Delhi District Court
Kartikay Impex Private Limited vs Enkay Foam Private Limited on 4 April, 2025
Kartikay Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Enkay Foam Pvt. Ltd.
DLCT010060172024
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK GARG,
DISTRICT JUDGE-COMMERCIAL COURT-09
(CENTRAL DISTRICT), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CIVIL SUIT (COMMERCIAL) NO.:- 487/24
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Kartikay Impex Private Limited
Having its registered Office at:
4839/24, Govind Lane, Ansari Road,
Darya Ganj, New Delhi 110002
....Plaintiff
VERSUS
Enkay Foam Private Limited
Having its Registered Office at:
5/5777 Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi 110005
....Defendant
SUIT FOR THE RECOVERY OF RS.15,00,000 ALONG WITH PANDEN-
TELITE AND FUTURE INTEREST
Date of institution : 22.04.2024
Date on which Judgment was reserved: 22.03.2025
Date of Judgment : 04.04.2025
CS (COMM)No. 487/24 Page 1 of 22
Kartikay Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Enkay Foam Pvt. Ltd.
::- J U D G M E N T -::
1.By way of present judgment, this court shall adjudicate upon suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of amount of Rs.15 lakhs alongwith pendentelite and future interest.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
2. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present suit, as stated in the plaint, are as under:-
i. The plaintiff is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is into the business of selling the industrial chemicals having registered office at the abovesaid address whereas the godown is situated at Khasra No. 28/31, Gali no. 16, Libaspur, Delhi 110042 and Sh. Puneet Raj is the authorized representative of the plaintiff. ii. The defendant is a company and is into the business of manufacturer of flexible polyurethane foam, rebounded foam, rexine and P.U. products.
iii. The officials of the defendant company approached the plaintiff and had requested the plaintiff to supply the indus- trial chemicals for their business purposes.CS (COMM)No. 487/24 Page 2 of 22
Kartikay Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Enkay Foam Pvt. Ltd.
iv. That as per the mutual undertaking, defendant placed the order verbally upon the plaintiff and on the basis of the said order plaintiff supplied the requisite industrial chemicals on credit basis on several occasions and lastly through tax in- voice dated 28.01.2021.
v. After issuing the said tax invoice, plaintiff got issued the e-way bill regarding the transportation of the said chemi- cals and thereafter booked the chemical through transporter and defendant had duly acknowledged the receipt of the said chemicals.
vi. That the plaintiff has also been maintaining the running ledger account statements in due course of its business in re- spect of the transaction executed with the defendant, whereby the plaintiff had mentioned and recorded the details of all the tax invoices as well as the amount received from the defen- dant. The books of accounts of the plaintiff have been regu- larly audited and maintained in the ordinary course of its business and according to said ledger account statement Rs. 15 lakhs is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.
vii. That the plaintiff had demanded the outstanding amount. Although, defendant had admitted the liability of the outstanding amount however failed to pay the same.
CS (COMM)No. 487/24 Page 3 of 22Kartikay Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Enkay Foam Pvt. Ltd.
viii. That the plaintiff had also initiated pre institution medi- ation and settlement as provided in Section 12A of the com- mercial Courts Act against the defendant but no one appeared on behalf of the defendant for mediation and hence the same was disposed of as non starter and certificate was issued on 02.04.2024.
ix. That the defendant evaded to pay the abovementioned amount and hence, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree of Rs.15 lakhs along with pendentelite and future interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 28.01.2021 till its realisation.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
3. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant. The defendant appeared through its counsel and filed the written statement.
DEFENDANT'S CASE
4. In the written statement, the defendant has averred that plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and the suit is not only based on false and malafide pleas but also abuse and misuse of judicial process.
5. It is further averred in the written statement that the suit is not maintainable on account of territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter at CS (COMM)No. 487/24 Page 4 of 22 Kartikay Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Enkay Foam Pvt. Ltd.
hand and the present suit has not been signed, filed and instituted by a duly authorised person on behalf of plaintiff company.
