Delhi District Court
M/S Dadhivala Mfrs And Consultants Pvt ... vs M/S Rajpoot Machines Pvt Ltd on 30 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-03
(SHAHDARA) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY: SH. SANJAY SHARMA-II, DHJS
CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024
CNR No.: DLSH01-004281-2024
M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.
Through: Mr. D.N. Singh, Managing Director
D-889, Gali No. 13, Ashok Nagar
Delhi-110093
..... Plaintiff
VERSUS
M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd.
F-283, Phase-I, UPSIDC
Industrial Area, M.G. Road
Ghaziabad, U.P. - 201 001
..... Defendant
Date of Institution : 12.07.2024
Date of Arguments : 27.02.2026
Date of Judgment : 30.03.2026
JUDGMENT
THE SUIT:
1. The plaintiff, a private limited company, through Mr. D.N. Singh, Managing Director, instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.
12,50,000/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum against the defendant.
THE PARTIES:
2. The plaintiff is a manufacturer of 'Hot Dip Galvanizing Plant, EOT Crane, Tube Mill Mechanical Spares and Chemicals of Galvanizing Plant'.
3. The defendant is a manufacturer of 'All Type Industrial Workshop Machinery including Materials of Rollers, Roller Locked Shaft Material, Shaft Diameter, Sheet Thickness, Side Digitally signed by Housing / Plate etc.'. SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.06 18:06:02 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 1 / 26 THE TRANSACTIONS:
4. The plaintiff contacted the defendant to supply machinery and pursuant thereto, the defendant sent a quotation to the plaintiff for 'Cold Roll Forming Thrie Beam Machine Fully Automatic with 5 Ton Decoiler', worth Rs. 22,00,000/-, via e-
mail, on 24.02.2022. Thereafter, the plaintiff placed a purchase order with the defendant, vide Ref. No. DVMC/RMPL/174/ 2021-22, dated 28.02.2022 for 'Cold Roll Forming Thrie Beam Machine Fully Automatic with 10 Ton Decoiler', as under:
Sl. No. Terms and Condition
1 Total cost:- 22,00,000
2 35% advance (7.5 lac)
3 20% within 10-15 after visit
4 10% electrical
5 Price - Ex-Work Ghaziabad
6 30% after successful trial
5. The plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- on 01.03.2022 and Rs. 5,00,000/- on 12.03.2022 to the defendant, through banking mode.
6. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant supplied an inferior quality of machine worth Rs. 2,00,600/- to the plaintiff on 30.03.2022. The said machine had manufacturing defect and it was not functional. On being informed, the defendant assured to rectify the defect or replace the said machine. In that regard, the defendant's engineer visited the plaintiff's premises and acknowledged that the said machine was defective and assured to replace it. However, the defendant neither taken back the said machine nor supplied another machine despite several requests. Thereafter, the plaintiff demanded amount of Rs. 12,50,000/-. However, the defendant did not return the said amount or Digitally signed received back the said machine. SANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.06 18:06:10 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 2 / 26
7. On 22.12.2023, the plaintiff issued a demand notice to the defendant. However, the defendant neither replied the demand notice nor returned the said amount or received back the said machine. Therefore, the plaintiff filed this suit. WRITTEN STATEMENT:
8. In written statement, the defendant contended, inter alia, that the plaintiff has misrepresented the facts and it has not approached the Court with clean hands. The defendant contended that the plaintiff has concealed true and material facts. The defendant contended that the plaintiff filed the suit to preempt legal claim of the defendant. The defendant contended that the plaintiff has no cause of action against it. The defendant contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief from the Court.
9. On merits, the defendant admitted that it is engaged in manufacturing and trading of 'All Type Industrial Workshop Machinery including Materials of Rollers, Roller Locked Shaft Material, Shaft Diameter, Sheet Thickness, Side Housing / Plate etc.'. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff approached it for purchase of the said machine and pursuant thereto, it sent a quotation to the plaintiff on 24.02.2022, via e-mail. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff placed a purchase order dated 28.02.2022 for supply of the said machine worth Rs. 22,00,000/-. The defendant admitted that terms and conditions of payment of price of the said machine. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff paid advance amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- on 01.03.2022, through banking mode. The defendant contended that on completion of 50% work on the said machine, the plaintiff visited its premises and satisfied with the progress of work and transferred an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 12.03.2022.
Digitally signed bySANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.06 18:06:17 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 3 / 26
10. The case of the defendant is that the plaintiff called the defendant's director to its factory at Chhatta and made a request to repair an old machine and to continue manufacturing of the said machine, in terms of purchase order. The defendant's director checked the said old machine and informed defects therein. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent parts of the said old machine to the defendant's premises for repair. The defendant repaired the said old machine and raised invoice in the sum of Rs. 2,00,600/-, as repair charges. The plaintiff had taken the said old machine. However, the plaintiff has not made payment of said repairing charges in the sum of Rs. 2,00,600/-. The defendant contended that the plaintiff fabricated a story of supply of an inferior quality of machine worth Rs. 2,00,600/- by the defendant.
11. According to the defendant, it purchased material worth Rs. 17,91,714/- for manufacturing the said machine. However, the plaintiff did not get the said machine completed and parts thereof are still with the defendant. The defendant shared photographs of the part with the plaintiff, through WhatsApp.
