Delhi District Court
M/S Caranation Trading Pvt Ltd vs Vivek Harivyasi on 27 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS.DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA,
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ, SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
CIVIL SUIT No.1120/2019
CNR NO. DLSH03-002081-2019
In the matter of:
M/s Carnation Trading Private Limited
Through Director
Sh. Sanjeev Nirwani
At:- 22, Mausam Vihar, Delhi-110051 ..... plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Vivek Harivyasi
S/o Sh. Puran Das Harivyasi
Khoda Seri, Safar Bazar,
Sirohi-307001, Rajasthan
(Presently lodged in Judicial Custody
in case SFIO Vs. Adarsh Buildestate Etc.
COMA No.5 of 2019) service be effected
through Jail Suprintendent District Jail,
Gurugram Near RTC, Bhondsi-122102,
Haryana ......defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.1,13,288/- PLUS PENDENT-
LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST
DEEPALI
SRIVASTAVA
Date of Institution : 20.09.2019
Digitally signed
by DEEPALI
Civ Suit 1120/2019 M/s Carnation Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vivek Harivyash Page No.1/11 SRIVASTAVA
Date: 2025.09.27
16:56:18 +0530
Date of reserving of judgment : 06.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 27.09.2025
Decision : DECREED
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts Pleaded In The Plaint
1. The brief facts as averred by the plaintiff in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and Shri Sanjeev Nirwani, Director of the plaintiff Company, was authorized to sign and verify the present plaint vide Resolution dated 30th March 2019 of the Board of Directors of the plaintiff company.
That the plaintiff is a Non-Banking Finance Company, and the defendant, desirous of augmenting the business, approached the plaintiff company in June 2017 for an unsecured loan of ₹25,00,000/-, with promise to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the plaintiff and also promised to pay interest every month from the date of disbursal.
That the plaintiff, believing the promise of the defendant, agreed to disburse the unsecured loan of ₹25,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum to the defendant, and accordingly, the plaintiff made payment of ₹25,00,000/- on 27-06-2017 to the defendant through RTGS/cheque No. 407912 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar branch; on persistent demands of the plaintiff.
That the defendant made part payment of
₹15,00,000/- through RTGS on 29-11-2017, but thereafter briefly Digitally
signed by
DEEPALI
DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date:
2025.09.27
16:56:24
+0530
Civ Suit 1120/2019 M/s Carnation Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vivek Harivyash Page No.2/11
stopped making payments after November 2017, despite repeated requests from the plaintiff Company. Late, the defendant made another part payment of ₹6,50,000/- on 29-08-2018 and ₹3,50,000/- on 30-08-2018, however after it, the defendant completely ceased making payments to the plaintiff and even started ignoring the demands of the plaintiff Company.
That aggrieved by the non-repayment of the unsecured loan advanced by the plaintiff, the plaintiff company issued a notice of demand dated 10-08-2019 addressed to the defendant, but the demand notice could not be delivered as the defendant abandoned the recorded address. Hence, the present suit has been filed seeking recovery of ₹1,13,288/- from 26-06- 2017 till 27-08-2019 as interest alongwith pendente lite and future interest at 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of actual payment.
2. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant. defendant appeared and filed his WS.
Brief Facts Pleaded In The Written Statement Of defendant
3. In the written statement filed by defendant, the defendant has taken certain preliminary objections and denied all the averments made in the plaint. It is stated that the present suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed outright as it is based on gross concealment and suppression of material facts, with no cause of action against the defendant. It is submitted that the plaintiff's shareholder, Mr. Peeyush Aggarwal, in his sworn Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2025.09.27 Civ Suit 1120/2019 M/s Carnation Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vivek Harivyash Page No.3/11 16:56:28 +0530 statement before the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) under Section 217(4)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013, has categorically admitted that an amount of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- was received from the defendant, which was subsequently returned, including Rs. 25,00,000/- by the plaintiff company, thereby nullifying any claim of outstanding dues. Despite being fully aware of these facts, the plaintiff company and its Directors have deliberately concealed such crucial information, thereby misleading this Court and abusing the process of law. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
4. The plaintiff has filed replication to the WS of defendant denying the averments made in the WS and reiterating the contents of the plaint.
5. On completion of pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dated 13.02.2023, which are as follows: -
1) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.1,13,288/- alongwith interest as prayed for? (OPP).
2) Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction in the present case?(OPD).
3) Whether plaintiff has no cause of action?(OPP).