6. It is further averred that the defendant regularly made intermittent payments to the plaintiff in respect to the goods received by it. It is further submitted that due to COVID -19 pandemic there were certain issues with the smooth flow of business of the defendant and the defendant requested the plaintiff to grant time to make the said outstanding payment to the plaintiff in installments and the same was allowed by the plaintiff which is clearly reflected in the statement of accounts.
ISSUES
7. On the basis of the pleadings following issues were settled on 20.07.2024:
(i). Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try this case?
OPD
(ii) Whether the plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and is guilty of suppression of material facts? (OPD)
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the amount as claimed in the plaint? (OPP)
(iv). If the issue no. (iii) is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the pendente-lite and future interest, if so at what rate and for what period? (OPP) CS (COMM)No. 487/24 Page 5 of 22 Kartikay Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Enkay Foam Pvt. Ltd.
(v). Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
8. Plaintiff has examined Sh. Puneet Lal, AR as PW1 who filed his evi- dence by way of affidavit ExPW1/A and relied upon documents as under:
i. Copy of certificate of incorporation of the plaintiff company is Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
ii. Board Resolution dated 18.04.2024 of the plaintiff company is Ex.PW1/2.
iii. Printout of the Master Data of defendant company taken from the MCA official website is Ex.PW1/3.
iv. Office copies of the tax invoice, receipt of article, transport receipt and e-way bill are collectively Ex.PW1/4 (colly.) v. Ledger Account Statement of the plaintiff company for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 is Ex.PW1/5 and for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 is Ex.PW1/6 bearing the defendant stamp and signatures on both the said statements at point A1 and A2 respectively. vi. E-mail dated 26.04.2023 written by the plaintiff to the defendant stating the credit balance of Rs.33,00,000/- along with the ledger account statement for the year 01.04.22 to 31.03.23 is Ex.PW1/7 (colly.) which was duly signed and stamped by the defendant on 03.05.23 at point A3.CS (COMM)No. 487/24 Page 6 of 22
Kartikay Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Enkay Foam Pvt. Ltd.
vii. E-mail dated 08.12.23 sent by plaintiff to the defendant along with ledger account statement for 01.04.23 to 11.11.23 is Ex.PW1/8 (colly.).
viii. E-mail dated 09.12.23 sent by the defendant to the plaintiff issuing its ledger account statement for 01.04.23 to 31.03.24 showing the debt balance of Rs.15,00,000/- is Ex.PW1/9 (colly.) ix. Ledger account statement of the plaintiff company w.e.f.
01.04.23 to 31.03.24 showing the balance of Rs.15,00,000/- towards the defendant is Ex.PW1/10. x. Non-starter report dated 02.04.24 is Ex.PW1/11.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
9. Defendant has examined Sh Mayank Jain, AR/Director of defendant company as DW1 who filed his evidence by way of affidavit ExDW1/A and relied upon the Board Resolution of the company dated 24.05.2024 as ExDW1/1.
ARGUMENTS HEARD FROM BOTH SIDES
10. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and defendant and perused the entire record.
CS (COMM)No. 487/24 Page 7 of 22Kartikay Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Enkay Foam Pvt. Ltd.
ISSUEWISE FINDINGS Issue no 1
(i). Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try this case? OPD
11. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try this case as admittedly the goods were supplied by the plaintiff from Libaspur, Delhi 110042 to the defendant at Village Khekra, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh and hence, no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court within the meaning of Section 20 CPC.
12. In my view this argument has no merit. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure governs the place of suing in civil suits. It outlines the juris- diction in which a civil suit can be filed, and it provides the basis of deter- mining where a suit should be instituted based on the defendant's location and other relevant factors.
13. For a corporation or company, Section 20 CPC specifically allows a suit to be filed in the court where the principal office of the defendant corpo- ration is located. This is significant because it establishes that a corporation, being a legal entity, can be sued in the jurisdiction where it conducts its pri- mary operations or has its head office, even if the cause of action has no di- rect connection to that location.
CS (COMM)No. 487/24 Page 8 of 22Kartikay Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Enkay Foam Pvt. Ltd.
14. In the present case, admittedly the defendant is a company which has registered office at 5/5777, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005. During arguments Ld. Counsel for the defendant has admitted that the defen- dant has registered office at the said address. Even the statement of truth filed by the defendant along with the written statement mentions about this address as the registered office of the defendant.
15. In view of the same, when admittedly the defendant has their regis- tered office in Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi 110005 which is within the ju- risdiction of this Court, this case is clearly covered by the Explanation clause of Section 20 CPC in respect of Corporation which provides that a corpora- tion shall be deemed to carry on business as its sole or principal office in In- dia and hence in view of the same, the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the de- fendant has no merit.
16. This issue is accordingly decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
Issue no 2
(ii) Whether the plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and is guilty of suppression of material facts? (OPD)
17. It is settled law that a person who approaches Court for granting relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly & correctly CS (COMM)No. 487/24 Page 9 of 22 Kartikay Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Enkay Foam Pvt. Ltd.
disclose all the material/important facts which have bearing on the adjudica- tion of the issues raised in the case. He owes a duty to the court to bring out all the facts and desist from concealing/suppressing any material fact within his knowledge or which he could have known by exercising due diligence expected of a person of ordinary prudence. The doctrine is often stated as those seeking Equity must do Equity or Equity must come with Clean Hands.
18. If a petitioner is found guilty of concealment of material facts or mak- ing an attempt to pollute the pure stream of justice, the court not only has the right but a duty to summarily deny relief to such person to prevent an abuse of the process of law and reject the Petition on this ground alone without go- ing to the merits of the case. The Apex Court has repeatedly invoked and ap- plied the rule that a person who does not disclose all material facts has no right to be heard on the merits of his grievance. (Reliance G. Jayshree and others v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and others (2009) 3 SCC 141 and Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114).
19. The onus was on the defendant to disclose the material facts which ought to have been disclosed by the plaintiff before the court and the failure to make such disclosure would render the plaintiff in-eligible to seek relief from the court.
CS (COMM)No. 487/24 Page 10 of 22Kartikay Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Enkay Foam Pvt. Ltd.
20. In the present case, defendant has admitted the receipt of the goods in question and has taken the plea that he had been making intermittent pay- ment to the plaintiff in respect of the goods received. The defendant had challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this court which has already been dealt with in the earlier issue. The defendant has miserably failed to show as to what material facts have been suppressed by the plaintiff, which is of such nature that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief from the Court.
21. Hence, this issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue no 3
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the amount as claimed in the plaint? (OPP)
22. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff has examined Sh. Puneet Lal as PW1 and he has categorically deposed that on the basis of the orders placed by the defendant, the plaintiff supplied goods vide tax invoice dated 28.01.2021 with receipt of articles, transporter receipt and e-way bills ExPW1/4 colly. He has further deposed that as per ledger account Ex.PW1/10 an amount of Rs.15 lakhs is due and outstanding towards the de- fendant.
CS (COMM)No. 487/24 Page 11 of 22Kartikay Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Enkay Foam Pvt. Ltd.
23. The defendant has admitted the business relations between the parties.
24. It is relevant here to state that the plaintiff has filed e-way bills in re- spect of relevant invoice which is part of Ex.PW1/4 (colly.) in support of its contentions that the goods in question were supplied to the defendant.
