Delhi District Court
D P Electricals Pvt. Ltd vs Kavita Chauhan on 12 August, 2025
DLCT010015132024
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR NO.: DLCT010015132024
CS (COMM.)/195/2024
IN THE MATTER OF:-
M/s D. P. Electricals Pvt. Ltd.
1801/24, 1st Floor, Bhagirath Palace
Delhi-110006
Whatsapp: +91-8826141201
e-mail: [email protected]
.... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Ms. Kavita Chauhan
Proprietor of M/s Bojhe Power Control Systems
a.k.a. M/s Bhoje Power Control Systems
Plot No. 277 E, Ecotech III, Udyog Kendra 1st
Near Shani Mandir
Greater Noida, UP-201310
Whatsapp: +91-9310150890
e-mail: [email protected]
...... DEFENDANT
Date of filing of Suit [e-filing] : 01-02-2024
Date of Registration : 03-02-2024
Date of Reserving Judgment : 28-07-2025
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 12-08-2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit for recovery of ₹92,21,116/- along with pendent-lite and future interest and costs, filed by plaintiff against the defendant.
CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 1 of 32BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. The case of the plaintiff, as culled out from the plaint, in brief is as under:-
2.1 The plaintiff, which is stated to be a duly incorporated private limited company, has instituted the present suit through its Managing Director-cum-Authorized Representative namely Mr. Prateek Garg, who is statedly duly authorized, vide Board Resolution dated 10-11-2020.
2.2 The defendant is stated to be proprietor of M/s Bojhe Power Control Systems [also known as M/s Bhoje Power Control Systems]. It is stated that the defendant mainly deals through her husband namely Mr. Lokesh Chauhan, who acts and communicates on her behalf in the business dealings with the plaintiff.
2.3 It is further averred that the plaintiff and defendant had business dealings for the last many years, as per which, the defendant used to place orders upon the plaintiff for purchasing various materials, which were supplied by it from time to time from its work places situated in Delhi and Noida, through various invoices.
2.4 It is further averred that the defendant used to make on account payments to the plaintiff. At times, some payment used to be made as advance payment by the defendant to the plaintiff. It is stated that on one occasion an amount of ₹2,00,000/-, out of the CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 2 of 32 previously paid amount of ₹2,70,000/-, was returned back to the defendant at her request on account of long-standing business relations and relevant entry in this regard, was made in the ledger account of defendant maintained by plaintiff in ordinary course of its business.
2.5 It is stated that since the payments were not being made by defendant on invoice-to-invoice basis, the payments received from her used to be adjusted against invoices in chronological order and after adjusting the payments received from her, there is an outstanding balance of ₹76,64,064.46Paise, due and payable by defendant to the plaintiff as on 04-01-2019.
2.6 It is further averred that the invoices in question also contain clause for payment of interest @ 24% p.a. in case of default.
2.7 It is further stated that on repeated requests made by plaintiff to the defendant to release the entire outstanding amount, the defendant issued one cheque dated 04-12-2018 for ₹1,05,529/- and 110 multiple post dated cheques of different amounts, having different dates ranging between 06-06-2019 and 02-07-2020 for a total cumulative value of ₹43,45,000/, to the plaintiff in partial discharge of her liability. However, all those 111 cheques were dishonoured due to 'insufficient funds'. It is further stated that 3 other cheques, one CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 3 of 32 dated 03-06-2019 and two cheques dated 12-12-2019, total amounting to ₹1,10,000/-, were returned by the banker of the defendant, due to the reason that they were presented for encashment beyond the validity period of 3 months.
2.8 Thus, it is stated that aforesaid 114 cheques having the cumulative value of ₹45,60,529/-, were issued by defendant in partial discharge of her legally payable debt of ₹76,64,064.46paise.
2.9 It is further the case of the plaintiff that it got issued six legal notices dated 18.03.2019, 27.09.2019, 24.12.2019, 02.04.2020, 12.07.2020 and 10.09.2020 to the defendant, thereby, calling upon her to pay the amount of dishonored cheques and also the balance of the principal liability and interest thereon @ 24% per annum and the professional charges of said legal notices, but to no avail. Hence, the plaintiff has filed six criminal complaints under Section 138 of NI Act against the defendant in respect of 111 dishonoured cheques, which are statedly pending before the Court of Ld. MM (Now, JMFC), Central District, THC, Delhi.
2.10 It is further the case of plaintiff that the defendant through her husband/ representative kept on assuring it that payment would be cleared, through written communications given on 03.04.2019, 04.12.2019 and 26.08.2021, however, the defendant failed to pay the outstanding amount to the plaintiff till date.CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 4 of 32
2.11 It is further stated that on 17.05.2022, the plaintiff filed a Pre-Institution Mediation application before Central District Legal Services Authority, THC, Delhi against the defendant, demanding therein an amount of ₹76,64,064.46 Paise towards the outstanding principal amount, interest thereon @ 24% per annum and expenses incurred in issuance of legal notices, in pursuant to S.12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, but to no avail, as a result of which, Non-Starter Report dated 16-09-2022 was issued to it.
2.12 It is stated that since the defendant has been illegally and unauthorizedly retaining the aforesaid outstanding principal amount of plaintiff and as per terms and conditions mentioned on the invoices, the defendant is liable to pay interest @ 24% per annum from due date of payments, however, the plaintiff is claiming interest @ 12% per annum only from the date of filing of Pre-Institution Mediation proceedings, i.e. from 17.05.2022 and thus, a sum of ₹15,42,051.76 Paise is claimed to be due on account of interest from 17.05.2022 till 19.01.2024. Further, it is stated that a sum of ₹15,000/- is due as fees for service of six legal notices referred to hereinbefore. In all, the plaintiff is seeking recovery of ₹92,21,116/-, besides pendent-lite, future interest and costs of the proceedings.CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 5 of 32
3. On being served with the summons of the suit, the defendant put her appearance through counsel namely Sh. Arun Kumar, Advocate on 21-03-2024. However, the defendant chose not to file any written statement despite grant of several opportunities till 12-09-2024.
4. Record would show that the defendant filed written statement and an application for condonation of delay and list of documents on 13-09-2024. The said application was allowed, vide order dated 09-10-2024, passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court. Nevertheless, the defendant failed to file her affidavit of admission/ denial of documents of plaintiff either along with the written statement or even till 29-10-2024, on which date, the written statement filed by defendant was directed to be taken off the record.
5. It may further be mentioned here that the defendant had moved three applications i.e. (i) an application under S. 5 of Limitation Act read with S. 151 CPC for taking on record her affidavit of admission/ denial; (ii) an application under S. 151 CPC for recall of order dated 29-10-2024, whereby her written statement was ordered to be taken off the record; and (iii) an application under S. 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing application under S. 151 CPC seeking recall of order dated 29-10-2024. All the said three applications were dismissed, vide detailed order dated 08-04-2025, passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that there is no defence of CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 6 of 32 defendant available on record and hence, issues were not framed in this matter.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PLAINTIFF:
6. In support of its case, the plaintiff has examined as many as six witnesses.
7. PW1 namely Sh. Prateek Garg is the Authorized Representative of the plaintiff company. He led his chief examination by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) and deposed on the lines of averments made in the plaint. He has also relied upon/proved the following documents:-
Sr. Documents/ Particulars Exhibit(s) No.
1. Copy of Board Resolution Ex.PW1/1
2. Ledger account of transaction Ex.PW1/2 (25 with defendant for the period pages) 01-04-2008 to 31-03-2021
3. 345 invoices having receiving of Ex.PW1/3/1 to defendant Ex.PW1/3/345
4. Typed copies of dim invoices Ex.PW1/3/180/A to Ex.PW1/3/259/A, Ex.PW1/3/288A and Ex.PW1/3/345A
5. Photocopies of 111 cheques Ex.PW2/1 to issued by the defendant and Ex.PW2/52, CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 7 of 32 Sr. Documents/ Particulars Exhibit(s) No. their returning memos, already Ex.PW3/1 to exhibited Ex.PW3/52, Ex.PW3/54 to Ex.PW3/65, Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/52, Ex.PW5/1 and Ex.PW5/2, Ex.PW5/4 to Ex.PW5/55
6. 3 cheques bearing No.353145, Ex.PW1/5/1, 596642 and 596643 Ex.PW1/5/3, and Ex.PW1/5/5
7. 3 Returning Memos in respect Ex.PW1/5/2, of aforesaid cheques Ex.PW1/5/4, and Ex.PW1/5/6
8. Screenshot of Whatsapp chat Ex.PW1/7
9. Non-Starter Report Ex.PW1/8
10. Certificate under S. 65B of Ex.PW1/9 Indian Evidence Act dated 19-01-2024
11. Certificate under S. 65B of Ex.PW1/10 Indian Evidence Act dated 07-12-2024 CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 8 of 32
8. PW1 has been cross-examined at length by the defendant. However, the same is not being mentioned herein and shall be considered in subsequent paras of this judgment.
