Delhi District Court
Arihant Electricals vs M/S Pramod Telecom Private Limited on 6 December, 2025
BEFORE THE COURT OF SH. SURINDER S. RATHI, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMM.)-11 CENTRAL, THC, DELHI
CS Comm. No.658/2025
Arihant Electricals
Through Sh. Govind Kumar
Having its Corporate Office at:
Ecotech-XII, Plot No.60, Greater
Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh, 201308
Former Office at:
A-82, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-II, New Delhi-110020
Registered Office at:
24/4866, Ansari Road Daryaganj,
New Delhi-110002 ..............Plaintiff
Vs.
M/s Pramod Telecom Private Limited
Plot No. 6B, Malviya Nagar, Aishbagh,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226004 ............Defendant
Date of Institution : 04.06.2025
Date of Final Arguments : 06.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 06.12.2025
Decision : Decreed
Judgment
1. The suit is filed by plaintiff partnership firm for recovery of Rs.6,01,303/-
alongwith interest @ 24% per annum of unpaid dues of goods sold.
Plaintiff's Case:
2. Case of the plaintiff as per second amended plaint is that it is duly
registered partnership firm and is engaged in the business of trading of
electrical products. The suit is filed by Sh Govind Kumar, Power of
Attorney holder of the firm. Defendant is said to be duly incorporated
page 1
CS Comm. No.658/2025
Arihant Electricals Vs. M/s Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd.
Private Limited Company at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. In the course of
business, defendant company approached the plaintiff firm for purchase of
goods, defendant agreed to carry out purchase as per terms written on the
invoices. Goods were sold and supplied through invoices dated between
12.08.2021 and 01.03.2023. Plaintiff maintained a ledger of sales made
and payments received. As per ledger, there was debit balance of
Rs.6,01,303/- as on 05.05.2025. The defendant did not clear the dues
despite requests. Plaintiff was constrained to issue legal notice dated
11.01.2024 followed by second legal notice dated 17.04.2024 where
interest of 24% was also claimed. Legal notice was neither replied nor
complied. Plaintiff approached Central DLSA for Pre institution
Mediation under Section 12A Commercial Courts Act, 2015, where
defendant did not participate despite due service and consequently, Non-
Starter Report dated 22.01.2025 was issued. While arriving at an amicable
settlement before a Mediator is an option but non-participation in Pre
Institution Mediation is not an option. In this backdrop, the plaintiff was
constrained to file the suit in hand with following prayers:-
Prayer:
(a) Order for trial of suit under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code and
summons be sent in accordance with law.
(b)Decree the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of INR 6,01,303.80/- (Rupee Six
Lakh One Thousand Three Hundred Three One and Eighty Paisa) against the
defendant.
(c) Award pendent lite and future interest @ 24% per annum.
(d) Award cost of the suit in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
(e) Grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Summons of the suit was served upon the defendant by way of speed post
on 16.08.2025 at the registered address. However, no WS was filed within
page 2
CS Comm. No.658/2025
Arihant Electricals Vs. M/s Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd.
30 days i.e. on or by 16.09.2025. Although, a proxy counsel for defendant
appeared on 19.09.2025 on VC to seek passover, but he neither disclosed
his name nor filed any vakalatnama or memo of appearance. Thereafter,
matter was taken up twice upto 02:25 pm. When none apeared for the
defendant, the right of the defendant to file WS was closed and defence
was struck off. Defendant was granted opportunity to approach this court
under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC before expiry of 120 days.
4. Out of the pleadings following notional issues were identified by this
Court on 19.09.2025:
Notional Issues:
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.6,01,303/- alongwith
interest @ 24% per annum? OPP
ii. Relief.
5. On the adjourned dated 27.09.2025, even though Sh. Rishabh Jain, Ld.
counsel for defendant appeared through VC, no application under Order
8 Rule 1 CPC was filed. Plaintiff was also burdened with cost for not
leading of evidence. Thereafter, both defendants continued to appear
through counsel Sh. Abhay Dev Sharma, Advocate and participate in
the trial but no WS was filed.