25. In this regard, it would be relevant to reproduce Rule 138 of SCGST Rules, 2017 as under:-
Rule 138: SCGST Rules, 2017 reads as under:-
138, Information to be furnished prior to commencement of move- ment of goods and generation of e-way bill.-(1) Every registered per- son who cause movement of goods of consignment value exceeding fifty thousand rupees:-
(i) in relation to a supply; or
(ii) for reasons other than supply; or
(iii) due to inward supply from an unregistered person, shall, before commencement of such movement, furnish in-
formation relating to the said goods as specified in Part-A of Form GST EWB-01, electronically, on the common portal and a unique number will be generated on the said portal;
Provided that the transporter, on an authorization received from the registered person, may furnish information in Part A of Form GST EWB-01, electronically, on the common portal along with such other information as may be required on the common portal and a unique number will be generated on the said portal:
Provided further that where the goods to be transported are supplied through an e-commerce operator or a courier agency, on an authorization received from the consignor, the informa- tion in Part-A of Form GST EWB-01 may be furnished by CS (COMM)No. 487/24 Page 12 of 22 Kartikay Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Enkay Foam Pvt. Ltd.
such e-commerce operator or courier agency and a unique number will be generated on the said portal:
Provided also that where goods are sent by a principal located in one State or Union territory to a job worker located in any other State or Union Territory, the e-way bill shall be gener- ated either by the principal or the job worker, if registered, ir- respective of the value of the consignment:
Provided also that where handicraft goods are transported from one state or Union Territory to another State or Union Territory by a person who has been exempted from the re- quirement of obtaining registration under clauses (i) and (ii) of section 24, the e-way bill shall be generated by the said person irrespective of the value of the consignment. (11) The details of the e-way bill generated under this rule shall be made available to the-
(a) Supplier, if registered, where the information in Part A of FORM GST EWB-01 has been furnished by the recipient of the transporter; or
(b) recipient, if registered, where the information in Part of FORM GST EWB-01 has been furnished by the supplier or the transporter, on the common portal, and the supplier or the recipient, as the case may be, shall communicate his accep-
tance or rejection of the consignment covered by the e-way bill.
(12) Where the person to whom the information specified in sub-rule(11) has been made available does not communicate his acceptance or rejection within seventy two hours of the details being made available to him on the common portal, or the time of delivery of goods whichever is earlier, it shall be deemed that he has accepted the said details.
26. Hence, sub-rule (11) of the above rule provides that the details of the e-way bill shall be made available to the recipient who shall communicate his acceptance or rejection of the consignment covered by the e-way bill. Further sub-rule (12) provides that in such cases, if the recipient does not CS (COMM)No. 487/24 Page 13 of 22 Kartikay Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Enkay Foam Pvt. Ltd.
communicate his acceptance or rejection within 72 hours of the details being made available to him on the common portal, or the time of delivery of goods whichever is earlier, it shall be deemed that he has accepted the said details.
27. In the present case, no evidence has been adduced by the defendant to show that inspite of generation of the said e-way bills by the plaintiff in re- spect of the goods in question showing the defendant as recipient of those goods, the defendant company ever communicated its acceptance or rejection within stipulated period or at any point of time and as such presumption is li- able to be drawn in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant that en- tire goods sent under all the said e-way bills which are part of Ex.PW1/4 (colly.) were delivered to the defendant company.
28. In fact, the factum of supply of goods in question under the said in- voice is not disputed by the defendant company.
29. The plaintiff has filed ledger account statement for the period 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 which is ExPW1/5 and for the period 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 which is ExPW1/6 and both the said statement bear the ac- knowledgment of the defendant with its stamp and signature at point A1 and A2 respectively admitting its liability as reflected in the said statements.
CS (COMM)No. 487/24 Page 14 of 22Kartikay Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Enkay Foam Pvt. Ltd.
30. Further, plaintiff wrote e.mail dated 26.04.2023 to the defendant stat- ing the credit balance of Rs. 33 lakhs along with ledger account statement for the period 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 which is ExPW1/7 colly. which was also duly acknowledged by the defendant with its stamp and signature of its Director at point A3.
31. Further, plaintiff wrote e.mail dated 08.12.2023 ExPW1/8 colly. to the defendant along with account statement for the period 01.04.2023 to 11.11.2023 stating to be the credit balance of Rs. 21 lakhs which is also duly acknowledged by the defendant with its stamp and signature of its Director.
