicable in the instant case in view of the clear provisions of Article 14 of the Limitation Act. The suit is recovery of the price of the goods purchased by the appellants-defendants and admittedly there is no sale or purchase transaction by the appellants-defendants since 1975. Under Article 14 of the Act, the cut off date for starting period of limitation is the date of purchase or delivery of the goods by the appellants-defendants on credit. In our Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.12 of 37 opinion, as the suit was for recovery of the price of goods sold and not a suit for accounts, the findings and reasonings of the learned trial judge are unsustainable and the suit was barred by the provisions of Article 14 of the Limitation Act."
14. In the case of Ramlal Mistry vs Commissioner of Tekari Municipality AIR 1961 Pat 485, the plaintiff relied upon two documents to prove the extension of limitation. One was the notice purported to be signed by the chairman of the municipality and other one was a petition filed by the municipality which was later withdrawn. The Hon'ble HC discarded the first mentioned document on the ground that there was no evidence to prove that the person signing the said document was chairman himself or was duly authorized chairman. Thus, the Hon'ble HC held that it could not save the limitation period as stated by the plaintiff. However, in the present case, no such document is filed by the plaintiff therefore, this case is not applicable in the present case being distinguishable on facts.
15. Counsel for defendant has also relied upon the case of Smti. Soma Saha v. The Global Educational Net (Genet) RFA No. 09 of 2019 decided on 22.01.2020, wherein Hon'ble Tripura HC has held that where the plaintiff lastly sold the goods to defendant on 30.04.2009, the suit filed in 2015 was barred by limitation. The Hon'ble court relied upon Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and held that where no period of credit was fixed, the period of limitation would start from the date of last delivery.
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.13 of 37
16. In the case of J K Lakshmi Cement Ltd. v. Namit Plastic (P) Ltd and Ors. 160 (2009) DELHI LAW TIMES 340 , Hon'ble Delhi HC has held that the period of limitation in the specific case has to be determined on the basis of Article 14 of The Limitation Act and not on basis of Article 1 of the Limitation Act. It was further held that period of limitation could be extended only in case of acknowledgement in writing of the amount due to plaintiff by the defendants or on account of part payment of the amount due from defendant to the plaintiff.
17. The defendant has contended that the suit is time barred as suit is instituted after prescribed time as laid down in Article 14 of the Limitation Act. Thus, as per the judgements relied upon by the defendant it can be said that when the payment is made bill to bill, the period of limitation will start from the last date of delivery of goods. However, in the present case, the payments were not made bill to bill and therefore, it was a running account and in case of running account the limitation has to be counted from the date of last payment.
18. On the other hand, counsel for plaintiff has relied upon the upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ashoka Enterprises (India) & Ors. AIRONLINE 2018 DEL 1520. Para 12 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced hereinbelow:
"12. This argument urged on behalf of the appellant / defendant is completely misconceived because firstly, if the statement of accounts filed by the respondents/plaintiffs were incorrect, then why was the Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.14 of 37 appellant/defendant hesitant to file its own statement of accounts. Secondly, the fact of the matter is, that the statement of account which is filed and proved by the respondents/plaintiffs show that the amounts which have been paid by the appellant/defendant to the respondents/plaintiffs are not for the exact amount of payments of the bills/invoices. The said payments vary on account of ad hoc payments being made by the appellant/defendant to the respondents/plaintiffs. I would also like to note that the trial court has rightly relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bharath Skins Corporation v.
Taneja Skins Company Private Limited (2012) 186 DLT 290, wherein limitation period with respect to a suit filed on a running and current account has been held to be within limitation as per Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 once the account is a non-mutual account.
19. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that the period of limitation in the present suit would be governed by Article 14 and 15 of the Limitation Act and therefore it is time barred. However, in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi HC in Bharath Skins Corporation v. Taneja Skins Company Private Limited (2012) 186 DLT 290 as in the present case, the account between the partis was an open, running and 'non-mutual' Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.15 of 37 account, thus, the period of limitation would be governed by the Art. 113 of the Limitation Act.
20. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi HC in Bharath Skins Corporation v. Taneja Skins Company Private Limited (2012) 186 DLT 290.
"14. Where "A" sells goods to "B" from time to time and "B" makes payments towards the price from time to time, there is only a "single" contractual relationship, namely that of buyer and seller, between the parties. "A"
has demands against "B" for items sold, but "B" can have no "demands" against "A".
Such case is not one of reciprocal demands and thus Article 85 of the Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 corresponding to Article 1 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 will not apply to suits on such accounts.
......
15. In view of the above discussion, since the dealings between the parties disclose a single contractual relationship i.e. of buyer and seller between them, the account between them cannot be termed as a "mutual" account.
As a necessary corollary, Article 1 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 has no application in the present case.
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.16 of 37
20. In case of a running and non-mutual account between the buyer and seller, when goods are delivered by the seller to the buyer, the value of the goods is debited in the debit column and when amounts are paid by the buyer to the seller, they are entered in the credit column. The difference is continuously struck in the column for balance. In such a case, when the buyer defaults to make balance payment, the seller's action is not for the price of goods sold and delivered but for the balance due at the foot of an account.
Thus, Article 14 would have no application in suits of recovery of money due on a running and a non-mutual current account between the buyer and seller.
24. There being no Article in the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 dealing with suits for recovery of money due on running and current but non-mutual accounts, in such circumstances, the residual article viz. Article 113 applies to such suits."
21. Thus, it can be said that as per Bharath Skins (supra), the cases where the seller sells goods to the buyer and the buyer pays the amount on various occasions, it would be considered as 'non mutual account' as there was only single contractual liability and period of limitation would not be as per Article 1 of the Limitation Act but as per Article 113 of the Act which is a residuary provision.
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.17 of 37
22. Clearly, the present case pertains to buying and selling of the goods where the defendant has made payments which were adjusted in the account maintained by the plaintiff. Thus, it is a case of running, open and a 'non mutual account'. Therefore, it would be governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act i.e. three years from the date of last cause of action.
23. Perusal of the record reveals that last payment was made by the defendant on 29.05.2017 as per Ex.PW1/17 to Ex.PW1/24. However, as per the defendant he has made last payment in cash on 02.06.2017. Cross examination of DW-1 being relevant is reproduced hereinbelow:
".....At this stage witness is shown the document Ex.DW1/1 i.e. for the ledger of period 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. The cash payment on 02.06.2017 was made by me. No acknowledgment regarding the said cash payment was given by the plaintiff, plaintiff used to make entry in his hand written ledger after receiving the payment in my presence and the plaintiff never issued any receipt against any of the cash payment. The same is the position for all cash payments made by me to the plaintiff. I used to make the cash payments to Mr. Alok Gupta. Normally the said cash payment were made by me at the office of the plaintiff. (Vol. handwritten ledger account was in the office)....."
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.18 of 37
24. During cross DW-1/defendant admitted that the cash payment was made on 02.06.2017 by him and no acknowledgment regarding the said cash payment was given by the plaintiff, as the plaintiff used to make entries in his hand written ledger after receiving the payment in his presence and the plaintiff never issued any receipt against any of the cash payment and the same is the position for all cash payments made by him to the plaintiff. Once the payment was made by defendant to the plaintiff then such payment is made towards balance due at the foot of the account, then right to recover the balance outstanding amount would also arise from that day i.e. cause of action to recover the said remaining amount. Thus, in view of article 113 of The Limitation Act, a period of three years would run from 30.05.2017 and would expire on 29.05.2020. However, the Hon'ble SC has held that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 has to be excluded while computing limitation, due to covid-19 pandemic.
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020 titled as "In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation initiated suo-moto proceedings dated 23.03.2020" wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had passed the following directions:
"(i) The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or specific Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.19 of 37 laws in respect of all judicial or quasi- judicial proceedings.