Evidence
6. To prove its case, plaintiff firm examined PW-1 Sh. Govind Kumar, AR
an Accountant of the firm. Vide affidavit Ex.PW1/A he deposed on the
lines of plaint and exhibited following documents:
1. Copy of Power of Attorney is Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
2. Copy of Partnership Deed is Ex.PW1/2 (OSR).
3. Copy of Form A & C is Ex.PW1/3 (OSR).
4. Ledger Account Statement is Ex.PW1/4.
5. Outstanding Statement is Ex.PW1/5.
6. Invoices dated 16.04.2022 & 01.03.2023 are Ex.PW1/6 (colly).
7. Sale orders dated 14.04.2022 & 01.03.2023 are Ex.PW1/7 (colly).
8. Delivery challan dated 14.04.2022 & 01.03.2023 are Ex.PW1/8 (colly).
9. Bilty dated 01.03.2023 is Ex.PW1/9 (OSR).
10. E-way bills dated 16.04.2022 & 01.3.2023 is Ex.PW1/10.
page 3
CS Comm. No.658/2025
Arihant Electricals Vs. M/s Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd.
11. Certificate under Section 65B of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is
Ex.PW1/11.
12. 1st legal notice dated 11.01.2024 is Ex.PW1/12.
13. 2nd legal notice dated 17.04.2024 is Ex.PW1/13
14. Postal receipts is Ex.PW1/14(colly).
15. Non-starter report is Ex.PW1/15.
7. He was cross-examined at length by Ld. counsel for Defendant wherein
he stated that being Incharge of Finance Department, he takes care of day-
to-day functioning of the firm. The goods were sold and supplied to the
defendant on the basis of purchase orders received. He accepted that no
separate purchase orders are filed on record but invoices, bilty and ledger
qua the business carried out with the defendant is exhibited. He
maintained that all the invoices were sent to the defendant alongwith the
goods. He denied that there is a debit balance of Rs.6,01,303/-. Witness
was not sure if reminder letters are filed on record but demand notices
were annexed with the suit. Upon being asked, he stated that there are two
partners in the firm. He denied that plaintiff supplied defective goods to
the defendant or that any communication was recieved from the defendant
in this regard. He also denied that goods supplied were not as per
purchase order. He also denied that the suit is barred by limitation.
8. The second witness examined by the plaintiff firm is Sh. Sanjay Sharma,
Store and Logistics Manager of the firm. Vide affidavit Ex.PW2/A he
deposed on the lines of plaint and reiterated the documents exhibited by
PW-1. He maintained that goods were sold and supplied as per orders
received. In his cross-examination, he stated that he handled all invoices
and dispatches. He dispatched the goods to the defendant but could not
disclose the details of the goods. He denied that he is not aware of the
condition and quality of the goods supplied to the defendant. He denied
that defendant approached him qua the defects in the goods supplied. He
accepted the suggestion that the goods were delivered. He added that he is
page 4
CS Comm. No.658/2025
Arihant Electricals Vs. M/s Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd.
responsible for the goods supplied. He denied that the invoices were never
sent to the defendant. He denied that the debit balance was less than
Rs.6,00,000/-. He accpeted that he has not filed any employment
document.
9. In the absence of WS, no witness was examined by the defendant.
10. I have heard arguments of Sh. Surender Kumar Tyagi , Ld. Counsel
for plaintiff and Sh. Vedant Bharghav, Ld. Counsel for defendant
appeared through VC. I have perused the original pleadings and
documents produced by the parties.
11.Now I shall dispose of individual issues framed in this case.
Issue No.1 :
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.8,24,587/- alongwith
interest @ 24% per annum? OPP
12. In order to discharge the onus of issue, plaintiff has relied on 02 invoices
Ex.PW1/6 (colly) issued on 16.04.2022 and 01.03.2023 for
Rs.11,43,184/- and Rs.8,17,692/- respectively. Plaintiff is also relying on
two sales order Ex.PW1/7 and also Ex.PW1/8, bilty Ex.PW1/9 and e-
way bills Ex.PW1/10.
13. It is argued that plaintiff has discharged the onus of proving this issue not
only through documents filed on record but also because the defendant
has also admitted having business relations with the plaintiff and has
admitted the delivery of goods as per cross-examination of the two PWs.