9. PW2 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, JA/Ahlmad is official from the Court of Ms. Neha Geol, Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act)-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and has produced the summoned record i.e. case file of case bearing CC No.12365/2019 titled as ' M/s D. P. Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms. Kavita Chauhan ', which contains originals of 26 cheques, their returning memos and legal notice dated 27.09.2019, its postal receipt, tracking report and certificate under S. 65B of Indian Evidence Act in support of tracking report and proved photocopies thereof as Ex.PW2/1 to Ex.PW2/26 [photocopies of 26 cheques], Ex.PW2/27 to Ex.PW2/52 [photocopies of returning memos] and Ex.PW2/53 (Colly.) [photocopies of legal notice, its postal receipt, tracking report and certificate under S. 65B of Indian Evidence Act in support of the tracking report].
10. PW3 Sh. Hansraj, JA/Reader-Cum-Ahlmad is official from the Court of Sh. Pranjal Gangwar, Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act) (Digital Court)-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and has produced the summoned record i.e. case file of case bearing CC No.758/2020 titled as 'M/s D. P. Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms. Kavita Chauhan ', which contains originals of 26 cheques, their returning memos and legal notice dated 12.07.2020, its postal CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 9 of 32 receipt, e-mail, Whatsapp message and certificate under S. 65B of Indian Evidence Act in support of the tracking report and proved photocopies thereof as Ex.PW3/1 to Ex.PW3/26 [photocopies of 26 cheques], Ex.PW3/27 to Ex.PW3/52 [photocopies of returning memos] and Ex.PW3/53 (Colly.) [photocopies of legal notice, its postal receipt, e-mail, Whatsapp message and certificate under S. 65B of Indian Evidence Act in support of the tracking report].
PW3 has also produced the summoned record i.e. case file of case bearing CC No.763/2020 titled as ' M/s D. P. Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms. Kavita Chauhan ', which contains originals of 6 cheques, their returning memos and legal notice dated 10.09.2020, its courier receipt, tracking report, e-mail, Whatsapp message and certificate under S. 65B of Indian Evidence Act in support of the tracking report, e-mail and Whatsapp and proved photocopies thereof as Ex.PW3/54 to Ex.PW3/59 [photocopies of 6 cheques], Ex.PW3/60 to Ex.PW3/65 [photocopies of the returning memos] and Ex.PW3/56 (Colly.) [photocopies of legal notice dated 10.09.2020, its courier receipt, tracking report, e-mail, Whatsapp message and certificate under S. 65B of Indian Evidence Act in support of the tracking report, e-mail and Whatsapp].
11. PW4 Sh. Neeraj Kumar, JJA is official from the Court of Sh. Pranjal Gangwar, Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act) (Digital Court)-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and has produced the summoned record i.e. CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 10 of 32 case file of case bearing CC No.762/2020 titled as 'M/s D. P. Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms. Kavita Chauhan ', which contains originals of 26 cheques, their returning memos and legal notice dated 02.04.2020, e-mail and certificate under S. 65B of Indian Evidence Act in support of the tracking report and proved photocopies thereof as Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/26 [photocopies of 26 cheques], Ex.PW4/27 to Ex.PW4/52 [photocopies of the returning memos] and Ex.PW4/53 (Colly.) [photocopies of legal notice, e-mail, and certificate under S. 65B of Indian Evidence Act in support of the tracking report].
12. PW5 namely Sh. Mukesh Kumar Vats, JJA is official from the Court of Ms. Deshna Golechha, Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act)-07, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and produced the summoned record i.e. case file of case bearing CC No.5034/2019 titled as ' M/s D. P. Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms. Kavita Chauhan ', which contains originals of cheque bearing no.993702, its returning memos and legal notice dated 18.03.2019, its postal receipt, returned envelope, tracking report and certificate under S. 65B of Indian Evidence Act in support of tracking report, apart from originals of 26 cheques, their returning memos and legal notice dated 24.12.2019, its postal receipt, tracking report and Certificate under S. 65 B in support of tracking report and proved photocopies thereof as Ex.PW5/1 [photocopy of cheque no.993702], Ex.PW5/2 [photocopy of returning memo of cheque no. 993702], Ex.PW5/3 (Colly.) [photocopies of legal notice dated 18.03.2019, its postal receipt, returned envelope, CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 11 of 32 tracking report and certificate under S. 65B of Indian Evidence Act in support of the tracking report], Ex.PW5/4 to Ex.PW5/29 [photocopies of 26 cheques], Ex.PW5/30 to Ex.PW5/55 [photocopies returning memos of 26 cheques] and Ex.PW5/56 (Colly.) [photocopies of legal notice dated 24.12.2019, its postal receipt, returned envelope, tracking report and certificate under S. 65B of Indian Evidence Act in support of the tracking report].