(ii) Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.
(iii) In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
(iv) It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings".
26. It is also settled that time undergone in Pre- Institution Mediation Settlement under Section 12A of The Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.20 of 37 Commercial Courts Act has to be excluded while computing the period of limitation. Thus, as per the Non Stater Report Ex.PW1/34, the period from 03.01.2022 to 28.01.2022 is also not to be computed while calculating limitation and thus, plaintiff is also entitled to benefit of 25 days spent during pre mediation proceedings.
27. Thus, considering that payments were made in parts towards the debt due at the foot of the statement of account and after giving benefit of the period spent during pre institution mediation and after adjusting the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not barred by limitation. Calculated from any angle, the present suit instituted on 06.06.2022 is thus, filed within the period of limitation.
28. The plea of the defendant that there was no acknowledgement of defendant in writing is not applicable as even the plaintiff admits that there was no written acknowledgement by the defendant. However, even then the suit of the plaintiff is within the limitation on the basis of the above discussion.
Issue no. (i) is, accordingly, decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No.(ii)Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act? OPD
29. The onus of proving this issue was upon the defendant. Ld. counsel for defendant has argued that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act and has taken the plea that reconstitution of partnership deed dated 22.08.2017 is unregistered. In this regard, Plaintiff has examined Ms. Deepika, Junior Assistant, District Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.21 of 37 Magistrate/PW2 who brought certified copies of plaintiff firm, namely, Prakash Brothers and proved the notings of the office of the registrar as Ex.PW2/1; Memorandum acknowledgment receipt of document (Form C) dated 17.12.2021 as Ex.PW2/2; Copy of application letter dated 30.11.2021 for reconstitution of partnership deed as Ex.PW2/3; Declaration/No objection dated 08.12.2012 as Ex.PW2/4 and Form No.1 dated 07.12.2012 as Ex.PW2/5. During cross she stated that all the abovesaid documents were certified by Registrar of Firms and Societies/SDM, Sarita Vihar.
30. Plaintiff has also placed on record copy of partnership deed of the plaintiff Firm Mark A(Colly), registration certificate issued by Registrar of Firms with respect to plaintiff's firm Ex.PW1/1 and the certificate issued by the Registrar of the Firm with respect to changes in constitution of the partnership firm Ex.PW1/2.
31. The Hon'ble SC has in the case of Sharad Vasant Kotak & Ors. vs. Ramniklal Mohanlal Chawda & Anr. C.A. no. 8830 of 1997 decided on 17.12.1997 dealt with similar type of issue and has observed has under:
"The next question is whether the registration given to the firm under the first Partnership Deed ceases when a new partner was introduced into the firm. For this, we refer to Sections 58,59 and 63, the relevant portions have already been extracted. Rules 3, 4,6 and 17 have also been extracted. The forms prescribed in this connection have also been extracted. A close perusal of these provisions with Forms "A", "E", "G" and "H" will show that there is Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.22 of 37 a definite distinction between the Certificate of Registration given to the firm and any alterations to be entered in the Register of Firms. This will suggest in no uncertain terms that the changes in the constitution of the firm will not affect the registration once made. In other words, it is not required that every time a new partner is inducted fresh registration has to be applied and obtained. However, information about changes has to be given.
Our conclusion is that on the induction of the second respondent, the existing firm was only reconstituted on the facts of this case and, therefore, there is no necessity to get a fresh registration. If by virtue of non-compliance of certain mandatory provisions in not informing the firm, certain penalties provided in the Act alone are attracted and that will not lead to the conclusion that the registration of the firm ceased. This conclusion is based on a conjoint reading of Sections 58-63 and the form prescribed thereunder."
32. Thus, on the basis of above decision it is clear that once a partnership deed is reconstituted, it does not require fresh registration. Hence, the bar of S.69 Indian Partnership Act, 1932 would not apply in the present case.