14. While opening his submissions, Ld. counsel for the defendants submitted
that the goods supplied by the plaintiff were not as per purchase order and
the goods were defective. It also argued that communication were issued
to the plaintiff in this regard. It is submitted that the debit balance of
Rs.6,00,000/- is also incorrect. It is a settled legal proposition that bald
denied suggestions do not make evidence in the absence of any document
page 5
CS Comm. No.658/2025
Arihant Electricals Vs. M/s Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd.
whatsoever qua the defects in the goods sold and supplied. This oral plea
is of no avail. Not only no WS was filed with the documents but also no
document was confronted to either of the two PWs.
15.The evidence in this case is primarily documentary. The documents relied
upon by the plaintiff are the documents maintained by a company in the
ordinary course of its business. Though the exceptions cannot be ruled
out, but generally taking a judicial notice of the business, these documents
can be considered to be duly executed in due course of the business and
capable of binding the parties into a contractual relationship.
16.The pleadings in the plaint and annexed documents have remained
unrebutted, unchallenged and uncontroverted. In the absence of any
plausible denial on behalf of defendant, case of the plaintiff is deemed to
be admitted. On the basis of pleadings, evidence led and the documents
exhibited plaintiff has discharged the onus of proving its case.
17.As per case titled Jayam Company Vs. T. Ravi Chandaran 2003 (3)
RCR (Cr.) 154 Madras presumption is drawn against defendant that they
have admitted the contents of the legal notice.
18.In another case titled as Metropolis Travels & Resorts (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Sumit Kalra and Ors., 2002 Latest Caselaw 714 Del wherein it was
observed that :
"13. There is another aspect of the matter which negates the argument of the
respondent and that is that the appellant served a legal notice on the respondent
vide Ex. PW1/3. No rely to the same was given by the respondent. But in spite of the same, no adverse inference was drawn against the defendant. This court in the case of Kalu Ram Vs. Sita Ram 1980 RLR 44 observed that service of notice having been admitted without reservation and that having not been replied in that eventuality, adverse inference should be drawn because he kept quite over the notice and did not send any reply. Observations of Kalu Ram's case (supra) apply on all force to the facts of this case. In the case in hand also despite receipt of notice, respondent did not care to reply nor refuted the averments of demand of theamount on the basis of the invoices/ bills in question. But the Ld. Trial court failed to draw inference against the respondent".
(Emphasis Supplied) page 6 CS Comm. No.658/2025 Arihant Electricals Vs. M/s Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd.
19.Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has also relied upon case titled as Krishan Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Life Insurance Corporation 2010 Latest Caselaw 3344 Del wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that:
"65. No explanation has been rendered by the respondent as to why letter dated 23rd August, 2008 and the legal notice send by the appellant were not repudiated or even replied. Despite due receipt, the respondent did not bother to even send any response to the letter dated 23 rd August, 2008 or the legal notice, the contents whereof would be deemed to have been admitted. In the judicial precedents reported in Rakesh Kumar Vs. Hindustan Everest Tool Ltd. MANU/SC0396/1988: (1988) 2 SCC 165 & Hirallal Kapur Vs. Prabhu Chaudhary MANU/SC/0189/1988 : (1988) 2 SCC 172 it was held by the Supreme Court that a categorical assertion by the landlord in a legal notice if not replied to and controverted, can be treated as an admission by a tenant.
"66. In a Division Bench proceedings of this court reported in Metropolis Travels and Resorts Vs. Sumit Kalra MANU/DE/0562/2002 : 98 (2002) DLT 573 (DB), no adverse inference was drawn against the respondent for failure to reply the legal notice on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. Reference was made to proceedings reported in Kalu Ram Vs. Sita Ram wherein it had been observed that service of notice being admitted without reservation and that having not been replied, in that eventuality, adverse inference should be drawn".
(Emphasis Supplied)
20. As per judgments of Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, plaintiff has been successful in showing on record that non-reply of legal notice by the defendant calls for drawing of presumption as to correctness of the facts contained therein.
21. A strong exception is taken over the conduct of the defendant of not participating in Pre-Institution Mediation despite issuance of notice.