13. PW6 Sh. Usman Ali, Sr. Assistant is official from SGST Department, Sector-148, Noida, UP and produced record i.e. Form No. GSTR-2A and all its annexures for the period from July 2017 to November, 2018 filed by M/s Bojhe Power Control Systems i.e. proprietorship concern of defendant and proved it as Ex.PW6/1 (57 pages). He also proved UPVAT-XXIV/ Form No.24 and all its annexures for the period from January, 2009 to June, 2017 filed by proprietorship concern of defendant and proved the same as Ex.PW6/2 (524 pages).
14. There is no cross-examination of witnesses examined as PW2 to PW6 from the side of the defendant.
15. I have already heard Sh. A. K. Hajelay, Advocate for plaintiff and Sh. Arun Kumar, Advocate for defendant. I have also gone through the material available on record, including evidence, oral as well as documentary, led by plaintiff, as available on record. I have also duly considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties, including the written submissions filed by both the sides, as also the authorities cited at the Bar.
CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 12 of 32PLAINTIFF'S ARGUMENTS:
16. While opening the arguments, Ld. Counsel of plaintiff referred to the pleadings of the parties; evidence, oral as well as documentary, led by plaintiff and the documents proved during the course of trial and advanced the following arguments:-
16.1 The entire case of the plaintiff stood proved in view of ocular testimonies of the witnesses and documentary evidence proved by said witnesses during the trial;
16.2 There is no defence of defendant available on record, and thus, the entire case of plaintiff is deemed to be admitted by the defendant;
16.3 The defendant had issued 111 cheques, total amounting to ₹44,50,529/-, to the plaintiff towards partial discharge of her liability, however, all the said cheques got dishonoured on the ground of "Funds Insufficient";
16.4 Besides, the defendant had also issued 3 more cheques worth ₹1,10,000/- towards partial discharge of her liability, however, same were also dishonoured as they were presented after their validity period;
16.5 The defendant had lastly made payment to the plaintiff on 04-01-2019, as per relevant entries CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 13 of 32 shown in the ledger account of defendant maintained by plaintiff in its books of account. Subsequent thereto, the defendant had issued cheque dated 04-12-2018, which got dishonoured on 18-02-2019, followed by issuance of multiple 110 cheques by defendant bearing different dates from 06-06-2019 to 02-07-2020, and issuance of these cheques has the effect of extending the period of limitation within the meaning of S. 19 of the Limitation Act.
In support of said submission, Ld. Counsel of plaintiff has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of 'Rajesh Kumari v. Prem Chand Jain', reported as AIR 1998 DELHI 80;
16.6 The act of defendant in issuing 113 cheques worth ₹44,50,000/-, amounts to revival of liability to the extent of said amount and tantamounts to fresh agreement through deeming provision under S. 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act. In this regard, Ld. Counsel of plaintiff has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 'Rajeev Kumar v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr', bearing Crl. L.P. 212/2021 decided on 11-09-2024.
16.7 There has been an acknowledgment of liability to pay outstanding dues by the defendant in view of Whatsapp Messages dated 03-04-2019, 04-12-2019 and 26-08-2021 [Ex.PW1/7], coupled with CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 14 of 32 Certificate under S. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act [Ex.PW1/9];
16.8 The limitation period would commence from 12-08-2020, on which date, cheque was lastly issued by the defendant towards partial discharge of her liability. Further, the entire period from 15-03-2020 till 28-02-2022 is to be excluded, in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.03/2020, as also the period consumed in exhausting the remedy of pre-institution mediation from 17-05-2022 till 16-09-2022, is to be excluded from computing the period of limitation as per S. 12 A of Commercial Courts Act. After excluding the entire such period, the present suit is well within the prescribed period of limitation.
17. On the basis of aforesaid arguments, Ld. Counsel of plaintiff contended that the plaintiff has been able to prove its case to recover the suit amount from the defendant on the basis of preponderance of probability and therefore, he urged that the present suit may be decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
DEFENDANT'S ARGUMENTS:
18. While repelling the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of plaintiff and after referring to the relevant portion of cross-examination of the witnesses, CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 15 of 32 Ld. Counsel of defendant argued that present suit is liable to be dismissed, mainly on the following grounds:-
18.1 The present suit is barred by limitation, as the last business transaction, even as per own case of the plaintiff company, took place on 04-01-2019 and thus, the limitation period of 3 years expired on 03-01-2022, however, the present suit has been filed on 19-01-2024.
18.2 The plaintiff is not entitled to take benefit of extended limitation period in view of Suo Motu judgment (supra), as it has failed to explain the same.