32. Thereafter the defendant wrote e.mail to the plaintiff ExPW1/9 and sent the copy of ledger account for the period 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024 ac- knowledging the debit balance of Rs. 18 lakhs payable to the plaintiff.
33. Further, the plaintiff has filed ledger account for the period 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024 ExPW1/10 showing debit balance of Rs.15 lakhs and this is also duly acknowledged by the defendant with its stamp and signature of its Director.
34. The acknowledgment of the director of the defendant on the abovesaid ledger account statements filed by the plaintiff have not been denied on be- half of the defendant.
CS (COMM)No. 487/24 Page 15 of 22Kartikay Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Enkay Foam Pvt. Ltd.
35. Further, DW1 Sh. Mayank Jain, Director of the defendant company has admitted in his cross examination that the defendant company might have taken the Input Tax Credit in respect of the invoice which is part of ExPW1/4 colly. He has further admitted that the defendant has not filed its ledger account statement for the relevant period in this case. Infact, the de- fendant did not file any document in support of its case except the extract of the Board Resolution in favour of DW1 to depose in this case as a witness of the defendant.
36. In the written statement, the plea taken by the defendant in para no. 12 of the reply on merits is that although the defendant was making intermittent payments to the plaintiff in discharge of its liability but due to COVID -19 pandemic there were certain issues with the smooth flow of business of the defendant and hence the defendant requested the plaintiff to grant time to make the said outstanding payments to the plaintiff in installments which was allowed by the plaintiff.
37. Hence, from the above it is clear that there is no denial of liability to pay the said outstanding amount by the defendant and rather the defendant has admitted that it is liable to pay the amount in question which is also clear from the confirmation of the ledger account of the plaintiff bearing the ac- knowledgment of the defendant for the relevant period. Further in the written statement it is not the case of the defendant that the entire outstanding amount as claimed by the plaintiff has already been paid by the defendant CS (COMM)No. 487/24 Page 16 of 22 Kartikay Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Enkay Foam Pvt. Ltd.
and no due remains against the defendant to be paid and rather the defendant has admitted that due to COVID-19 Pandemic there were certain issues with the smooth flow of business of the defendant.
38. In civil suits for money recovery, the courts generally enforce contrac- tual obligation unless a legal exemption applies. Hardship alone does not in- validate a debt unless specific laws provide relief. Financial difficulty due to COVID pandemic does not automatically exempt a person from paying debts in civil money recovery cases and it is not a valid legal defence for avoiding payment obligations in such cases.
39. Under Section 104 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the defen- dant is expected to prove its defence and assertions made against the plain- tiff, though initial burden to prove is on the plaintiff, but once it is discharged onus shifts on to the other side to disprove the same.
40. In terms of Section 105 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 the ini- tial onus is always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same.
41. In the present case, the testimony of the witness of the plaintiff is con- vincing and truthful and has remained unimpeachable. It is corroborated by CS (COMM)No. 487/24 Page 17 of 22 Kartikay Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Enkay Foam Pvt. Ltd.
documentary evidence. As stated above, there is nothing in cross examina- tion of PW1 to shake his credit. There is no ground for me to disbelieve the same. The defendant has taken bald plea in its defence and has miserably failed to prove that it has no liability outstanding against the plaintiff.
42. After considering all the facts and circumstances, I hold that the plain- tiff has been able to prove its case by preponderance of probability that the goods in question were sold by the plaintiff to defendant and the defendant is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.15 lakhs/- to the plaintiff.
43. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant .
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE DEFEN-
DANT
44. Now, I shall deal with the arguments/objections of the Ld. Counsel for the defendant one by one. The arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for de- fendant are primarily as under:
I. WHETHER THE SUIT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION
45. It is further argued by ld. Counsel for the defendant that the present suit is barred by limitation. It is stated that the invoice in question ExPW1/4 CS (COMM)No. 487/24 Page 18 of 22 Kartikay Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Enkay Foam Pvt. Ltd.
is dated 28.1.2021 and the defendant could have filed the present suit within three years i.e. till 27.01.2024 and since the present suit is filed on 22.04.2024, it is barred by limitation.