12. The case of the defendant is that after 1 ½ years, the plaintiff visited its premises and asked it to manufacture a different machine with different configuration. In that regard, the plaintiff prepared a hand written note and handed over a copy thereof to the defendant. The defendant agreed and commenced work on the said machine also. The defendant spent an amount of Rs. 12,47,601/- on the second machine. However, the plaintiff did not get the said machine completed. The defendant shared photographs thereof with the plaintiff from time-to-time, through WhatsApp. The defendant made two machines for the plaintiff but it has not paid even 50% of the agreed amount.
Digitally signed bySANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.06 18:06:24 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 4 / 26 REPLICATION:
13. In the replication, the plaintiff denied averments made in written statement and re-affirmed averments made in the plaint. ADMISSION AND DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS:
14. In 'Affidavit of Admission / Denial of Documents', the defendant admitted the plaintiff's documents, as under:
S No Particulars Correctness Existence Execution Issuance or Custody of of contents of of receipt of documents of document document document document 3 Annexure-'B' Admitted Admitted Admitted Plaintiff Plaintiff Copy of Quotation No. RTC/Thrie/2065 dt. 24.02.2022 in respect of machinery 4 Annexure-'C' Admitted Admitted Admitted Plaintiff Plaintiff Copy of Quotation No. RM/Punching/ 3446 dt.
24.02.2022 in
respect of
machinery
5 Annexure-'D' Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Plaintiff
Copy of
Purchase Order
Ref No.
DVMC/RMPL/
174/2021-2022
dt. 28.02.2022
6 Annexure-'E' Admitted Denied Admitted Admitted Plaintiff
Photocopy of
Ledger of the
defendant for the
period Tax
../04/2021 to
14/04/2022
maintained by
plaintiff in its
book of accounts
7 Annexure-'F' Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Plaintiff
Copy of
Statement of
Bank Account of
the plaintiff
showing the
aforesaid
payment of Rs.
7,50,000/- and
5,00,000/- to the
defendant
SANJAY Digitally signed by
SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.04.06
18:06:32 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 5 / 26
ISSUES:
15. Vide order dated 25.03.2025, the Court framed issues, as under:
(1) Whether the defendant supplied a defective and non-functional machine to the plaintiff?
(OPP) (2) Whether the amount of Rs. 2,00,600/- was due from the plaintiff on account of repair of an old machine of the plaintiff?
(OPD) (3) Whether the defendant purchased material for manufacturing of machine and spent Rs. 17,91,714/-
thereon and Rs. 12,47,601/- for manufacturing of second machine?
(OPD) (4) Whether the defendant manufactured the machine, as per the purchase order, and a hand written order of the plaintiff, if so, its effect?
(OPD) (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs. 12,50,000/-, as prayed.
(OPP) (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for which period?
(OPP) (7) Relief.
THE PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:
16. PW-1 Mr. D.N. Singh, Managing Director filed evidence-
affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied on documents, as under:
Sl No. Documents Exhibits
1. Board Resolution dated 10.05.2024 Ex.PW1/1
2. Certificate of Incorporation of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/2
3. Master Data of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/3
4. Quotations dated 24.02.2022 Mark-A & Mark-B
5. Purchase Order dated 28.02.2022 Ex.PW1/4 (colly)
6. Ledger Ex.PW1/5
7. Statement of Bank Account of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/6
8. Tax Invoice Ex.PW1/7
9. Demand Notice dated 22.12.2023 Ex.PW1/8 (colly)
10. 'Non-Starter Report' Ex.PW1/9
11. Board Resolution dated 22.03.2025 Ex.PW1/2A
SANJAY Digitally signed by
SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.04.06
18:06:39 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 6 / 26
17. In his cross-examination, PW-1 Mr. D.N. Singh admitted a copy of hand written note regarding manufacturing of new machine (W Beem) Mark DW/B1.
THE DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE:
18. DW-1 Mr. Vinod Singh Rajpoot, Director filed evidence- affidavit Ex.DW1/A and relied on documents, as under:
Sl No Documents Exhibits
1. Copy of Shareholders of the defendant Ex.DW1/1
2. Board Resolution of the defendant Ex.DW1/2
3. Invoices for purchase of material Ex.DW1/3 (colly)
4. Photographs of 1st machine shared with the Ex.DW1/4 (colly) plaintiff, through WhatsApp
5. Copy of invoices Ex.DW1/5 (colly)
6. Photographs of new machines shared with the Ex.DW1/6 (colly) plaintiff
7. Certificate under Section 63 BSA, 2023 Ex.DW1/7 APPEARANCE:
19. The Court has heard arguments of Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Ld. Counsel with Mr. Shubham Rajput, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Ld. Counsel with Ms. Dipti Kumari, Ld. Counsel for the defendant and examined pleadings and evidence, oral and documentary, and perused written arguments filed by the parties.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF:
20. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the defendant admitted that the plaintiff placed purchase order dated 28.02.2022 Ex.PW1/4 for supply of the said machine worth Rs.
22,00,000/- and the plaintiff made payment of Rs. 12,50,000/-, vide Rs. 7,50,000/- on 01.03.2022 and Rs. 5,00,000/- on 12.03.2022, through banking mode, in terms of schedule of payment. He contended that the defendant admitted that the plaintiff made repeated enquiries regarding progress of machine.
Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.06 18:06:46 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 7 / 26
21. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the case of the defendant regarding repair of an old machine of the plaintiff, vide invoice dated 30.03.2022 Ex.DW1/7, has no connection with the subject matter of the suit. He contended that the defendant has not rectified the said old machine properly. He contended that the plaintiff neither placed any written order for repair of the said old machine nor the defendant claimed set off. He contended that the defendant has not proved that it spent around Rs. 17,91,714/- towards purchase of material for manufacturing the machine. He contended that the said invoices Ex.DW1/3 do not mention that the said material was purchased for manufacturing the machine ordered by the plaintiff. He contended that some of the said invoices are handwritten and do not mention GST number. He contended that the defendant had also not provided the second machine, vide handwritten note Mark DW/B1. He contended that the photographs Ex.DW1/4 and Ex.DW1/6 do not establish that the said photographs are pertaining to the machines ordered by the plaintiff. He contended that the plaintiff demanded the amount after a reasonable period of time, vide demand notice dated 22.12.2023 Ex.PW1/8. He contended that the defendant neither manufactured nor supplied the machine or returned the amount of Rs. 12,50,000/-. He contended that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of the suit amount alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum. He relied upon judgments, as under:
Sl No. Title of the Suit Suit No. Date of Decision 1 M/s. GG Enterprises vs. CS (Comm.) No. 01.02.2024 M/s. Micron Lasers 585/2021 2 Mr. Roubel Dunglay vs. CS No. 28.03.2025 M/s. Total Solution Industry 58790/2016 Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.06 18:06:54 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 8 / 26 CONTENTIONS OF THE DEFENDANT:
22. Ld. Counsel for the defendant contended that admittedly, the plaintiff placed purchase order dated 28.02.2022 Ex.PW1/4 for supply of a machine worth Rs. 22,00,000/- and the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 12,50,000/-, vide Rs. 7,50,000/- on 01.03.2022 and Rs. 5,00,000/- on 12.03.2022. He contended that the defendant started manufacturing the machine, in terms of purchase order and completed 50% of the said machine. However, the plaintiff called the defendant to its premises and requested the defendant to repair an old machine. He contended that the defendant never supplied any inferior or substandard machine. He contended that the defendant repaired the said old machine and raised invoice in the sum of Rs. 2,00,600/-, vide invoice dated 30.03.2022 Ex.PW1/7. He contended that the plaintiff has not made payment of the said amount of Rs. 2,00,600/- to the defendant. He contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for recovery of the suit amount for the reason that the defendant purchased material worth Rs. 17,91,714/- for manufacturing the said machine, vide invoices Ex.DW1/3 and the plaintiff did not allow the defendant to complete the said machine and instead, the plaintiff got repaired an old machine. He contended that the plaintiff maintained silence for more than one year and six months and thereafter, asked the defendant to manufacture a new machine on 06.02.2024, vide handwritten note Mark DW/B1. He contended that the defendant again purchased material worth Rs. 12,47,601/- for manufacturing new machine, vide invoices Ex.DW1/5. He contended that it shared photographs of both the machines with the plaintiff in order to show progress of the said machines. He contended that PW-1 Mr. D.N. Singh admitted that he did not require the said machine Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.06 18:07:01 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 9 / 26 ISSUE NO. 1:
(1) Whether the defendant supplied a defective and non-functional machine to the plaintiff?
(OPP)
23. The said issue was framed on the contention of the plaintiff in Para No. 8 to 12 of the plaint, as under:
"8. That after receiving a sum of Rs. 12,50,000/-, the defendant company on 30.03.2022 supplied an inferior quality material / machinery worth Rs. 2,00,600/- only to the plaintiff company, which was non-functional, having manufacturing defect. The defect was immediately informed to the defendant company over telephone and it was assured by them that they will rectify the fault or will replace the machinery. It is pertinent to mention here that an engineer from the defendant company visited the premises of the plaintiff company and admitted that the material / machinery supplied to the plaintiff company is defective and assured that same will be replaced soon. The copy of invoice is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-G.
9. That the plaintiff company time and again requested the defendant company to take back the substandard and inferior quality machine but always their requests were in vain.
10. That neither the defendant company taken back the defective machinery, nor supplied further material / machines to the plaintiff company till date. After waiting a long period, the Plaintiff company demanded his money back from the defendant company but till date amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- has not been returned to the plaintiff company by the defendant company.
11. That despite repeated requests and demands made by the plaintiff company, neither the defendant company has returned back Rs. 12,50,000/- nor has taken back its defective machinery till date, which are lying useless with the plaintiff company.