22. Not only Pre-Institution Mediation is mandatory on account of its promulgation and inclusion in Commercial Courts Act 2015 by way of Commercial Court Amendment Act, 2018 whereby Chapter 3 and Section 12A were introduced. For ready reference Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is reproduced hereunder:
Section 12A CC Act, 2015: Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement
(l) A suit, which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief under this Act, shall not be instiluted unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre-institution page 7 CS Comm. No.658/2025 Arihant Electricals Vs. M/s Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd.
mediation in accordance with such manner and procedure as may be prescribed by rules made by the Central Government.
(2) The Central Government may, by notification, authorise the Authorities constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act. 1987, for the purposes of pre institution mediation.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the Authority authorised by the Central Government under sub-section (2) shall complete the process of mediation within a period of three months from the date of application made by the plaintiff under sub-section (l ): 19 of 1987 Provided that the period of mediation may be extended for a further period of two months with the consent of the parties:
Provided further that, the period during which the parties remained occupied with the pre-institution mediation, such period shall not be computed for thc purpose of limitation under the Limilation Act, 1963.
(4) lf the parties to the commercial dispute arrive at a settlement, the same shall be reduced into writing and shall be signed by the parties to the dispute and the mediator.
(5)The settlement arrived at under this section shall have 26 or 1996 the same status and effect as if it is an arbitral award on agreed terms under sub-section(4) of section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996."*
23. Parliament in its wisdom even promulgated PIMS Rules, 2018. Hon'ble Supreme Court in celebrated jugement of Patil Automation Limited Vs. Rakheja Engineering Private Ltd. (2022) Latest Caselaw 645 SC has already ruled that carrying out preinstitution mediation is not optional or directory but is rather mandatory. For ready reference relevant paras of Patil Automation Judgment are reproduced hereunder:
43. "Section 12A cannot be described as a mere procedural law. Exhausting pre-
institution mediation by the plaintiff, with all the benefits that may accrue to the parties and, more importantly, the justice delivery system as a whole, would make Section 12A not a mere procedural provision. The design and scope of the Act, as amended in 2018, by which Section 12A was inserted, would make it clear that Parliament intended to give it a mandatory flavour. Any other interpretation would not only be in the teeth of the express language used but, more importantly, result in frustration of the object of the Act and the Rules"...........
58. A perusal of the Act and the Rules reveal the existence of a complete Code. Mediation contemplated under Section 12A and the Rules, may not succeed in every case. To begin with, the figures may not be reassuring but even if success does not elude the Mediator, in a few of the cases, a good part of the object of the Legislature, would stand achieved.
72. The Act did not originally contain Section 12A. It is by amendment in the year 2018 that Section 12A was inserted. The Statement of Objects and Reasons are explicit that Section 12A was contemplated as compulsory. The object of the Act and the Amending Act page 8 CS Comm. No.658/2025 Arihant Electricals Vs. M/s Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd.
of 2018, unerringly point to at least partly foisting compulsory mediation on a plaintiff who does not contemplate urgent interim relief...... The object is clear. It is an undeniable reality that Court in India are reeling under an extraordinary docket explosion. Mediation, as an Alternative Dispute Mechanism, has been identified as a workable solution in commercial matters. In other words, the cases under the Act lend themselves to be resolved through mediation. Nobody has an absolute right to file a civil suit. A civil suit can be barred absolutely or the bar may operate unless certain conditions are fulfilled. A trained Mediator can work wonders. Mediation must be perceived as a new mechanism of access to justice......... The fact that the mediation can become a non-starter, cannot be a reason to hold the provision not mandatory.
84. Having regard to all these circumstances, we would dispose of the matters in the following manner. We declare that Section 12A of the Act is mandatory and hold that any suit instituted violating the mandate of Section 12A must be visited with rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11. This power can be exercised even suo moto by the Court as explained earlier in the judgment. We, however, make this declaration effective from 20.08.2022 so that concerned stakeholders become sufficiently informed. Still further, we however direct that in case 95 plaints have already been rejected and no steps have been taken within the period of limitation, the matter cannot be reopened on the basis of this declaration. Still further, if the order of rejection of the plaint has been acted upon by filing a fresh suit, the declaration of prospective effect will not avail the plaintiff. Finally, if the plaint is filed violating Section 12A after the jurisdictional High Court has declared Section 12A mandatory also, the plaintiff will not be entitled to the relief.