46. In my view this argument also has no merit. Under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the period spent in pre instituion mediation (mediation be- fore the filing of a commercial suit) is to be excluded from the time limit pre- scribed for the filing of a suit. This is provided under Section 12A (2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This means that if the parties to a dispute en- gage in mediation before filing a commercial suit, the time spent on such me- diation will not be counted when calculating the limitation period for initiat- ing a legal proceeding.
47. This provision aims to encourage parties to settle disputes through me- diation before resorting to litigation, ensuring that they are not penalized for attempting an alternative dispute resolution method. The exclusion helps to provide a fair opportunity for mediation to succeed without the pressure of a strict limitation period.
48. In the present case the plaintiff resorted to pre institution mediation before the filing of the present suit. The certificate bearing file no. 2119/me- diation/DLSA/Central/2023 dated 02.04.2024 issued by Central District Le- gal Services Authority has been filed by the plaintiff along with the suit. This CS (COMM)No. 487/24 Page 19 of 22 Kartikay Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Enkay Foam Pvt. Ltd.
certificate clearly shows that the plaintiff applied for pre institution media- tion on 21.12.2023 and the certificate of non starter report was issued by Central District Legal Service Authority on 02.04.2024.
49. Hence, the period from 21.12.2023 to 02.04.2024 is to be excluded from computing the period of limitation and when it is so excluded, the present suit filed on 22.04.2024 is clearly within limitation.
II. WHETHER THERE IS NON COMPLIANCE OF ORDER XI RULE 6 CPC IN RESPECT OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS
50. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that in respect of the electronic records, the plaintiff has filed the declaration on oath by way of an affidavit under Order 11 Rule 6 (3) CPC as amended by Commercial Courts Act but the said affidavit is not as per the said provision and hence, the same cannot be read by the Court.
51. In my view this argument also has no merit. Although it is correct that the certificate in question is strictly not in accordance with the said provision but that in itself would not be sufficient to demolish the entire case of the plaintiff. As stated above, the plaintiff has filed copies of its ledger for the relevant periods which have been physically countersigned by the authorised signatory /director of the defendant company as a confirmation of the ac- count and after the physical signatures, those documents became the primary CS (COMM)No. 487/24 Page 20 of 22 Kartikay Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Enkay Foam Pvt. Ltd.
evidence which are on record for which no certificate under Order XI Rule 6 CPC was even required. Further civil cases are decided on preponderance of probabilities and the plaintiff has been able to sufficiently prove its case on the basis of other documents and hence this argument is meritless.
Issue No. 3 :
(iii) If the issue no. (ii) is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the pendentelite and future interest, if so at what rate and for what period? (OPP)
52. As far as grant of pendentelite and future interest is concerned, in my view, since defendant has deprived the plaintiff for use of the amount of sold goods and considering the prevalent rate of interest, I grant interest @ 8% per annum on the decretal amount from the date of filing of suit i.e. 22.04.2024 till the date of decree and thereafter till the realization.
Issue No. 4 :-
(iv) Relief
53. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for sum of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum on the said amount w.e.f. 28.01.2021 (date of invoice) till the date of filing of the suit i.e. 22.04.2024 and at the same rate of interest CS (COMM)No. 487/24 Page 21 of 22 Kartikay Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Enkay Foam Pvt. Ltd.
from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and thereafter till its real- ization. The plaintiff is also held entitled to costs of the suit.
54. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
55. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by DEEPAKDEEPAK GARG GARG Date:
2025.04.04 15:20:56 +0530 Announced in the open Court on (Deepak Garg) th this 4 Day of April 2025 Distt. Judge, (Comm. Court)-09, Central District, THC : Delhi CS (COMM)No. 487/24 Page 22 of 22