12. That finally the plaintiff company through its counsel issued a Legal Notice dated 22-12-2023 to the defendant company but despite service, the said notice was never replied by them. It is pertinent to mention here that after receiving the said legal notice, the defendant company assured to the Plaintiff company that they will return its deposited money and will take back their defective machinery but till date no money SANJAY has been returned to the plaintiff company. The office SHARMA copy of said legal notice is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-H." (emphasis supplied) Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA Date: 2026.04.06 18:07:10 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 10 / 26
24. PW-1 Mr. D.N. Singh deposed the said facts, in his evidence-affidavit Ex.PW1/A, as under:
"9. That after receiving a sum of Rs. 12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh & Fifty Thousand Only), the Defendant Company on 23/03/2022 supplied an inferior quality Material / Machines of Rs. 2,00,600/- (Rupees Two Lakh & Six Hundred Only) to the Plaintiff Company, which was non-functional having manufacturing defect. The defect was immediately informed to the Defendant Company telephonically and it was assured by the Defendant Company that they will rectify the fault or replace with the new Machines. It is pertinent to mention here that an engineer from the Defendant Company visited the premises of the Plaintiff Company and admitted that Materials / Machines supplied to the Plaintiff Company are defective and assured that the same will be replaced with the new one soon. The copy of the Invoice is Exhibited as Ex.PW1/6 (OSR).
10. That the Plaintiff Company time and again requested the Defendant Company to replace the substandard and inferior quality Machines but all the efforts of Plaintiff Company were in vain.
11. That despite repeated requests and demands made by the Plaintiff Company, neither the Defendant Company has returned back Rs. 12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh & Fifty Thousand Only) nor has taken back its defective Machines till date which are lying useless with the Plaintiff Company.
12. That finally the Plaintiff Company through its Counsel served a Legal Notice dated 22/12/2023 upon the Defendant Company but despite service, the said Legal Notice was never replied by the Defendant Company. The office copy of the Legal Notice is Exhibited as Ex.PW1/7 (Colly.) (OSR)."
(emphasis supplied)
25. However, PW-1 Mr. D.N. Singh admitted, in his cross- examination, that he had requested the defendant to repair an old machine lying in his factory at Chhatta and thereafter, he sent parts of the said old machine to the defendant's premises and the defendant raised an invoice of Rs. 2,00,600/- Ex.PW1/7 towards repair of the said old machine. He admitted that he has not made Digitally signed the payment of the said amount. by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.06 18:07:18 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 11 / 26
26. Relevant part of cross-examination of PW-1 Mr. D.N. Singh is, as under:
"... At that time, our factory is located at Village Gora, Chhata, U.P. ... It is correct that I called the defendant after making payment of Rs. 12,00,000/- in our factory at Chhata, UP. It is correct that I requested defendant to repair the old machine lying at my factory at Chhata besides the purchase order of the new machine. It is correct that defendant checked the old machine and told the short coming in the old machine, thereafter, we sent parts of the old machine to the place of the defendant to repair. It is correct that defendant charged Rs. 2,00,600/- for repairing the old machine and raised invoice to us. I have not made payment of Rs. 2,00,600/-. Vol. Old machine was not repaired properly that is why I have not made the payment. It is correct that I have not issued any debit note to the defendant regarding repair of old machine. Vol. I used to call the defendant for repairing the old machine in our factory but the defendant never turned up to repair the same. It is correct that I have not placed on record any telephonic / WhatsApp message / e-mail / letter regarding repair of old machine to the defendant. Vol. But the defendant has placed all the conversations with the plaintiff on record. ... I admit the conversations between me and defendant through WhatsApp which was placed on record by defendant. It is correct that I have not placed the conversation record on the record between 22.04.2022 till 22.12.2023. Vol. I used to visit several times to the factory of the defendant and found there was no material pertaining to the order. ..."
(emphasis supplied)
27. It is evident that the defendant had not supplied machine to the plaintiff. It is, therefore, evident that the plaintiff made incorrect averments in the plaint that the defendant supplied an inferior and substandard machine worth Rs. 2,00,600/- and the defendant neither replaced the said machine nor rectified the facts therein.
28. The case of the defendant was that during visit to the plaintiff' factory, the plaintiff had requested to repair an old machine and thereafter, the defendant repaired the said old Digitally signed by machine and raised invoice in the sum of Rs. 2,00,600/-.
SANJAY
SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.06
18:07:25
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 12 / 26
29. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer Para No. 23 of True Facts of the written statement, as under:
"23. That in his visit to Chata, director of defendant company checked the old machine and conveyed the shortcomings in the machine, thereafter, plaintiff sent the parts of the old machine to the place of defendant to repair, defendant duly rectified the defect and after checking of machine plaintiff took the machine. Defendant charged Rs. 2,00,600/- for repair and raised invoices but despite several continuous phone call, plaintiff not paid the amount. Later on, plaintiff stopped picking up phone calls of the defendant. That the plaintiff cooked up false story of supplying inferior quality material / machinery worth Rs. 2,00,600/- by the defendant."
(emphasis supplied)
30. In this regard, the plaintiff suggested its case to DW-1 Mr. Vinod Singh Rajpoot, in his cross-examination, that the plaintiff had requested the defendant to repair an old machine and the defendant raised an invoice in the sum of Rs. 2,00,600/-, as under:
"... It is correct that plaintiff had requested me to repair the old machine as per Para No. 9 of the evidence affidavit. It is correct that to repair the old machine, the plaintiff had placed an order for same orally and not by in writing. It is correct that I had raised invoices of sum of Rs. 2,00,600/-. It is correct that the invoice of Rs. 2,00,600/- was raised for repair of the old machine. It is correct that demand was made orally and no legal notice was served in this regard. It is correct that no claim of set off was filed by me against the plaintiff for the above said invoice of Rs. 2,00,600/-. It is wrong to suggest that no old machine was given for repairing by the plaintiff. ..."