4) Relief
6. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined Sh.
Anshul Gautam (Manager, Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, Delhi), Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta (MTS Registrar of Companies, DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by Civ Suit 1120/2019 M/s Carnation Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vivek Harivyash Page No.4/11 DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA Date: 2025.09.27 16:56:32 +0530 MCT of Delhi & Haryana), Smt. Geeta (Assistant General manager, RBI) and Sh. Ashu Genka as PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4, respectively.
PW1, Sh. Anshul Gautam led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW 1/A bearing his signature at Point A & B and relied upon following documents:
1. Ex. PW 1/1 Copy of his office identity card
2. Ex. PW 1/2 Statement of account from 01.06.2017 (colly, 2 pages) to 30.11.2017 of plaintiff company bearing A/c. No. 3980002100009354, IFSC Code: PUNB0398000
3. Ex. PW 1/3 Statement of account from 01.08.2018 to 31.08.2018 of plaintiff company bearing A/c. No. 3980002100009354, IFSC Code: PUNB0398000.
4. Ex. PW 1/4 Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act and u/s 2A of the Bankers Book Evidence Act, 1891.
Thereafter PW2, Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, was examined as a summoned witness who produced the following documents before the court:-
1. Ex. PW 2/1 Office order dated 12.12.2023, authorizing him to appear before the court.
2. Ex. PW 2/2 Certified copy of certificate of incorporation dated 03.09.2004 in respect of M/s Galaxy Corporate Insurance Agents Pvt. Ltd..
3. Ex. PW 2/3 Fresh certificate of incorporation dated 14.06.2017 for change of name of company from M/s Galaxy Corporate Insurance Agents Pvt. Ltd. to Carnation Trading Pvt.
Ltd..
Digitally
signed by
DEEPALI
DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date:
2025.09.27
Civ Suit 1120/2019 M/s Carnation Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vivek Harivyash Page No.5/11 16:56:36
+0530
4. Ex. PW 2/4 Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act.
Thereafter, PW3, Ms. Geeta was examined as a summoned witness who produced before the court the following documents:-
1. Ex. PW 3/1 Authority letter in her favour.
2. Ex. PW 3/2 Copy of certificate of registration of M/s Carnation Trading Pvt. Ltd.
Despite opportunity, PW1, PW2 and PW3 were not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant.
PW4, Sh. Ashu Goenka led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW 4/A bearing his signature at Point A and B and relied upon following documents:
1. Ex. PW 4/1(OSR) Minutes of meeting of Board of Directors.
2. Ex. PW 4/2(OSR) Minutes of meeting of Board of Directors.
3. Ex. PW 4/3(OSR) Copy of GPA dated 10.09.2024.
4. Ex. PW 4/4 Tracking report.
5. Ex. PW 4/5 Legal notice dated 10.08.2019.
6. Ex. PW 4/6 Postal receipt.
7. Ex. PW 4/7 Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
PW4 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant. During the cross examination of PW4, it has been deposed by him that he is working as consultant with the plaintiff company. However, he has stated to be not aware of any loan DEEPALI agreement to have been signed between the parties. It is stated by SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA Civ Suit 1120/2019 M/s Carnation Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vivek Harivyash Page No.6/11 Date: 2025.09.27 16:56:41 +0530 him that as per Ex.PW4/4, the amount which is mentioned in his affidavit is shown as loan amount. PW4 has also not been able to depose w.r.t. any document that the plaintiff has placed on record to show the rate of interest agreed between the plaintiff company and the defendant. It is stated by him that rate of 9% mentioned in his affidavit is on the basis of the ledger account. PW4 has also showed his unawareness about any written communication made by the plaintiff company for demanding the principal amount or interest. Apart from that the witness has denied all the adverse suggestion put by ld. Counsel for defendant.
Thereafter, PE was closed on 11.02.2025 and matter was listed for DE.
7. In order to prove their defence, defendant examined himself and Sh. Peeyush Aggarwal as DW1 and DW2, respectively.
DW1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A which bears his signatures at point A and B, however vide his separate statement, he stated that he did not rely upon the para no.2, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 22 of his evidence affidavit, Ex.DW1/A. DW1 relied upon statement of Sh. Peeyush Aggarwal, Ex.DW1/1 (colly, page 8 to 23).
DW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and during his cross-examination DW1 has deposed that he knew Peeyush Aggarwal and his family members as they are the directors of the plaintiff company and Peeyush Aggarwal controls and manages the plaintiff company. However, it is stated by him that he has filed only document Ex.DW1/1 to show that DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by DEEPALI Civ Suit 1120/2019 M/s Carnation Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vivek Harivyash Page No.7/11 SRIVASTAVA Date: 2025.09.27 16:56:45 +0530 Peeyush Aggarwal manages the plaintiff company. DW1 has also failed to disclose that the amount was transferred to the plaintiff company account or into the Peeyush Aggarwal bank account. DW1 has stated that generally NBFC gives loan on interest, however voluntarily deposed before the court he never took any loan. It is stated by him that Peeyush Aggarwal has told him that he and his family hold majority share holding in the plaintiff company though no document was shown to him which could show that he has 100% share holding in the plaintiff company.
Thereafter, DW2, Sh. Peeyush Aggarwal was examined who relied upon document as Ex.PW1/DX1.
DW2 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and during his cross-examination DW2 has deposed that he is tendering his services as freelancer in the field of charted accountancy. It is stated by him that though statement were taken by SFIO but the same have been denied by him and even the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has given interim relief. DW2 has denied from being associated / holding any position of director / authorized signatory in the plaintiff company.
Thereafter, DE was closed on 26.07.2025 and matter was listed for final arguments.
8. I have heard the final arguments and have carefully gone through the case file.
9. Issue wise findings as follows:-
Issue no. (a) and (c) DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by DEEPALI Civ Suit 1120/2019 M/s Carnation Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vivek Harivyash Page No.8/11 SRIVASTAVA Date: 2025.09.27 16:56:48 +0530 As both the issues are interconnected, the same have been taken up together. The burden to prove issue (a) is on the plaintiff and the burden to prove issue (c) is on the defendant.
In order to prove these issues, the parties have relied upon certain documents which have been exhibited by them during their examination. It is the case of the plaintiff that they had given a loan of Rs.25 lacs to the defendant for the purpose of his business @ 9% per annum, wherein the defendant has also promised to pay interest every month from the date of disbursement. The defendant though repaid the principal amount of Rs.25 lacs by way of three payments as stated in the plaint, no payment towards the interest was made despite being agreed upon. Though, the plaintiff has placed on record his ledger account alongwith the legal notice being sent for demanding the payment from the defendant, no loan agreement or any agreement in any nature has been placed on record which could show that any loan was given to the defendant and even interest was payable thereon @ 9% per annum. The recovery which the plaintiff is seeking in the present case, is based on the transaction of loan and as such, in order to make the present case stand, proving of the loan transaction between the parties is essential. Though, the defendant has stated that there were transactions between him and Sh. Peeyush Aggarwal who hold himself to be the director of the plaintiff company, it does not qualify to be as an admission on the part of the defendant to the loan transaction. It is upon the plaintiff to prove the basis for claiming the interest amount. The plaintiff has not examined any other witness who could prove before the court that a loan was given to the Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2025.09.27 16:56:52 Civ Suit 1120/2019 M/s Carnation Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vivek Harivyash Page No.9/11 +0530 defendant and thereupon an interest was also agreed to be paid. PW4 has stated to be providing financial consultancy to the plaintiff company, however he has also shown lack of knowledge about, as to whether any loan agreement was signed between the plaintiff and the defendant. As the basis of seeking the recovery in the present suit is the loan transaction between the parties which could not be proved by the plaintiff by bringing any documentary or oral evidence, the court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has not been able to show the basis of claiming the same.
In light of the aforesaid discussion, Issue no. (a) is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant and issue
(c) is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
Issue no. (b) The burden to prove issue (b) is on the defendant. The present case has been filed by the plaintiff who stated to be having its registered office at 68, Jagriti Enclave, Delhi-110092.
The defendant has not lead any evidence on this issue to prove as to how this court has no territorial jurisdiction in the present suit. As such, the issue no. (b) is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Relief
10. In view of the above discussion, the present suit is dismissed.
11. Parties to bear their own cost.
DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA Civ Suit 1120/2019 M/s Carnation Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vivek Harivyash Page No.10/11 Digitally signed by DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA Date: 2025.09.27 16:56:56 +0530
12. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in open Court.
On this 27th September, 2025 Digitally signed
This Judgment contains 11 pages DEEPALI
by DEEPALI
SRIVASTAVA
and is signed by me. SRIVASTAVA Date:
2025.09.27
16:57:00
+0530
(DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA)
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ, SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Civ Suit 1120/2019 M/s Carnation Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vivek Harivyash Page No.11/11