18.3 The plaintiff cannot be allowed to take benefit of the dates of cheques, the dates of their presentation and the dates of their dishonour, for the reason that the present suit is not based on cheques. Rather, it is based on principal amount due as per the ledger account. Hence, he contended that dishonour of cheques does not extend the limitation period unless it is treated as an acknowledgment of debt under the Limitation Act and a written agreement is necessary to extend the limitation period.
18.4 Invoices filed by the plaintiff are bogus and same bear forged signatures of the persons, who never worked with the defendant at any point of time. Ld. Counsel argued that except Sh. Lokesh Chauhan (husband of defendant) and one employee namely CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 16 of 32 Sh. Pankaj Kumar, none of the persons whose names are appearing in said invoices, ever worked with the defendant's firm and thus, it is evident that the plaintiff has forged the signatures on bogus invoices to substantiate its claim.
18.5 After referring to the relevant portion of the cross-examination of PW1, it is also argued that PW1 has deposed about delivery of some goods through transport, but admittedly, it has failed to produce supporting documents thereof.
18.6 While pointing out that Invoices nos. T-154 to T-159 and T-163 [Ex.PW1/D1 to Ex.PW1/D7] are bills towards manufacturing of goods only and not for trading, whereas, as per the case of plaintiff, it is indulging in trade business and as such, the said invoices are bogus invoices.
18.7 The plaintiff has failed to produce its books of accounts allegedly containing ledger account of the defendant during trial, without which, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has proved its case against the defendant. In this regard, Ld. Counsel argued that the plaintiff is under legal obligation to establish its claim with supporting audited balance sheets and its annexures including list of debtors. He pointed out that although PW1 claimed during his cross-examination that he could produce those documents, but failed to produce the same on frivolous ground that no such direction was given.CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 17 of 32
18.8 He further submitted that the statement of account filed along with plaint is manipulated document since it is a computer generated one and there is every possibility of manipulation in such computerized record and thus, said document should not be taken into consideration by the Court.
18.9 He also pointed out that PW1 has admitted during cross-examination that plaintiff prepares the list of Sundry Debtors and Creditors and in the list of Sundry Debtors, the amount due against the defendant is shown, but still did not file the same.
He claimed that since the plaintiff failed to file the same, it raises serious doubt about the genuineness of the said statement of account filed on record.
18.10 While relying upon the relevant portion of cross-examination of PW1, whereby he deposed that the plaintiff used to keep cheques with it whenever received and used to make entries in the books of account only when they used to present those cheques in bank, it is argued that said Accounting Method raises serious doubt over the statement of account placed on record.
18.11 It is further argued that the ledger account filed by the plaintiff, does not bear signature and seal of Chartered Accountant, who had audited the books of account of the plaintiff for relevant period and hence, same also raises doubt about the genuineness of the said document.
CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 18 of 3219. In support of aforesaid submissions, Ld. Counsel of defendant also relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suo Motu (supra) and 'M/s Airen & Associates v. M/s Sanmar Engineering Services Limited' bearing Civil Appeal No.654/2015 decided on 24-07-2025, as also the decision dated 23-12-2024 of coordinate bench of this Court in the case of 'Azam Ali v. Sh. Pankaj Jajoria & Anr.' bearing CS (COMM.)/1416/2022.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS:
20. PW1 Sh. Prateek Garg, who is Managing Director of the plaintiff company, entered into witness box and deposed on identical lines of the averments made in the plaint. The relevant documents proved by him, have already been mentioned in preceding paragraph of this judgment and thus, same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity. He is found to have fully supported the case of the plaintiff on all material points during chief examination.
21. During his cross-examination,PW1 deposed that the balance sheets and profit & loss statement of account of the plaintiff company have not been filed on record, however, he can produce the same. He further deposed that the plaintiff company get its books of accounts audited in accordance with law. He further deposed that defendant used to place orders telephonically as well as physically by visiting their office and also when the staff of plaintiff used to visit the office of defendant.The employee of defendant used to take delivery of goods and used to give CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 19 of 32 receiving on invoices regarding delivery of goods to them. He admitted that some of the invoices mention delivery of goods made through transport, and out of them, some of the transport receipts were not filed on record. After going through the judicial record, he further deposed that the date of last transaction of sale of goods between the parties was 15-11-2018 and the last payment was received from defendant on 04-01-2019.
22. During his further cross-examination dated 04-06-2025, he produced original Minutes Books and Original invoices, copies of which were already filed on record, however he did not bring balance-sheet and profit & loss of statement of account and stated that he did not do so as no such direction was issued in that regard. He further deposed that barring one occasion when advance amount was paid, payment used to be made subsequent to the supply of goods to the defendant. Entries in the books of account were made on the same date of transaction. However, as regard entries with respect to the cheques received from the parties concerned, he deposed that as and when physical cheques were received, they used to keep the cheques with them and entries are made only when cheques were presented to the banker. He reiterated that the entries appearing in Ledger Account (Ex.PW1/2) are correct entries. Cheques were received from defendant in the office during the course of transaction either by himself (PW1) or through employee/ pick up boy of defendant, or by their (witness) delivery person. He admitted that ledger account statement (Ex.PW1/2) does not bear signature and CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 20 of 32 seal of CA. However, he denied all the relevant suggestions put on behalf of defendant that the invoices Ex.PW1/D1 to Ex.PW1/D7 are forged and fabricated, or that there was no liability of defendant to pay ₹76,64,064.46 Paise as on 04-01-2019, or that no such goods were supplied to defendant against the invoices in question, or that the plaintiff was not maintaining proper ledger account.
23. In the backdrop of the plaintiff's evidence oral as well as documentary as available on record, the first and foremost question which arises for consideration before this Court, is as to whether or not, the present suit has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. The answer to this question, in the opinion of this Court, is in affirmative for the following reasons:-
23.1 Admittedly, the date of last transaction of sale of goods by plaintiff to defendant, as appearing in ledger account, is 15-11-2018 and the last payment as shown therein was received on 04-01-2019;
23.2 It is duly established from the testimonies of PW2 to PW5 that the defendant had issued 111 cheques of different dates and different amounts in favour of the plaintiff towards partial discharge of her liability.
Dates appearing on the said cheques are found to be between 06-06-2019 to 02-07-2020;
23.3 Factum of issuance of these cheques by defendant in favour of plaintiff company constitutes CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 21 of 32 'acknowledgment of debt' within the meaning of S. 19 of the Limitation Act and hence, shall extend the period of limitation for further period of 3 years from the date of last cheque i.e. 02-07-2020. While saying so, this Court is fortified by the cited decision of Rajesh Kumari (supra), which is relied upon by the plaintiff. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted here as under:-
"xxxx (4) The relevant part of S. 19 of the Limitation Act 1963 reads as under: "WHERE payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorized in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made"
5. On the language of Section 19 above said, it is clear that the payment may be made either against the principal or on account of interest. In either case, the payment will be on account of the debt, which is all that the provision requires. It is also settled that this provision is to be interpreted liberally so as to save the suits from being barred by limitation so long as its benefit can reasonably be extended to assist a claim, otherwise legal and sustainable.
6. A payment by cheque satisfies the requirement of Section 19 inasmuch as the acknowledgement of payment appears in the handwriting of or in a writing signed by the person making the payment in the form of a cheque.
7. A direct authority available on the point is Gori Lal v. Ramjee Lal, AIR 1961 MP 346, wherein on a review of the available case law on the point, a learned single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held:
"If one bears in mind that the word "payment" has been used in two different senses, it would be clear that the moment the negotiable instrument is handed over and accepted by the creditor and is in the debtor's handwriting, there has been a payment for the purposes of Section 20, Limitation Act and CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 22 of 32 a fresh period of limitation has already started. If the negotiable instrument is dishonoured subsequently the creditor, no doubt, can fall back on his original claim.But the new term of limitation of the subsequent happening. To link S. 20 with the subsequent honouring of the negotiable instrument would indeed lead to absurd results. The debtor has intended and at all events represented to the creditor that the negotiable instrument is good, and thereby the creditor has for his part, been given a feeling of security with a fresh term of limitation. If it turns out that the debtor's negotiable instrument is dishonoured (or as for that matter the currency notes that he has given turn out to be counterfeit) this fresh term of limitation cannot be blocked. Again, if one looks to the equity side of it, a payment, which the debtor means as a sheer pretense, but the creditor accepts as genuine, cannot certainly deprive the latter of what S. 20 has already given him.
Thus I would hold that the passing of the cheque is payment for the purpose of S. 20 and if the other condi-tions were fulfilled, a fresh term of limitation started from that date, whether or not it is subsequently hon-oured. That way the suit of the plaintiff was not time-barred."
8. The abovesaid single Bench view has been approved by a Division Bench of High Court of MP in BalChand Bhandari v. India Pictures and Ors. AIR 1967 MP 280.
9. So is the view taken by the HC of Calcutta in Mauris Mayahas v. W. Modey and Ors AIR 1925 Cal 937 holding:
"If a cheque is given in part payment of a debt, the fresh period of limitation under S. 20 should be computed from the actual giving of the cheque and not from the time when the Bank pays cash for it.
10. 1 am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Calcutta. Several observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jiwan Lai Acharya v. Rameshwur Lal Aggarwala, AIR 1967 SC 11 18 lend support to the said view. It was a case of a postdated cheque issued in payment of a debt and relied on as payment for the purpose of extending limitation under Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The question arising for decision was whether the effective dale for extending the pe-riod of limitation would be the dale of the cheque or the date CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 23 of 32 of delivery thereof. Dealing with the question their Lordships have observed (vide para 8):
"Where therefore the payment is by cheque and is conditional, the mere delivery of the cheque on a particular date does not mean that the payment was made on that date unless the cheque was accepted as unconditional payment. Where the cheque is not accepted as an unconditional payment, it can only be treated as a conditional payment. In such a case the payment for purposes of S. 20 would be the date on which the cheque would be actually payable at the earliest assuming that it will be honoured"
"THE fact that the presented it later and was then paid is immaterial for it is the earliest date on which the payment could be made that would be the date where the conditional acceptance of a post-dated cheque becomes actual payment when honoured.
IT is not in dispute that he proviso to S. 20 is complied with in this case, for the cheque itself is an acknowledgement of the payment in the hand- writing of the person giving the cheque."
IT is clear from the above said observations that unconditional acceptance of cheque is payment; conditional acceptance of cheque is payment subject to realization thereof.
xxxx"
23.4 There cannot be any dispute as to the proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cited case of M/s Airen & Associates (supra), as relied upon from the side of defendant. However, the facts of the present case are entirely distinguishable from the facts of the said judgment, inasmuch as Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with the question as to what constitutes an acknowledgment in writing within the meaning of S.18 of the Limitation Act. In the case in hand, this Court has opined that the factum of issuance of multiple cheques by defendant in favour CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 24 of 32 of plaintiff towards partial discharge of her liability, constitutes an 'acknowledgment of debt' within the meaning of S.19 of the Limitation Act.
23.5 In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is entirely in agreement with the submissions advanced on behalf of plaintiff that the period of limitation to file the present suit got extended for further period of 3 years from the date of issuance of last cheque i.e. 02-07-2020.
24. Now, the next question, which arises for consideration is as to whether in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Suo Motu (supra), the entire period from 02-07-2020 till 28-02-2022, is to be excluded.
25. In order to have better appreciation of the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant direction contained therein. Same reads as under:-
"xxx 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 purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special 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 CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 25 of 32 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 Section 138 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.
xxx"
26. Thus, the entire period from 02-07-2020 till 28-02-2022 is to be excluded while computing the period of limitation qua invoices in question and hence, there is no substance in the argument advanced on behalf of defendant that the plaintiff is not entitled to take benefit of exclusion of said period.
27. Apart from above, the entire period from 17-05-2022 till 16-09-2022 is also required to be excluded in terms of S. 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, during which, the plaintiff had exhausted the remedy of pre-institution mediation.
28. It is matter of record that the plaintiff has e-filed the present suit on 01-02-2024.Thus, while computing the period of limitation from 02-07-2020, while excluding the period from 02-07-2020 till 28-02-2022 in terms of Suo- Motu decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, as also the period from 17-05-2022 till 16-09-2022 exhausted during pre-institution mediation in terms of S. 12 A of the CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 26 of 32 Commercial Courts Act, 2015, it is held that the present suit filed on 01-02-2024 is well within the prescribed period of limitation.
29. This brings me down to the other arguments advanced on behalf of defendant. There is absolutely no substance in the argument raised on behalf of defendant that in the absence of production of books of accounts by plaintiff during trial, the ledger account (Ex.PW1/2) has no evidentiary value attached to it, or that said ledger account statement, being computer generated statement, is susceptible to manipulation and thus, need to be discarded. Needless to say that the plaintiff maintains its books of accounts in the computer system and that is why, it has filed computer generated ledger statement of account of defendant. Precisely for this reason, the plaintiff has filed certificate under S. 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, which is proved as Ex.PW1/10 during trial. The relevant portion of the testimony of PW1 and the document i.e. Certificate under S. 65B of Indian Evidence Act has gone uncrossed, unchallenged and un-rebutted from the side of defendant. In this backdrop, this Court is in agreement with the submission made on behalf of plaintiff that it was under no legal obligation to produce original books of accounts during trial and production of computer generated ledger statement of account of defendant together with Certificate under S. 65B of Indian Evidence Act, would be sufficient to corroborate the case of plaintiff under the law.