(emphasis supplied)
31. As noted above, the Court examined PW-1 Mr. D.N. Singh, in exercise of its power under Section 168 BSA.
32. In his examination by the Court, PW-1 Mr. D.N. Singh admitted that the defendant never supplied any inferior and substandard machine worth Rs. 2,00,600/- against purchase order Digitally signed dated 28.02.2022 Ex.PW1/4. SANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.06 18:07:31 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 13 / 26
33. PW-1 Mr. D.N. Singh admitted that he made a false statement in Para No. 8 of the plaint and Para No. 9 of evidence- affidavit Ex.PW1/A that on receipt of an amount of Rs. 12,50,000/-, the defendant supplied an inferior quality of machine worth Rs. 2,00,600/-. He did not furnish any explanation for making the said false averments / statement. He is a law graduate. Only explanation furnished by him was that he signed the plaint and evidence-affidavit Ex.PW1/A without reading. His examination by the Court is, as under:
"Court Question No. 1: Is it correct that in Para No. 8 of the plaint, you have stated that on receipt of an amount of Rs. 12,50,000/-, the defendant supplied an inferior quality of machine worth Rs. 2,00,600/- on 30.03.2022?
Ans. It is correct.
Court Question No. 2: Is it correct that tax invoice dated 30.03.2022 issued by the defendant is pertaining to repair of parts of roll forming machine? Ans. It is correct. This invoice is pertaining to repair of cutting blade.
Court Question No. 3: Is it correct that in your cross- examination, you have stated that you requested the defendant to repair the old machine kept in your factory at Chhata and you sent parts of the said old machine to the place of the defendant for repair and the defendant raised invoice of Rs. 2,00,600/- for repair of old machine?
Ans. It is correct.
Court Question No. 4: Is it correct that the defendant never supplied you machine regarding which you placed purchase order dated 28.02.2022 Ex.PW1/4 and made payment of Rs. 12,50,000/-, vide bank statement Ex.PW1/6?
Ans. It is correct.
Court Question No. 5: Is it correct that your statement in Para No. 8 of the plaint and Para No. 9 of evidence-affidavit Ex.PW1/A that on receipt of an amount of Rs. 12,50,000/-, the defendant supplied an inferior quality of machine worth Rs. 2,00,600/- on 30.03.2022 is false?
Ans. It is correct that the said statement is false.Digitally signed by SANJAY
SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.06
18:07:38 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 14 / 26
Court Question No. 6: Why have you made a false statement in your plaint and evidence-affidavit Ex.PW1/A?
Ans. I merely stated to my counsel that I made payment of Rs. 12,50,000/- against purchase order dated 28.02.2022 and I got a machine repaired from the defendant and the defendant raised invoice of Rs. 2,00,600/- and given a cutter blade. Court Question No. 7: Is it correct that you are a law graduate and you must have signed the plaint and evidence-affidavit Ex.PW1/A after reading averments and depositions made therein?
Ans. I am a law graduate but I signed the plaint and evidence-affidavit Ex.PW1/A without reading."
(emphasis supplied)
34. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant supplied an inferior, defective, substandard and non-functional machine is proved to be an incorrect averment.
35. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 2:
(2) Whether the amount of Rs. 2,00,600/- was due from the plaintiff on account of repair of an old machine of the plaintiff?
(OPD)
36. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant supplied an inferior and substandard machine worth Rs. 2,00,600/-. However, the case of the defendant was that the defendant repaired an old machine and raised invoice dated 30.03.2022 Ex.PW1/7 in the sum of Rs. 2,00,600/-, as repair cost. However, the plaintiff has not paid the said amount.
37. As noted above, PW-1 Mr. D.N. Singh admitted, in his evidence, that he had requested the defendant to repair an old machine kept in his factory and he sent parts of the said machine to the defendant and the defendant charged Rs. 2,00,600/- for repairing the said old machine, vide invoice Ex.PW1/7. He admitted that the plaintiff has not paid Rs. 2,00,600/-.
Digitally signed bySANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.06 18:07:45 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 15 / 26
38. In his evidence, PW-1 Mr. D.N. Singh furnished reason for not making payment of the said repairing cost is that the said old machine was not repaired properly. He admitted that he has not issued any debit note to the defendant. He admitted that he has not placed any call logs / WhatsApp message or e-mail regarding repairing the said old machine.
39. It is further relevant to note that PW-1 Mr. D.N. Singh admitted that the plaintiff credited an amount of Rs. 2,00,600/- in its ledger Ex.PW1/5, as under:
"Court Question No. 2: Is it correct that tax invoice dated 30.03.2022 issued by the defendant is pertaining to repair of parts of roll forming machine? Ans. It is correct. This invoice is pertaining to repair of cutting blade.
Court Question No. 3: Is it correct that in your cross- examination, you have stated that you requested the defendant to repair the old machine kept in your factory at Chhata and you sent parts of the said old machine to the place of the defendant for repair and the defendant raised invoice of Rs. 2,00,600/- for repair of old machine?
Ans. It is correct.
Court Question No. 8: Is it correct that in your ledger Ex.PW1/5, you credited an amount of Rs. 2,00,600/- towards local purchase and thereafter, you debited the said amount on 14.04.2022 towards goods returned?
Ans. It is correct.
Court Question No. 9: Is it correct that you never returned any machine / parts of machine or any material to the defendant worth Rs. 2,00,600/-, as debited in ledger Ex.PW1/5 on 14.04.2022? Ans. It is correct. However, we had asked the defendant to receive back the defective cutter blade supplied by them."
(emphasis supplied)
40. It is, therefore, proved that the defendant repaired an old machine and raised an invoice Ex.PW1/7 in the sum of Rs. 2,00,600/- and the plaintiff has not made payment of the said Digitally signed amount. by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.06 18:07:51 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 16 / 26
41. The reason furnished for not making payment of the said amount is neither pleaded nor deposed in evidence-affidavit. The said reason was furnished for the first time after three years from the date of repair of the said old machine.
42. Accordingly, it is proved that an amount of Rs. 2,00,600/- was due from the plaintiff to the defendant on account of repair of an old machine.
43. Consequently, Issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 3:
(3) Whether the defendant purchased material for manufacturing of machine and spent Rs. 17,91,714/-
thereon and Rs. 12,47,601/- for manufacturing of second machine?
(OPD)
44. The case of the defendant is that it purchased material worth Rs. 17,91,714/- for manufacturing 1st machine, vide invoices Ex.DW1/3 and it purchased material worth Rs. 12,47,601/- for manufacturing 2nd machine, vide invoices Ex.DW1/5.
45. In this regard, the defendant relied on invoices Ex.DW1/3 worth Rs. 11,26,714/-.
46. A perusal of the said invoices would show that except Invoice No. 864 dated 22.03.2022 in the sum of Rs. 4,72,472/- raised by 'Mahawar Steels', other invoices raised by 'Batra Enterprises' are handwritten invoices, as under:
Sl. No. Invoice No. Date Amount
1 510 03.03.2022 Rs. 5,12,760/-
2 551 25.03.2022 Rs. 75,980/-
3 552 25.03.2022 Rs. 65,502/-
47. The defendant further relied on invoices Ex.DW1/5 worth Rs. 6,72,601/- towards material purchased for 2nd machine.
Digitally signed bySANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.06 18:07:57 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 17 / 26
48. A perusal of the said invoices would show that two invoices are tax invoices, as under:
Sl. No. Invoice No. Date Amount Supplier 1 476 09.02.2024 Rs. 5,90,173/- APR Steel Co. 2 2668 23.02.2024 Rs. 7,080/- Mishra Ji Trading Co.
49. The other two invoices are handwritten invoices, as under:
Sl. No. Invoice No. Date Amount Supplier 1 490 13.02.2024 Rs. 66,428/- Nav Bharat Pipe 2 800 16.02.2024 Rs. 8,920/- Batra Enterprises
50. The defendant has not examined the said suppliers to prove the said invoices. The defendant has not led any evidence that he made payment of the said invoices to the suppliers. The defendant has not led evidence that the suppliers uploaded GST on the said invoices and the defendant claimed ' Input Tax Credit' (ITC). The defendant has not filed any e-way bill pertaining to supply of the said material. There is no evidence that the said material could not be used for manufacturing any other machine except the machines ordered by the plaintiff.
51. Admittedly, the defendant received demand notice dated 22.12.2023 Ex.PW1/8. However, the defendant did not reply the said notice and raise any contention therein regarding purchase of material worth Rs. 17,91,714/- for manufacturing the machines ordered by the plaintiff. It is further relevant to note that there is no mention of status of progress of 1 st machine and expenses incurred thereon for purchase of material in handwritten note Mark DW/B1. Photographs shared by the defendant do not advance the case of the defendant as from the photographs it cannot be established that the said photographs were pertaining to the machines ordered by the plaintiff and moreover, the said messages reflect concern of Digitally the plaintiff signed regarding progress of the machines. SANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.06 18:08:05 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 18 / 26
52. Therefore, the defendant failed to prove that it purchased material worth Rs. 17,91,714/- and Rs. 12,47,601/- for manufacturing of 1st and 2nd machines respectively.
53. Accordingly, Issue No. 3 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 4:
(4) Whether the defendant manufactured the machine, as per the purchase order, and a hand written order of the plaintiff, if so, its effect?
(OPD)
54. Admittedly, the defendant sent quotation dated 24.02.2022 Mark 'A' to the plaintiff for manufacturing 'Thrie Beam Machine' worth Rs. 22,00,000/-. Admittedly, the plaintiff placed purchase order dated 28.02.2022 Ex.PW1/4 for the said machine worth Rs. 22,00,000/-. According to the terms and conditions of the payment, the plaintiff made payment of Rs. 7,50,000/- to the defendant being 35% amount as advance amount on 01.03.2022. The plaintiff made payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the defendant being 20% amount after 10 - 15 days from the date of first visit.
55. However, the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant neither manufactured the machine nor returned the amount.
56. The case of the defendant is that he completed 50% work on machine and thereafter, the plaintiff visited its factory and on being satisfied from progress of machine, the plaintiff made payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 12.03.2022. However, the plaintiff did not get the machine completed and after 1 ½ years, the plaintiff asked the defendant to prepare a machine with different configuration, vide handwritten note Mark DW/B1.
57. Hence, the case of the defendant is that it had completed 50% work on ordered machine on the date of making payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 12.03.2022. However, only Invoice No. 510 dated 03.03.2022 is relating to the period preceding 12.03.2022.
Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.06 18:08:13 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 19 / 26
58. Further, DW-1 Mr. Vinod Singh Rajpoot admitted, in his cross-examination, that machine is not completely manufactured and he received legal notice from the plaintiff in December, 2023 and he has not returned the advance amount, as under:
"... It is correct that still, machine is not completely manufactured and also incomplete parts of the machine are lying with me. ... It is correct that I have not returned the advance payment. It is correct that I have received the legal notice from the plaintiff in December, 2023. ..."
(emphasis supplied)
59. According to the terms and conditions of payment of cost of Rs. 22,00,000/-, the plaintiff made payment of Rs. 7,50,000/- as 35% amount in advance on 01.03.2022 and an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as 20% amount on 12.03.2022. As such, the plaintiff made excess payment of Rs. 40,000/-, as on 12.03.2022. Thereafter, the defendant had to purchase electrical parts of the machine and 30% of the amount was payable after successful trial. However, the defendant neither purchased electrical parts nor sent any written intimation to the plaintiff to make payment of deficient amount for initiating electrical works. He admitted that the machine ordered by the plaintiff was not complete till the date of filing of the suit. He did not reply demand notice.
60. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer answers given by DW-1 Mr. Vinod Singh Rajpoot, as under:
"Court Question No. 1: Is it correct that terms of payment of cost of Rs. 22,00,000/-, vide purchase order dated 28.02.2022 Ex.PW1/4, were, as under:
"Terms & Conditions
1. Total cost:- 22,00,000.00
2. 35% advance (7.5 lac)
3. 20% within 10-15 after visit
4. 10% electrical
5. Price - EX-Work Ghaziabad Digitally signed by
6. 30% After Successful trial" SANJAY Ans. It is correct. SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.06 18:08:26 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 20 / 26 Court Question No. 2: Is it correct that the plaintiff made advance payment of Rs. 7,50,000/- on 01.03.2022 i.e. the next date of purchase order and more than 20% of contract amount i.e. Rs. 5,00,000/- on 12.03.2022?
Ans. It is correct. Advance payment of Rs. 7,50,000/- was made, through cheque and second payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- was made on 12.03.2022, through NET banking.
Court Question No. 3: Did you purchase any material for electrical work of the machine after receiving payment on 12.03.2022?
Ans. I did not purchase any material for electrical work of the said machine.
Court Question No. 4: Is it correct that you have stated in Para No. 22 of 'Preliminary Objections' of the written statement that you spent an amount of Rs. 17,91,714/- on purchase of material for manufacturing of machine?
Ans. It is correct.
Court Question No. 5: Is it correct that none of the invoices Ex.PW1/3 is relating to purchase of any material for electrical work of the machine? Ans. It is correct.
Court Question No. 6: Is it correct that you have already received excess payment of Rs. 40,000/- before commencement of electrical work of the machine?
Ans. It is correct.
Court Question No. 7: Have you sent any written letter or notice to the plaintiff to make payment of 10% amount of contract value for electrical work of the machine, after receipt of second payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 12.03.2022?
Ans. I had not issued any written letter or notice. The plaintiff called me to its factory at Chhata where an old machine was already lying there and he asked me to repair the said machine and after inspection of the said machine, the plaintiff sent defective parts of the said machine to our factory where we repaired those parts and after repair of those parts, we installed repaired parts in the old machine in the factory of the plaintiff.
Court Question No. 9: Is it correct that you never sent any written notice to the plaintiff to make payment of SANJAY 10% of contract amount towards electrical work since SHARMA 01.03.2022 till institution of the suit? Ans. I had not issued any written notice or letter to Digitally signed the plaintiff in that regard. However, I had made calls by SANJAY SHARMA to him. Date: 2026.04.06 18:08:32 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 21 / 26 Court Question No. 10: Is it correct that the machine ordered by the plaintiff was not complete till the date of filing of the suit?
Ans. It is correct. However, in January, 2024, the plaintiff visited me and asked me to abandon work on first machine and asked me to prepare a new machine and in that regard, I have already filed a handwritten agreement at Page No. 73 of the written statement. Court Question No. 12: Is it correct that you had received demand notice dated 22.12.2023 Ex.PW1/8? Ans. It is correct.
Court Question No. 13: Did you reply the said notice or ask the plaintiff to make payment of 10% of amount towards electrical work for further work on the said machine after receiving the said notice? Ans. As I have already stated above that after receipt of the said notice, the plaintiff had approached me in January, 2024 and asked me to prepare new machine and abandon work on first machine. Court Question No. 14: Is it correct that the machine ordered by the plaintiff, vide purchase order dated 28.02.2022 Ex.PW1/4, is still not complete and never delivered to the plaintiff?
Ans. It is correct."
(emphasis supplied)
61. The case of the defendant is that after 1 ½ years, the plaintiff visited the defendant and asked the defendant to manufacture a new machine with different configuration, vide handwritten note Mark DW/B1. PW-1 Mr. D.N. Singh admitted that on 06.02.2024, he requested the defendant for new machine, vide Mark DW/B1, as under:
"... It is correct that on 06 February, 2024, we requested the defendant for new machine (W Beem) Machine, copy of which is on record filed by defendant at Page No. 74. The fair copy of said document is now Mark-DW/B1. ..."
62. However, the said handwritten Mark DW/B1 does not state that the plaintiff asked the defendant to abandon work on the ordered machine and manufacture a new machine. It states that the defendant would manufacture new 'W Beem Machine' till 15.03.2024. Admittedly, the defendant has not manufactured Digitally signed and delivered 2nd machine also. SANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.06 18:08:40 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 22 / 26
63. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer examination of DW-1 Mr. Vinod Singh Rajpoot, as under:
"Court Question No. 10: Is it correct that the machine ordered by the plaintiff was not complete till the date of filing of the suit?
Ans. It is correct. However, in January, 2024, the plaintiff visited me and asked me to abandon work on first machine and asked me to prepare a new machine and in that regard, I have already filed a handwritten agreement at Page No. 73 of the written statement. Court Question No. 11: Is it correct that the said handwritten note does not state anything about first machine?
Ans. It is correct."
(emphasis supplied)
64. Therefore, it is proved that the defendant did not manufacture the machine, as per purchase order Ex.PW1/4 and handwritten note Mark DW/B1.
65. Accordingly, Issue No. 4 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 5:
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs. 12,50,000/-, as prayed?
(OPP)
66. As noted above, the defendant admitted, in written statement and evidence-affidavit Ex.DW1/A, that the plaintiff made payment of Rs. 12,50,000/- to the defendant. Admittedly, the plaintiff made payment of Rs. 7,50,000/- as 35% cost of the machine in advance on 01.03.2022 and Rs. 5,00,000/- as 20% cost of the machine within 10 - 15 days after first visit. The plaintiff was liable to pay 10% cost of the machine after electrical work and 30% cost of the machine after successful trial. However, the defendant never purchased any material for electrical work. DW-1 Mr. Vinod Singh Rajpoot admitted that the machine ordered by the plaintiff is still incomplete and was Digitally signed by SANJAY not delivered to the plaintiff. SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.06 18:08:47 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 23 / 26
67. The plaintiff waited for the machine till 22.12.2023 i.e. one year and ten months. However, the defendant neither manufactured nor delivered the machine or returned the amount. The defendant did not reply the demand notice Ex.PW1/8. Therefore, the defendant is liable to return the said amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- to the plaintiff. However, the defendant repaired an old machine and raised invoice Ex.PW1/7 in the sum of Rs. 2,00,600/- and the plaintiff credited the said amount in its ledger and thereafter, debited the said amount by making an entry 'goods returned'. However, the plaintiff never returned any goods to the defendant. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to adjust the said amount. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of an amount of Rs. 10,49,400/-.
68. Before parting with, it would be relevant to take note of prime contention of Ld. Counsel for the defendant on the competence of PW-1 Mr. D.N. Singh to sign and verify the plaint and institute the suit. However, the defendant has not raised such objection in written statement. Moreover, PW-1 Mr. D.N. Singh is Managing Director of the plaintiff, vide MCA details Ex.PW1/3. He is entitled to sign and verify the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff being its director under Order 29 Rule 1 CPC. In case there is any defect in Board Resolution dated 10.05.2024 Ex.PW1/1, it was rectified, vide Board Resolution dated 22.03.2025 Ex.PW1/2A. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in United Bank of India vs. Naresh Kumar and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 660.
69. Accordingly, Issue No. 5 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.06 18:08:53 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 24 / 26 ISSUE NO. 6:
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for which period?
(OPP)
70. The plaintiff is claiming pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum as per usages and customs of the market. However, there is no evidence of any market usages or custom of payment of the said rate of interest. There is no evidence that the said rate of interest is paid by the banks. Section 34 of 'The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' confers discretion upon the Court to grant pendente-lite and future interest. The defendant withheld the amount due to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to just and reasonable interest on the principal amount. The nature of the transaction is commercial. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to future interest @ 9% per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 10,49,400/-. The plaintiff is denied pendente-lite interest as the plaintiff made false averments in the plaint and evidence- affidavit Ex.PW1/A regarding supply of inferior and substandard machine worth Rs. 2,00,600/-, as noted above. For that reason, the plaintiff is denied cost of the suit as well.
71. Accordingly, Issue No. 6 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
RELIEF
72. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and a decree in the sum of Rs. 10,49,400/- alongwith future interest @ 9% per annum is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Decree sheet be drawn. File be consigned to record Digitally signed room. SANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.06 18:09:01 +0530 Announced in the open Court SANJAY SHARMA-II th on this 30 March, 2026 DJ (Commercial Court)-03 (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 25 / 26 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd.
CNR No.: DLSH01-004281-2024 CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 30.03.2026 Through Video Conferencing.
Present : Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Ld. Counsel with Mr. Shubham Rajput, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Ld. Counsel with Ms. Dipti Kumari, Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
Vide separate judgment, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and a decree in the sum of Rs. 10,49,400/- alongwith future interest @ 9% per annum is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Decree sheet be drawn. File be consigned to record Digitally signed by SANJAY room. SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.06 18:09:06 +0530 Sanjay Sharma-II DJ (Commercial Court)-03 Shahdara, KKD, Delhi 30.03.2026 CS (Comm.) No. 385/2024 M/s. Dadhivala Mfrs. & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Rajpoot Machines Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 26 / 26