33. In the present case all the necessary conditions are fulfilled as the firm is registered and Sh. Alok Kumar Gupta is shown as one of the partners in the copy of partnership deed of the plaintiff Firm as Mark A. Considering the documents proved Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.23 of 37 on record, it is apparent that the plaintiff's firm was duly registered prior to the institution of the suit. Thus, the argument of ld. counsel for defendant that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act is not sustainable.
Issue no. (ii) is, thus, decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff accordingly.
ISSUE No.(iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree?
If so, to what amount. OPP
34. The onus to prove the said issue is upon the plaintiff. The suit is commercial in nature and squarely falls within the purview of Section 2 (1) (C) of Commercial Courts Act and plaintiff has also duly complied with mandatory provision of Pre-Institution Mediation and Conciliation as provided in Section 12 A of Commercial Courts Act, as per the Non-Starter Report Ex. PW1/34.
35. As far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the plaintiff has stated in para 18 of his amended plaint that defendant is working for gain and having its office at East Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara. Though, defendant has denied the contents of said para in his WS, however, it is admitted fact that defendant is running his business from East Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara as revealed from his affidavit of evidence as well as the supporting affidavit filed along with the WS and therefore, the present court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. This court also has the pecuniary jurisdiction over the matter since the suit amount claimed by the plaintiff is more than the specified value of Rs.3 lacs of the Commercial Courts.
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.24 of 37
36. The plaintiff's case is that he had supplied the goods to the defendant and that defendant has duly received the goods and the defendant had not made the entire payment. Per contra, the stand of the defendant is that he has made the entire payment and no outstanding amount is due upon the defendant regarding the goods in question.
37. Ld. counsel for defendant has contended that the plaintiff has intentionally not filed manual ledger on record and intentionally filed only computer typed copy ledger account. It is further averred that the ledger account of plaintiff is incomplete and not showing cash entries/payment made by defendant and the true facts are that plaintiff has filed incomplete, forged and fabricated ledger account. The onus to prove such a contention was upon the defendant. The plaintiff in his cross-examination has deposed that he used to maintain only the computerized ledger for any of his customer. The relevant part of the cross examination of PW-1 is as follows:
"I never maintained hand written ledger regarding the transactions with Sanjeev Kalra. I never maintained any day book (which pertains to the daily transactions and payment receipt from the customers). I used to maintain stock register regarding my business. I do not remember how many customers I have from the year 2012-15. I never maintained any hand written ledger of my any customer, I used to maintain only computerized ledger.
Q. Is it correct you maintained two ledgers one Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.25 of 37 manual and other computerized?
A. We only maintained only computerized ledger."
38. The defendant during the cross examination of the PW-1 has produced a document which purports to be photocopy of the manual hand written ledger maintained by the plaintiff. However, it was not exhibited and was kept only for reference purpose as Mark X. The relevant part of the cross examination in this regard is as follows:
"At this stage, witness is shown one document i.e. copy of handwritten ledger and some portion is written by pen.
Q. I put it to you that this document is a manual handwritten ledger maintained by you regarding the defendant which you maintained during the course of the business in which you shown several entries of the bills and the cash which you intentionally removed from the typed ledger filed on the record, the same was provided by you to the defendant during the course of the business. What do you have to say ?
Objected to the said manual ledger on the ground that the same is a photocopy and the same has not been filed with the written statement nor any such facts has been mentioned in the WS and that the same does not belongs to the defendant. Counsel for the defendant has submitted that this fact is mentioned in the para-6 of the preliminary objections of the WS.
The court has perused the para-6, which only says Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.26 of 37 that the plaintiff has intentionally not filed manual ledger on record. It nowhere says that a manual ledger exists or a copy of the same is with the defendant. The defendant has not filed the said documents along-with the WS and the list of documents. The said document is not even one of the relied documents of the defendant in the list of document. The said document cannot be put to the witness now at this stage. However, the same is kept on court file and is Mark X only for the reference purpose."
39. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is accepted by this court that the document so produced was the manual ledger maintained by the plaintiff, the defendant has not stated as to how he got the possession of the said ledger and no averment in this regard is found in the WS or affidavit of evidence. The said document is not even filed by the defendant along with his WS nor has been substantiated by any pleading.
40. It is also important to mention here that the defendant had filed an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC dated 05.12.2024 for additional evidence in respect of the above said document and invoices/challan. However, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 07.12.2024.
41. Moreover, the said document is a photocopy where some entries are made by blue pen. Since it was not filed alongwith the WS or at the time under which the Commercial Court Act permits. If such documents are considered it would Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.27 of 37 prejudicially affect the rights of the plaintiff as he was not given an opportunity to file the affidavit of admission and denial of such documents. Thus, it cannot be considered while adjudicating the present case on merits. Thus, the plea of the defendant that the plaintiff is not filing manual ledger is clearly not acceptable.
42. As per the above said facts, it can be said that neither party disputes the business relations and the fact that defendant has received the goods. The dispute only pertains to the remaining outstanding amount, if any, upon the defendant.
43. The defendant has admitted that he has received all the goods as provided by the plaintiff. The relevant part of the cross of DW-1 is as follows:
"At this stage witness is shown the document Ex.DW1/1 at page-19. It is correct that I have received the entire goods mentioned in my ledger Ex.DW1/1 as shown in page no.19 for the year 2014-15 as well as shown on page 20 for the year 2015-16."
44. The plaintiff has produced the carbon copy of sales invoices issued by the plaintiff which are Ex.PW-1/6 to PW-1/16 and the ledger from 01.04.2014 to 01.04.2021 Ex.PW1/17 to Ex.PW1/24 and Ledger from 01.04.2013 to 24.03.2014 as Ex.PW1/D1. The counsel for the defendant objected to the inovices being exhibited as evidence, however, that objection was dismissed as the original bills were given to the defendant and the carbon copy used to be kept with the plaintiff.
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.28 of 37
45. The counsel for the defendant had argued that the plaintiff has not filed any invoice which is signed by the defendant. In this regard, the relevant cross of the plaintiff is as follows:
"Q. Is it correct that upon sale of the goods to the defendant the acknowledgment receipt of the said goods by the defendant or its authorized representatives has not been placed on record by you ?
A. The defendant never gave any written
acknowledgment."
46. Thus, even this plea of the defendant that plaintiff has not filed signed invoices is not acceptable. The plaintiff has duly proved the invoices. The fact of receiving of goods is not even denied by the defendant.
47. As far as the factum of payment made by the defendant is considered, the defendant has taken the plea that he has made all the payment and nothing is due upon the defendant. According to defendant he has made part payments in cash on various occasions as has been mentioned in the ledger filed by him which is Ex. DW-1/1.
48. The defendant in his testimony has stated as to how he used to make payments and that he used to make delay payments to the plaintiff. The relevant part of the cross of DW-1 is re-produced as follows:
"Initially, I used to make payment in relation to Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.29 of 37 purchases made by my firm to the plaintiff within 30-60 days. (Vol. the plaintiff did not raise any objections regarding any delayed payments)."
Q. Is it correct that you used to make the payment by cheque to the plaintiff ?
A. Yes. But we also used to pay by cash, DD and on line payment also to the plaintiff firm.
It is correct that I have made bill to bill payments as well as part payments in relation to the purchases made by me from the plaintiff. I used to make payment as and when the funds were available with me to make the payment. (Vol. cash as well as through cheque). It is correct that I had never supplied any goods to the plaintiff. (Vol. I returned goods to the plaintiff)."
"Q. Since the goods were given by the plaintiff to the defendant on credit, what was the period of credit ?
A. Initially it was agreed that the credit period would be 30-60 days but later on as business continued, no objection was raised by the plaintiff regarding the late payments."
49. In the above extracted testimony of the defendant, it is clear that he used to make part payments and has also made delayed payments.