(Emphasis Supplied)
24. Despite the statutory promulgation and strict interpretation of the same by Hon'ble Supreme Court it is surprising to observe that defendant appears to be having scant regard for the law as promulgated by the Parliament or the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court which is itself a law under Article 141 of Constitution of India. The above legal position mandates every citizen and corporation to strictly follow the same.
25. Mediation is one of the pivotal alternate Dispute Resolution Mechanism which finds recognition in Section 89 CPC as it was reintroduced in the 2002 Amendment. Gauging the success of its inclusion the Parliament decided to make it mandatory for Commercial Courts at a pre-institution stage with an aim to elevate India's position in the Ease of Doing Business, a report prepared by World Bank for ranking investment friendly countries. Out of the 10 components of Ease of Doing Business one of the component is time taken by the countries in "enforcement of page 9 CS Comm. No.658/2025 Arihant Electricals Vs. M/s Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd.
contracts". While India's dismal ranking of 161 in 2014 has now reached a somewhat respectable position at 63 rank but in the enforcement of contract component which pertains to time taken by the country in resolving commercial disputes our country still ranks at poorly 171 out of 191 countries.
26. In a similar case recently Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Maxwell Partnership Firm Regards Vs. National Insuranace Company Ltd. And Anr. in I.A. No. 9893/2024 on 03.05.2024. Hon'ble High Court was pained to observe that the defendant in the cited case, despite being a flagship Government owned insurance company did not participate in the Pre-Institution Mediation proceedings. For ready reference the relevant paras are reproduced hereunder:
9. A perusal of the report would show that the insurance company has failed to appear in thepre-litigation mediation as well. Such conduct on behalf of the Insurance Company is contrary to the spirit of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, to say the least. The Plaintiff has already borne 25% of the court fees in the first round as the same could not be returned in terms of decicion in Patil Automation Private Limited & Ors. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited ((2022) 10 SCC OnLine SC 1028). Due to the mediation being a non-starter, it has been compelled to again file the present suit. The entire purpose of pre-litigation mediation has been defeated by the Insurance company.
10. The non-appearance of parties in mediation proceedings carries significant legal ramifications,as provided by various legal provisions. Under the Punjab and Haryana High Court Mediation Rules (Rule 12), parties are mandated to attend mediation sessions, whether in person, through legal representatives, or by means of power of attorney holders. Failure to comply with this requirement may lead to the Mediator or other parties to seek court intervention. Upon finding unjustified absence, the Court can impose costs or initiate contempt proceedings against the parties. Similarly, Rule 13 of the Delhi High Court Mediation Conciliation Rules stipulates that deliberate or wilful non-attendance warrants Court intervention, with the Court empowered to issue appropriate directions. The said Rule is extracted hereinbelow:
"12. Consequences of Non-Attendance: If a party deliberately or willfully fails to attend a session, the other party or mediator/conciliator may apply to the Court. The Court may issue directions based on the case's facts and circumstances"
11. This principle is also prevalent in Rule 14 of the Telangana High Court Mediation Rules 2015 and Rule 13 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005 wherein it is elucidated that failure to attend mediation due to deliberate acts may result in judicial intervention and the issuance of necessary directives. The page 10 CS Comm. No.658/2025 Arihant Electricals Vs. M/s Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd.
same has been emphasized in the case of Smt Amalapooh Mary & Ors. v. Sri V Ravindra & Ors. (WP51491/2016) wherein it was held that if the party is absent in the mediation proceedings, the Court could impose costs.
21. In terms of Rule 13 of Mediation Rules, 2005, the Court has the power to direct a party to appearbefore the mediator, in the event of a Court finding that a party is absenting himself before the mediator without sufficient reason, costs could be imposed on such a party. The quantum of costs that could be imposed by the Court is at the discretion of the Court, which the Court could decide upon and impose depending on the nature of the matter.