30. Apart from above, PW6 has also produced relevant record CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 27 of 32 in respect of GST returns submitted by defendant for the relevant period, which have been proved as Ex.PW6/1 and Ex.PW6/2. It stood duly established from the said record that the defendant has herself mentioned details of the invoices in question in her said GST Returns filed with GST Department. Same would clearly constitute an admission on the part of defendant that she had purchased the goods/material from the plaintiff against the invoices in question. Same would also meet the argument raised on behalf of defendant that since the plaintiff had not filed certain delivery receipts of transport of goods and hence, it has failed to prove its case, or that the invoices Ex.PW1/D1 to Ex.PW1/D7, being in respect of manufacturing of goods, are bogus invoices in any manner. As rightly argued by Ld. Counsel of plaintiff, PW1 was not duty bound to produce list of Sundry Debtors and Creditors and/or the audited balance sheets etc., unless so directed by the Court. It was the bounden duty of defendant to seek direction from the Court to the witness of plaintiff for producing the said record, if so chosen and advised under the law. Indisputably, the defendant never sought any such direction and therefore, the Court did not direct PW1 to produce such record. Thus, this Court is of the view that the defendant cannot be allowed to agitate this point at the stage of final arguments.
31. Considering the fact that the defendant herself showed details of all the invoices in question in her GST Returns filed with GST Department, the absence of signature of Issuing Authority in some of those invoices, is hardly of CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 28 of 32 any relevance. Ledger account (Ex.PW1/2) is not required to be signed or bearing seal of CA of the plaintiff company, since there is no such requirement under the law. Hence, all the relevant arguments advanced on behalf of defendant regarding genuineness and authenticity of the ledger statement (Ex.PW1/2), are totally misconceived and stand rejected.
32. In view of the foregoing reasons and the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has been able to prove its case on the basis of preponderance of probability. Thus, the plaintiff is held entitled to recover the principal amount of ₹76,64,064/- from the defendant.
33. As regards the interest, the plaintiff has claimed approx.
₹15,42,051/- towards pre-suit interest calculated @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of pre-institution mediation proceedings i.e. 17-05-2022 till 19-01-2024, as also pendent-lite and future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of amount.
34. Keeping in view the fact that the defendant illegally withheld the legitimate dues of the plaintiff against the invoices in question, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to interest from the defendant on the outstanding amounts qua the invoices in question.
35. As regards rate of interest, Section 34 CPC clearly provides that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed 6% per annum but shall not exceed the CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 29 of 32 contractual rate of interest, or where, there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalized banks in relation to the commercial transactions.
36. The invoices in question clearly stipulates that @ 24% interest will be charged on all bills unpaid after due date. It is the case of the plaintiff that although invoices in question provide that interest @ 24% per annum shall be payable in case of default in making payment towards invoices, the plaintiff is seeking interest @ 12% per annum on the outstanding amount from the date of filing of pre-institution mediation proceedings, instead of dates when the payment against invoices become due, till date of filing of the suit i.e. 19-01-2024.
37. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of transaction being commercial in nature, the Court is of the opinion that the claim of interest @ 12% per from the date of filing of the Pre-Institution Mediation proceedings till 19-01-2024 appears to be reasonable and justified. Hence, pre-suit interest @ 12% per annum for said period is granted.
38. However, as regards pendent-lite and future interest, interest of justice would be met by awarding simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of its realization. It is so held accordingly.
39. The plaintiff has also claimed the cost of the suit. Keeping in view the provisions contained in Sections 35 and 35A CPC, it CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 30 of 32 has been established that the defendant failed to pay the outstanding dues not only despite service of legal notice, but also, despite service of summons of the suit upon it. Therefore, the defendant is responsible for the cost of the litigation to the extent of court fee and lawyers fee etc. as per the relevant rules. In my view, the plaintiff is accordingly entitled for the cost of litigation against the defendants.
RELIEF:
40. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the Court is of the view that the plaintiff has been able to prove its case on the basis of preponderance of probability. Hence, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and thus, the following reliefs are granted :-
40.1 The plaintiff is entitled to recover principal amount of ₹76,64,064/- [Rupees Seventy Six Lacs Sixty Four Thousand & Sixty Four only] from the defendant;
40.2 The plaintiff is entitled to recover approx.
₹15,42,051/- [Rupees Fifteen Lacs Forty Two Thousand and Fifty One only] towards pre-suit interest already calculated by plaintiff @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of pre-institution mediation proceedings i.e. 17-05-2022 till 19-01-2024;
40.3 Pendent-lite and future interest @ 10% per annum are awarded on the suit amount from the date of filing of suit till the date of its realization; and 40.4 Costs is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 31 of 3241. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
42. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance. Announced in the open Court Digitally signed by VIDYA On 12th Day of August, 2025 VIDYA PRAKASH Date:
PRAKASH 2025.08.12 17:30:14 +0530 (VIDYA PRAKASH) DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01 CENTRAL DISTRICT/THC/DELHI CS (COMM.)/195/2024 Page 32 of 32