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.30 of 37
50. The defendant has contended that he has made payments in cash which are not mentioned/ reflected in the ledger filed by the plaintiff. In this regard, the relevant cross examination of the defendant is as follows:
"I used to pay cash to the plaintiff from cash in hand which I used to get from my customers. All the payments that were made in cash by my firm were through the cash received from my customer and no bank withdrawals were made by me for the said purposes.
At this stage witness is shown the document Ex.DW1/1 i.e. for the ledger of period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 and 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. The payments made by me on 27.11.2016 were in the denomination of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/-. Similar is the position for remaining payments for the year 06.12.2016 to 22.01.2017."
51. The plea of the defendant that he has paid cash to the plaintiff in discharge of his liability is not supported by any documentary proof. There is no receipt filed by the defendant to substantiate his claim. Moreover, the defendant, has stated that he has made payments on 27.11.2016 and payments between 06.12.2016 to 22.01.2017 were in the denominations of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000/-. However, this plea of the defendant is not sustainable as the government has withdrawn the legal tender status of denominations of the Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 vide notification no. 2652 dated November 8, 2016. Thus, the currency of denominations of the Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 were not Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.31 of 37 legal tender money, then the plea of the defendant that he had discharged his outstanding liability using these denominations is not acceptable.
52. The fact that defendant has filed statement of account maintained by him and that reflects the cash payment made to the plaintiff is not sufficient in itself to prove the contention that he has made the payment in cash to the plaintiff. The defendant has argued that the entries reflected in the ledger maintained by the plaintiff are not alone sufficient to charge the defendant with some liability. The defendant has also relied upon case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V C Shukla and Ors. III (1998) SLT 189 and Ishwar Dass Jain (Dead) Thr. LRs. v. Sohan Lal (dead) by LRs., Hon'ble SC wherein it was held that entries in books of account are relevant but can not be made sole basis of imputing any liability on any person.
53. Perusal of the ledger Ex. DW-1/1 reveals that the entries on various dates are shown as SALES and the amount is also refelcted in debit column. Also, some entries are shown as Receipt and amount of the said entries are shown in credit column. The entries which were to be credited were shown in debit column and vice versa. Clearly, Ex.DW1/1 has been created by the defendant for filing it in the court and does not seem to be maintained in ordinary course of business. Thus, it is beyond the comprehension that how come the defendant is selling the goods to the plaintiff and is also receiving payment. Contrastingly, the defendant in his cross examination has admitted that he never sold any goods to the plaintiff. Therefore, it can be said that the entries in the ledger Ex. DW-1/1 are not reliable and Dw-1/1 can not be considered to decide the suit on merits being not reliable. Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.32 of 37
54. The cases filed by the defendant applies equally to him as well and keeping in view of the judgement in above noted cases, it can be safely said that just producing of the ledger account maintained by the defendant reflecting the entries of the cash payment made would not prove the averment of the defendant as such an averment must also be supported by some documentary evidences.
55. In the case of Navigators Visa Global Logistics Ltd. v. Thermoking Thr Its Proprietor Pradeep Khanna RFA (Comm) 18/2023 decided on 01.07.2024, Hon'ble Delhi HC has held that since the entries reflected in the statement of account filed by the Defendant shows payment to be made in cash will not amount to proving the said plea. Rather, the defendant has to substantiate his plea by adducing cogent evidence. The relevant part of the para of the judgement is as follows:
"32. The learned Commercial Court had on evaluation of the documents Ex.DW-1/3 handed a noted sheet containing the signatures of the receivers and noting on the top left corner "All Account Settled". Statement of accounts Ex.DW-1/1, Ex.DW-1/5 and Ex.DW-1/6, concluded that the defendant had established that it had made the payments in cash. We are unable to concur with the said view. The statement of accounts is a self- serving statement reflecting the payments in cash. Production of such statement is not sufficient to establish that the payments in cash were in fact made."
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.33 of 37
56. Since the defendant has raised this plea of payment made in cash the defendant had the onus to prove it. However, the defendant had not discharged his onus to prove the said fact.
57. Moreover, the defendant has filed computerized ledger maintained by him alongwith the certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (Now Section 63(4)(c) of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023). The defendant has filed the certificate of section 65B Indian Evidence Act in his own name, whereas, in the cross examination he has admitted that he does not know how to take the printout of the computerized ledger and in which software it has been stored or maintained. The defendant has also admitted that his son has taken the printout from the computer and not him. The relevant extract of the cross examination of DW-1 is as follows:
"The transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant were entered into computer and an electronic ledger was used to be maintained. The entries regarding the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant were fed into the computer by myself, my wife as well as by my son. The ledger account that I maintained cannot be altered. I do not know how to generate ledger from the computer. Only my son used to do it.
It is correct that the printout of the ledger account filed by me in the present proceedings have not been taken by me and same have been done by my son. I do not know in which software the ledger has been stored or maintained in my computer."
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.34 of 37
58. Perusal of the Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act filed by the defendant (Ex. DW-1/2) reveals that it has been filed under the name of the defendant and not of his son. Moreover, the defendant has not filed any affidavit in terms of Order XI Rule 6 (3) CPC as required in the Commercial Court Act. Thus, the plea of the defendant that the cash entries reflected in the ledger of the defendant are true and correct can not be accepted for above stated reasons.
59. Since the civil suit proceeds on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and the plaintiff has been able to discharge his burden of proof by proving the bills/invoices, statement of account and since the fact that delivery of goods was admitted there did not arise any question of proving the delivery of goods. On the otherhand, defendant has not been able to prove his defence that he has paid the entire oustandng amount to the plaintiff, even on the basis of principal of pre pondrence of probabilities. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to an amount of Rs.24,32,700/- as principal and the defendant is liable to pay the said amount to the plaintiff.
Issue no. 3 is, accordingly, answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no. (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
60. As per the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.24,32,700/- was due upon the defendant as an outstanding amount. The plaintiff has proved the above said amount by proving the invoices, ledger etc. The plaintiff has also claimed an amount of Rs.13,13,658/- as an interest calculated @ at the rate of 18% per annum as pre-suit interest. The plaintiff has quantified the pre suit interest and no Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.35 of 37 question has been put to the plaintiff/ PW1 during the cross examination regarding interest. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to pre-suit interest.
61. It is a settled law that the award of interest on the principal amount is vested with the court as a discretionary power. However, it has to be applied upon application of judicial mind and the rate at which it has to be applied has to be considered in light of facts and circumstances of each case.
62. In the present case, as far as the award of the pendente-lite and furture interest is concerned, the plaintiff has duly proved the invoices as well as remaining outstanding amount. However, perusal of the invoices filed by the plaintiff reveals that there was stipulation of 24% interest on delayed payments. However, such unilaterally appended terms of the invoices are not valid and therefore, such exorbitant rate of interest can not be allowed.
63. However, since the payment remains unpaid, the plaintiff is entitled to interest at reasonable rate and therefore, interest of justice would be served if the plaintiff is awarded interest @ 9% on the principal amount of Rs. 24,32,700/- from 30.05.2017, till its realisation.
Thus, issue no. (iv) is decided accordingly.
Issue No.(v). Relief.
64. In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant and it is directed that plaintiff is entitled to an amount of Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.36 of 37 Rs.24,32,700/- from the defendant as principal amount along with pendelite and future interest @ 9% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.24,32,700/- from 30.05.2017, till its actual realization and cost to the extent of court fees and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.
Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by KIRANKIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.03.28 16:50:16 +0530 Announced in the open court (Kiran Bansal) on 28.03.2025 District Judge, Commercial Court-02 Shahdara, Karkardooma Delhi/28.03.2025 Civil Suit (Comm) No. 390/2022 Prakash Brothers Vs. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Page No.37 of 37