22. In view of Rule 13 of the Mediation Rules, 2005, it is no longer permissible for either counsel orthe party in a proceeding to refuse participation in mediation proceedings, if at all a party were to absent himself, the Court could impose costs as also repeated costs until the party were to appear and participate in the mediation proceedings. The Court is not powerless to issue appropriate directions to the parties to attend the Mediation infact it is the bounden duty of the Court to issue necessary directions so that all the parties participate in the mediation process in terms of the Mediation Rules, 2005.
xxx xxx xxx 43.3. In terms of Paragraph 36 of the Afcon's Judgment, there is no requirement to obtain consent of either lawyers appearing for the parties or of the parties themselves.
xxx xxx xxx 43.4. In the event of any of the parties not presenting themselves before the Mediation Centre or the Lok- adalat, the Court could exercise powers under Rule 13 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules 2005 and impose such costs as it may deem fit to compel the attendance of the parties before the Mediator so appointed. "
14. In essence, the obligation to attend mediation is of paramount importance as theentire purpose of the enactment of the provision, as a mandatory step to be taken before commencing litigation, would otherwise be defeated. Especially in the case of organisations which have a public character, effective participation in pre-litigation mediation is essential. If mediation has to be taken seriously and with a result oriented approach, institutions with a public character including government departments etc., ought to participate through proper appearance of officials or duly authorised persons. Any non-participation ought to invite consequences in law.
16. Let the written statement to the plaint be filed within 30 days. Along with thewritten statement, the Defendants shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the Plaintiffs, without which the written statement shall not be taken on record. In view of the conduct of the Defendant through the previous litigation and non-attendance in the mediation proceedings, non-appearance despite service of advance copy, the Defendants are shall deposit costs of Rs. 5 lakhs with the worthy Registrar General of this Court, as a pre-condition to file the written statement. If the costs are not deposited, the Written statement would not be liable to be taken on record.
(Emphasis Supplied) page 11 CS Comm. No.658/2025 Arihant Electricals Vs. M/s Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd.
27. In the light of the above, the defendant is burdened with cost of Rs.50,000/- for its non-participation in Pre-Institution Mediation to be deposited with Advocates' Welfare Fund, Delhi Bar Association.
28. In the absence of any documentary evidence and no defence at all, defendant has not been able to put any dent on the merits of the plaintiff's claim. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Interest
29. The interest is payable as per Section 34 CPC. For ready reference, Section 34 CPC is reproduced hereunder:
Section 34 CPC: Interest
(i)"Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding 6% per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the court thinks fit.
(ii).Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed 6% per annum but shall not exceed the contractual rate or interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalized banks in relation to commercial transactions.
Explanation (i) In this sub-section, "nationalized bank" means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970.
Explanation (ii) For the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability.
Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest (on such principal sum) from the date of the decree to the date of the payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit therefore shall not lie.
(Emphasis Supplied)
30. Section 34 CPC provides that plaintiff will be entitled the interest at the rate at which Court finds reasonable. For a general suit, the rate of interest prescribed is 6% and for commercial suit, the Parliament promulgates that rate of interest may increase from 6% to a rate which is found reasonable.
page 12 CS Comm. No.658/2025 Arihant Electricals Vs. M/s Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd.
Plaintiff is accordingly entitled to only the rate at which RBI has issued Circular for Commercial suits.
31. As far as the interest is concerned, rate applicable to Commercial transaction shall be payable. As per RBI notification dated 30.08.2022 issued vide Press Release no.2022-2023/794 whereby advisory issued by RBI to Schedule Commercial banks of accepting deposit rates @ 9.05% per annum.
Relief
32. In view of the above, suit of the plaintiff stands decreed with cost for a sum of Rs.6,01,303/- with 9% interest pendentelite and till realization. Pre-suit interest not sought. Plaintiff's Lawyer's fees is assessed as Rs.35,000/-.
33. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance as per rules. Digitally signed by SURINDER S SURINDER RATHI S RATHI Date:
2025.12.15 16:19:45 +0530 (SURINDER S. RATHI) District Judge, Commercial Court -11 Central District, THC Delhi/06.12.2025 page 13 CS Comm. No.658/2025 Arihant Electricals Vs. M/s Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd.