Delhi District Court
Sunil Rai vs Amrinder Singh on 26 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA
DISTRICT JUDGE(COMMERCIAL)-07(CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022
CNR No. DLCT010052982022
DLCT010052982022
SHRI SUNIL RAI
(Proprietor of M/s SRC Enterprises)
Business Office at:-
110083/3, 1st Floor, Bara Bazar,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
Regd. Office At:
10/125 A, First floor, Vishnu Gali,
Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
......Plaintiff.
Vs.
SHRI AMRINDER SINGH,
(Proprietor of M/s Lakshmi Agencies)
Office/works at:-
Dehradun Road, Makhanpur,
Bhagwanpur, Roorkee,
Uttarakhand-247667.
Resides At:-
350-D, Regal Appartment,
Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram,
Ghaziabad, UP-201014
Mob. No.7302201221. ... Defendant.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 4,83,982.77ps
MUKESH by
Digitally signed
MUKESH
Date of institution of suit : 24.03.2022
KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date: First Date before this court : 08.05.2024
GUPTA 2025.07.26
16:01:33 +0530 Date on which reserved for judgment : 24.07.2025
Date of Judgment : 26.07.2025
CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 1 of 29
Appearance(s) : Shri Vivek Kumar, Adv. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Mr. Adnan Ahmad, Adv., Ld. Counsel. for the defendant.
JUDGMENT
(A) PRELUDE:
1. By way of present judgment, I shall conscientiously adjudicate
upon the plaintiff’s suit for Recovery of Rs.4,83,982.77ps. (which
includes the principal amount of Rs.3,42,642.67ps and pre-suit interest
component @ 15% per annum w.e.f. 19.05.2019 till filing of the suit
amounting to Rs.1,41,340.10ps) alongwith interest @ 15% per annum
pendentlite and future from the date of filing of suit till its realisation.
The plaintiff has also prayed for costs of the suit.
(B) CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF:-
2. Eschewing prolix reference to the pleadings crystallizing the same
the plaintiff has averred in the plaint that:-
2.1) The plaintiff is a proprietor of proprietorship concern namely
M/s SRC Enterprises and is in business of sale of spare parts of Forklifts
and servicing thereof. Plaintiff firm is situated at 1108/3, 1 st Floor, Bara
Bazar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
2.2) The defendant is running a proprietorship concern under the
name and style of M/s Lakshmi Agencies and is engaged in the business
of sale of spare parts of Forklift, servicing thereof and generators.
2.3) The defendant approached the plaintiff and requested him to
supply various spare parts of Forklift machine at his work place situated
at Dehradun Road, Makhanpur and for that purpose, issued various
Digitally signed purchased orders to the plaintiff. On the assurance of the defendant for
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.26
16:01:45 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 2 of 29
making the payment in time, the plaintiff has supplied spare parts of
Forklift machine to the defendant and various invoices have been raised
against the same. The supply of spare parts of forklift was on credit basis.
2.4) The plaintiff has been maintaining a running ledger account
of the defendant for the transactions between the parties and the
payments made by the defendant were adjusted against previous billings.
As per the ledger account maintained by the plaintiff firm, the plaintiff
has supplied spare parts of Forklift worth Rs.3,77,642.67ps to the
defendant during the period 01.10.2018 to 18.05.2019 against which the
defendant has paid only Rs.35,000/- leaving an outstanding balance of
Rs.3,42,642.67ps which the defendant has failed to pay despite repeated
requests in person and reminders through telephonic conversation. The
plaintiff has claimed an interest at the rate of 15% per annum which as
per calculation from 19.05.2019 till 18.02.2022 @ 15% per annum comes
out to be Rs.1,41,340.10ps.
2.5) It has been further averred by the plaintiff that the defendant
has been deliberately avoiding his liability and the non-payment of
outstanding/due amount thereby compelling the plaintiff to issue a legal
notice dated 02.08.2019, calling upon the defendant to pay the
outstanding amount with interest @ 15% per annum, however, the
defendant has neither responded to nor complied with the same despite
due service.
2.6) The plaintiff has claimed cause of action on various dates
including the date on which the purchase orders were placed upon the
plaintiff, the goods were supplied to the defendant and when supply of
goods were completed by the plaintiff on 18.05.2019, on the date of
MUKESH Digitally
by MUKESH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA
Date: 2025.07.26
CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 3 of 29
GUPTA 16:01:52 +0530
making the payment by the defendant, on the date of issuance of legal
demand notice dated 02.08.2019 and has claimed that the same is
continuing and subsisting.
2.7) Hence, the present suit for recovery of Rs.4,83,982.77ps
alongwith interest and costs.
(C) CASE OF THE DEFENDANT:-
3. On receipt of summons for settlement of issues, the defendant
contested the suit by filing a detailed Written Statement thereby taking
various preliminary objections viz. the suit filed by the plaintiff being
without any cause of action, the plaintiff has not approached the court
with clean hands and based his claim on forged and fabricated bills.
3.1) The defendant has averred that the claim of plaintiff is false as
the bills have not been supported by any e-way bills and only one
transaction of Rs. 35,000/- has taken place between the parties which has
been duly paid by the defendant and as such all the bills produced by the
plaintiff are fabricated. The defendant has further averred that the present
suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has failed to submit the certificate
of 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
3.2) It has further been averred that the defendant used to run a
proprietorship concern under the name and style of M/s Lakshmi
Agencies at Dehradun Road, Makhanpur, Bhagwanpur, Roorkee,
Uttarkhand-247667 and in the month of September, 2018, one of the
salesmen of M/s SRC Enterprises came to the defendant’s shop and
described about their product and offered to sell the same to the
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
KUMAR
MUKESH
KUMAR
GUPTA
defendant who has agreed to the same. Accordingly, plaintiff has sold
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
16:02:00
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 4 of 29
products worth only Rs.35,000/- to the defendant who has also paid the
entire amount, though, it was later found that the goods were defective
and of sub-standard quality due to which he did not get good reviews
from customers and thereafter, the defendant stopped dealings with the
plaintiff.
3.3) On merits, all the allegations made in the plaint have been
denied as incorrect. The defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit
with exemplary costs.
4. Plaintiff did not prefer the replication to the Written Statement
filed by the defendant.
(D) CRYSTALISING THE DISPUTE :-
5. On pleadings of the parties, documents relied upon and after
hearing both the parties, the following issues were being framed for
adjudication:
ISSUES:
(1) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any
cause of action ? OPD(2) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintain-
able as the same is allegedly based on false and
fabricated documents ? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of
Rs.4,83,982.77ps, as claimed in the suit ? OPP
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest
Digitally signed on such amount, if so, at what rate and for what
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date: period? OPP
GUPTA 2025.07.26
16:02:11 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 5 of 29
(5) Relief.
(F) EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF.
6. Plaintiff, in support of his case, got examined himself as PW1 and
has reiterated the contents of the plaint on oath in its affidavit Ex.PW1/A.
He got exhibited the following documents:-
1. Statement of Account Ex.PW1/1
2. Original Invoices raised by the plaintiff Ex.PW1/2 (colly)
(16 in number)
3. Copy of Legal Notice dated 02.08.2019 Ex.PW1/3 (colly)
alongwith proof of service.
(Containing 5 pages)
4. Certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Ex.PW1/4
Act, 1872.
7. Witness has further deposed that he has supplied spare parts of
Forklift machine amounting to Rs.3,77,642.67ps against which the
defendant has paid Rs.35,000/- only leaving an outstanding balance of
Rs.3,42,642.67ps which the defendant is liable to pay alongwith interest
@ 15% per annum till the final payment. The witness has deposed that
the defendant is also liable to pay the pre-suit interest with effect from
19.05.2019 till the date of filing of the suit. He has finally deposed that
his suit is correct and the same be decreed as prayed for.
8. The witness was subjected to a detailed cross-examination by Ld.
Digitally signed
Counsel for defendant who has tried to puncture his testimony on the
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
2025.07.26
GUPTA 16:02:19
+0530CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 6 of 29
aspect of his competence to depose before the court on behalf of plaintiff,
the discrepancies in the ledger account, supply of goods covered by the
invoices, filing of bills/invoices/e-way bills/GR and statement of account
relied upon by the plaintiff and other corollary aspects. The witness has
admitted that the defendant has issued various purchase orders to the
plaintiff but he has not placed any such document on record. He has
denied the suggestion that defendant has never issued any purchase order
and that is why he has not filed the same on record. He has further
deposed that there are no signature of the defendant on the documents
Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/2(colly). He has further deposed that he has
prepared the aforesaid document Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/2(colly) in his
office’s computer system and denied the suggestion that he never raised
the aforesaid invoices to the defendant or that the documents Ex.PW1/1
to Ex.PW1/2 (colly) are false and fabricated. He has further deposed that
the articles, as shown in the page No.1 and 2 on invoices
Ex.PW1/2(colly) were sent through a paper challan and subsequently, the
aforesaid invoices were prepared by him admitting that he did not file the
said paper challan or copy of the said paper challan in the court and all
the articles supplied to the defendant were sent through paper challans.
He has further denied the suggestion that the defendant has purchased
some of the articles from his employee who had gone to the place of the
defendant to promote sale and supply of his articles and after purchasing
the some articles, the defendant paid the consideration thereof amounting
to Rs.35,000/- through RTGS in the presence of his employee and
besides the aforesaid transactions, no transaction ever took place between
the parties. He has further deposed that as a part of business, he also used
Digitally signed
KUMAR GUPTA CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022
MUKESH by Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 7 of 29
MUKESHKUMAR Date:
2025.07.26
GUPTA 16:02:27
+0530
to send the goods purchased by the different buyers through transport and
by hand. He has further deposed that he has not filed any document of
transport regarding the supply of the alleged goods to the defendant,
voluntarily adding that the defendant has visited his shop personally to
purchase the goods. For legal notice, the witness has admitted that he has
not filed the tracking report of the speed post receipt or the courier
receipt of sending the Ex.PW1/3, voluntarily adding it might have been
received by the defendant. He has denied the suggestion that he has filed
the present suit as the articles purchased by the defendant from his
employee were of poor quality and the defendant asked him for the
returned of the said articles and the refund of his amount and therefore,
with the intention to evade the aforesaid payment of Rs.35,000/- by the
defendant he has filed the present false and frivolous suit against the
defendant. He has further denied the suggestion that there is no liability
of the defendant against him or that the present suit is intended to evade
payment of Rs.35,000/- to the defendant.
9. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff and the evidence of
the plaintiff was closed on 27.01.2025.
(G) DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE :-
10. Though, the defendant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence
before the Court and was even subjected to part cross examination by Ld.
Counsel for plaintiff. However, later on, the defendant decided not to
lead evidence and even withdrawn his affidavit of evidence vide
Digitally signed statement of Ld. Counsel on 17.04.2025 and as such no evidence on
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
2025.07.26
GUPTA 16:03:26
+0530 CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 8 of 29
behalf of defendant has come on record.
(H) ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED:-
ARGUMENTS OF PLAINTIFF.
11. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff Shri Vivek Kumar has vehemently
argued that the plaintiff has proved its case in all aspects. It has been
argued that during the period 01.10.2018 to 18.05.2019, the defendant
made several purchases of goods from the plaintiff for which invoices
were generated as per the instructions of defendant who used to make
part payments against these invoices and that the parties have been
maintaining running ledger accounts of each other in their respective
books of accounts. It has further been argued that there was regular
business between the parties during the aforesaid period and the
defendant’s plea of only one transaction of Rs.35,000/- is false. During
the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the first time has argued before
the court that he even has brought consignment from China for supply to
be made to defendant. It has been sought to be argued that the last
payments of Rs.15,000/- was made by the defendant on 01.05.2019
which clearly shows that there is a continuous business relation between
the parties and as per ledger account Ex.PW1/1, an outstanding liability
of Rs.3,42,642.67ps as on 18.05.2019 is there for which the plaintiff has
even issued a legal notice dated 02.08.2019 to the defendant.
12. On the aspect of delivery of goods, Ld. Counsel has relied upon
Section 33 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930, vehemently arguing that theDigitally
paper challans in printed form were given to the defendant when the
signed bygoods were supplied to the plaintiff. He has also been argued that the
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.26
16:03:41
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 9 of 29
non-appearance of the defendant in the evidence itself shows that the
defendant was scared of being exposed and therefore his Written
Statement and defences should also be struck off from the record.
While relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in Trustline
Securities Ltd. Vs. Skylark Express (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. 2019(257) DLJ
604, Ld. Counsel has argued that if invoices and statement of account are
proved by the plaintiff, it is the defendant who needs to file the counter
Statement of Account to prove that invoices filed by the plaintiff were
forged and fabricated.
13. On the point of limitation, it has been argued that the last payment
made by the defendant through NEFT on 01.05.2019 and if the last
payment is taken to be the bank transfer made by the defendant on
24.03.2022 then also the suit is well within the period of limitation after
considering the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court on Covid-19 in SMWP
© No. 3/2020 In re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2022) 3
Supreme Court cases 117 and ARB.P 427/2024 G4s Secure Solutions
(India) Pvt Ltd V Matrix Cellular (International) Services Ltd which
has extended the limitation. At last, it has been argued that the suit of
the plaintiff has been proved and the same be decreed with costs and
interest.
ARGUMENTS OF DEFENDANT:
14. Ld. Counsel for the defendant Shri Adnan Ahmad on the other hand
has vehemently argued that the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to beMUKESH by
Digitally signed
MUKESH
dismissed as there is nothing on record to show that purchase orders were
KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.26
16:03:51 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 10 of 29
made by the defendant or goods were supplied by the plaintiff or that the
plaintiff has procured any goods from China.
15. On the aspect of entitlement, Ld. Counsel has reiterated that the
case of the plaintiff is based on 16 invoices Ex.PW1/2 (colly) and his self
created Statement of Account Ex.PW1/1, however, the plaintiff has failed
to place on record any purchase order or acknowledgement of delivery of
goods on behalf of the defendant to support these invoices. Ld. Counsel
has further argued that the plaintiff has failed to produce any document
to show that the goods have ever been supplied to the defendant. It has
been further argued that the plaintiff himself during his cross-
examination has admitted that he has prepared the invoices Ex.PW1/2
(colly) subsequent to the supply of the goods through the paper challan
and therefore, these and even the Statement of Account Ex.PW1/1 are
open to any fabrication as being never acknowledged by the defendant.
Ld. Counsel has further argued that the plaintiff as PW1 do not remember
when the Evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A has been prepared and
therefore, the preparation and execution thereof is doubtful and cannot be
read in evidence. He has further argued that the factum of receiving of
the goods at the shop of the plaintiff and the place of the defendant has
not been mentioned in the plaint and the plaintiff has been wavering in
its stand in the evidence which is not maintainable in the eyes of law. He
has further argued that the legal notice has not been issued as per the law
and the same is doubtful. On the point of interest, he has vehemently
argued that interest claimed never agreed to between the parties. He has
Digitally signed
by MUKESH
vehemently argued that the present suit is liable to be dismissed with
MUKESH KUMAR
GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.26
16:03:59
+0530 CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 11 of 29
exemplary costs.
(I) ANALYSIS & DETERMINATION: –
16. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsels for the
parties, perused the entire record and have given a thoughtful
consideration to the same. My issue-wise determination is as under:-
ISSUES No.1 : “Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action ? OPD”
17. The onus to prove this issue was held upon the defendant, who has
taken a preliminary objection in the Written Statement that the present
suit is without any cause of action. Though, the defendant has failed to
specify the reasons for absence of cause of action yet, if the Written
Statement is carefully perused, it appears that the defendant has simply
denied the existence of cause of action by taking the plea that the dates
and reasons for supply of spare parts of forklifts shown by the plaintiff
are false and imaginary. The defendant has also taken the plea that the
plaintiff has placed false bills and these bills have been categorically
denied by the defendant. Further, the defendant has claimed to have
admitted only one transaction of Rs. 35,000/- between the parties which
has been fully paid by the defendant and also admitted by the plaintiff in
its own Statement of Account, therefore, the bills filed by the plaintiff are
claimed to be fabricated. The defendant has further submitted that
products supplied were defective and not as per the market standard and
thereafter, the defendant has stopped dealings with the plaintiff.
18. Pertinent to mention here that the defendant has failed to lead any
Digitally signed
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 16:04:08 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022
2025.07.26
Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 12 of 29
clear or specific evidence on this issue and has simply denied existence
of cause of action for filing the instant suit. In legal terms, a cause of
action can be described as:.
“The cause of action means a bundle of material facts
which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to
get relief in the suit. [2024] 5 S.C.R. 404: 2024 INSC 333
Arcadia Shipping Ltd. V. Tata Steel Limited and
Others.”
19. The court will have to examine whether these bundle of facts are
non-existent in the light of the contentions raised in the plaint. It may be
seen that the plaintiff has duly placed on record 16 invoices Ex.PW1/2
(colly) for claiming supply of materials alongwith its Statement of
Account Ex. PW1/1 showing an outstanding balance of Rs.
3,42,642.67ps. towards the defendant. These invoices placed on record
by the plaintiff mentions the name of defendant and details of material to
show that the materials have been sold to the defendant, though the
defendant has maintained a stand that the invoices filed by the plaintiff
are forged and fabricated. The evidentiary value of the above mentioned
documents shall necessarily be examined by the court in subsequent issue
regarding entitlement of plaintiff but for the purpose of this issue, it
cannot be said that cause of action to maintain a suit is absent on account
of non-filing of e-way bills, improper certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 or the claim is entirely vague to non-suit the plaintiff.
20. Adverting to the plea regarding non-filing of e-way bills, self
serving ledger account and sub-standard goods being supplied by the
Digitally signed
plaintiff to the defendant, it may be seen that the same in itself would not
by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.26
16:04:15
+0530 CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 13 of 29
show the absence of cause of action more so when the defendant has
failed to lead any specific evidence or bring on record any
communication to the plaintiff or any complaint / representation to any
authority in writing. Clearly, there is admission of relationship of seller
and buyer and occurrence of commercial transactions between the
parties. Further, a legal notice Ex.PW1/3 has been sent by the plaintiff to
the defendant demanding the suit amount. All these aspects at least show
clear existence of a cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendant.
21. Thus, when taken on the yardstick of preponderance of
probability, the defendant has utterly failed to prove this issue by way of
any clear or cogent evidence while the plaintiff has been able to show
otherwise. This issue is, accordingly, decided against the defendant and
in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUES NO. 2 & 3.
“(2) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as the same is
allegedly based on false and fabricated documents ? OPD(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
Rs.4,83,982/77ps-against the defendant?OPP
22. The onus of proving issue No.2 is on the defendant while that of
issue no. 3 is on the plaintiff. These issues are taken together as they are
not only pivotal of the entire lis but are also inextricably interconnected
and the evidence led is also common. They are related to entitlement of
the plaintiff on one hand and the defence of the defendant on the other
Digitally signed and the result of one will automatically affect the outcome of the other.
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
2025.07.26
GUPTA 16:04:23
CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 14 of 29
+0530
23. While Issue No.2 has arisen on the basis of preliminary objection
in the written statement claiming the suit of the plaintiff being not
maintainable as it is based on false and fabricated documents. On the
other hand, the claim of the plaintiff is based on supply of goods to the
defendant against 16 invoices Ex.PW1/2 (colly) for the period
01.10.2018 to 25.04.2019 which has remained unpaid. The plaintiff has
also filed Statement of Account Ex.PW1/1 showing a sum of
Rs.3,42,642.67ps as account balance which the defendant has allegedly
failed to pay despite serving legal notice dated 02.08.2019 Ex.PW1/3.
24. Now both these claims are to be simultaneously analysed in the
light of oral & documentary evidence of parties. Section 34 of Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 provides that entries made in books of account
including those maintained in electronic form are relevant when they are
maintained in the ordinary course of its business, but such statement shall
not alone be sufficient to charge any person with liability. In simple
words, these Statement of Accounts so maintained are admissible subject
to the condition that they are required to be corroborated by the plaintiff
by way of other corroborating evidence for the purpose of fastening any
liability on the defendant. Reliance placed on (2000) 1 SCC 434
Ishwar Dass Jain (Dead) through LR’s Vs. Sohan Lal (Dead) by
LR’s. The plaintiff has tried to corroborate the ledger account Ex.PW1/1
with the 16 Invoices Ex.PW1/2(colly) and his testimony as PW1.
Digitally
25. The statement of account Ex.PW1/1, maintained by the plaintiff in
signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
16:04:30
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 15 of 29
the ordinary course of its business, shows an outstanding balance of
Rs.3,77,642/- as on 18.05.2019 towards the defendant. However, the
defendant has made payment of Rs.35,000/- in two tranches of
Rs.20,000/- on 07.03.2019 and of Rs.15,000/- on 01.05.2019 leaving an
outstanding balance of Rs.3,42,642/-. This statement of account
Ex.PW1/1 has been accompanied by a certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, Ex.PW1/4, signed by the the plaintiff. Though, the
defendant has taken a stand that the statement of account is self serving
and never acknowledged by it and nothing is outstanding as there is only
one transaction of Rs.35,000/- which was duly paid by the defendant
leaving no further liability, however, no cogent evidence has been
brought on record by the defendant to prove the same. It is a settled
preposition of law that in case one party raises his statement of account,
which the other party intends to dispute, the dispute must be clear and
categoric to the extent that a counter statement of account is required to
be filed by the party objecting. Admittedly, the same has not been done
in the instant case despite the defendant taking such a stand even in its
Written Statement. Though, PW1 in his cross-examination has admitted
that the plaintiff has prepared Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2 (colly) in his
office computer subsequent to the supply of goods but the defendant has
failed to produce any statement of account maintained by him for the
transaction taking place between the parties. Reliance placed on
Trustline Securities Ltd. Vs. Skylark Express (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd.
(supra). Thus, in absence of any cogent evidence, mere admission of a
suggestion during cross-examination is not sufficient to prove that the
MUKESH by
Digitally signed
MUKESH
KUMAR GUPTA
aforesaid invoices Ex.PW1/2 (colly) are per se forged and fabricated.
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.26
16:04:51 +0530CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 16 of 29
26. Ld. Counsel for defendant, during the course of the arguments, has
also disputed the genuineness of the Certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 and stated that the same has not been as per the
Commercial Court Act, 2015. However, the defendant has failed to lead
any evidence to show how the certificate is not genuine. The arguments
is unsustainable in law as the said certificate is, although, not as per the
required format yet the contents it carries are sufficient to prove the
electronic evidence produced by the plaintiff. Mere non-mentioning of
certain particulars does not make the such certificate invalid which it is a
mere irregularity which does not make it inadmissible or takes away the
merits of case.
27. Further as per statute, the defendant was specifically required to
deny the plea of the plaintiff rather than resorting to an evasive denial on
the point of substance. Order VIII Rule 4 and 5 of CPC specifically
provides for the same. Pertinently, Order VIII Rule 4 CPC is worth
reproducing herein:
Evasive Denial: Where a defendant denies an allegation
of fact in the plaint, he must not do so evasively, but
answer the point of substance. Thus, if it is alleged that he
received a certain sum of money, it shall not be sufficient
to deny that he received that particular amount but he must
deny that he received that sum or any part thereof, or else
set out how much he received. And if an allegation is
made with diverse circumstances it shall not be sufficient
to deny it alongwith those circumstances.
(emphasis supplied).
Digitally
signed by
28. Pertinent to mention here that in order to prove the issue No.2, the
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.26
16:05:13
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 17 of 29
defendant has failed to lead any oral or cogent evidence. Moreover, the
defendant has failed to bring anything on record to show that the invoices
and statement of account are forged and fabricated. Though, the
defendant has tried to prove this issue in the cross-examination of the
plaintiff but he has not been successfully proved this issue. Accordingly,
the defendant has failed to prove this issue by discharging the onus upon
him.
29. Adverting to the entitlement of the plaintiff to the suit amount, the
plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs.4,83,982.77ps including a pre-suit
interest of Rs.1,41,342.10ps on the basis of Statement of Account
Ex.PW1/1 and 16 invoices Ex.PW1/2 (colly). However, before deciding
the entitlement of the aforesaid amount, it would be pertinent to take up
the issue of limitation which is a legal issue which the court is required to
determine for the purpose of deciding entitlement of the plaintiff to the
relief claimed. As per Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, any suit,
application or appeal has to be filed within the period of limitation as
prescribed under the schedule annexed to the Limitation Act and subject
to provisions contained in Section 4 to 24. This has to be done
irrespective of the fact whether limitation has been set up as a defence or
not. It is a settled proposition of law that law of limitation is a law of
repose, peace and justice which bars the remedy after the lapse of
particular period by a public policy and expediency. Reliance is placed
on AIR 1991 Kerala 83 Craft Centre V. Koncherry Coir Factories. It
may be seen that the plaintiff has claimed an extension of limitation on
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
the basis of last payment of Rs.15,000/- which according to Ex.PW1/1
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
16:05:21 CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 18 of 29
+0530
has been made on 01.05.2019 by the defendant to the plaintiff through
NEFT. If the said date is considered for reckoning the limitation, by
applying the section 19 of Limitation Act, 1963, the present suit ought to
have been filed on or before 30.04.2022. Hence, the present suit having
been filed on 24.03.2022 (e-mode) is well within the period of limitation.
30. Adverting to the plea of the plaintiff to strike out the pleading of
the defendant, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that non-leading
of evidence by the defendant leads to struck off of his defence.
31. This plea of the plaintiff is not tenable in law as the defendant is
well within his right to examine or not to examine himself as a witness
while leading his evidence and merely non-examination of defendant
does not ipso facto result into striking off his Written Statement or
defence raised from the record. In any case, the plaintiff has to stand on
his leg to prove his entitlement to the claim. Reliance placed on Harish
Mansukhani Vs. Ashok Jain MANU/DE/1742/2008.
32. Imperatively the plaintiff for proving its claim to the outstanding
amount against delivery of goods to the defendant is required to clearly
prove the actual delivery thereof when the same is highly disputed by the
defendant. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has relied upon Section 33 of
Sale of Goods Act, 1930, and submits that the paper challans in printed
form have been given to the defendant when the goods were supplied to
the plaintiff, however, these paper challans claiming delivery of the
Digitally signed
by MUKESH
goods to the defendant has admittedly not seen the face of the judicial
MUKESH KUMAR
GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.26
16:05:27
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 19 of 29
record.
33. For proving the sale and delivery of goods, the law is governed by
Sale of Goods Act, 1930, Carriage by Road Act, 2007 and Carriage by
Road Rules, 2011. The relevant statutory provisions governing the sale of
movable goods are Section 23 (2), Section 31, Section 33 and Section 39
of Sale of Goods Act,1930 (hereinafter referred to as SoGA). As far as
duty of the seller is concerned, under SoGA, Section 31 of the Act places
entire duty on the seller to ensure that the goods sold are delivered to the
buyer. For ready reference the same is reproduced hereunder:
Section 31: Duties of Seller and Buyer
“It is the duty of the seller to deliver the goods and of the buyer to accept
and pay for them, in accordance with the terms of the contract of sale.
The term delivery is defined under Section 33 of SoGA as hereunder:
Section 33: Delivery
“Delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the
parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of
putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person
authorised to hold them on his behalf.”
34. Likewise, standalone invoices do not prove delivery of
the goods in terms of Section 31, 33 and 39 of SoGA unless there
is a physical endorsement of delivery thereon or there is a sepa-
rate document to show that the goods have been actually deliv-
ered to defendant or at least delivered to a carrier of goods, as
provided under Section 23 (2) and Section 39 of SoGA. For ready
Digitally
signed by
reference the same reproduced hereunder:
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.26
16:05:35
+0530 CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 20 of 29
Section 23 (2) :Delivery to carrier.--
“(2) Where, in pursuance of the contract, the seller delivers the goods to
the buyer or to a carrier or other bailee (whether named by the buyer or
not) for the purpose of transmission to the buyer, and does not reserve the
right of disposal, he is deemed to have unconditionally appropriated the
goods to the contract.”
Section 39: Delivery to carrier of wharfinger:
“(1) Where, in pursuance of a contract of sale, the seller is authorised or
required to send the goods to the buyer, delivery of the goods to a carrier,
whether named by the buyer or not, for the purpose of transmission to the
buyer, or delivery of the goods to a wharfinger for safe custody, is prima
facie, deemed to be a delivery of the goods to the buyer.
(2) Unless otherwise authorised by the buyer, the seller shall make such
contract with the carrier or wharfinger on behalf of the buyer as may be
reasonable having regard to the nature of the goods and the other
circumstances of the case. If the seller omits so to do, and the goods are
lost or damaged in course of transit or whilst in the custody of the
wharfinger, the buyer may decline to treat the delivery to the carrier or
wharfinger, as a delivery to himself, or may hold the seller responsible in
damages.
(3) Unless otherwise agreed, where goods are sent by the seller to the
buyer by a route involving sea transit, in circumstances in which it is usual
to insure, the seller shall give such notice to the buyer as may enable him
to insure them during their sea transit and if the seller fails so to do, the
goods shall be deemed to be at his risk during such sea transit.”
35. To prove delivery by a carrier, copies of Rule 7 and 8 of
Carriage by Road Rules should have been placed on record which is
popularly known as ‘Bilty’ whereunder the carrier issues a receipt
in favour of the seller thereby acknowledging the receipt of goods.
36. Every transport company or a carrier of goods carries out
business under Carriage by Road Act, 2007 whereunder every mov-
able article as and when booked for transportation shall be done as
per documentation provided under the statute. The term common
carrier is defined in Section 2 (a) of this Act.
Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date: 2025.07.26 GUPTA 16:05:52 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 21 of 29 Section 2 of Carriage by Road Act. 2007: Definitions.-
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,–
i. “common carrier” means a person engaged in the business of collecting,
storing, forwarding or distributing goods to be carried by goods carriages
under a goods receipt or transporting for hire of goods from place to place
by motorised transport on road, for all persons undiscriminatingly and
includes a goods booking company, contractor, agent, broker and courier
agency engaged in the doorto-door transportation of documents, goods or
articles utilising the services of a person, either directly or indirectly, to
carry or accompany such documents, goods or articles, but does not
include the Government;
ii. “consignee” means the person named as consignee in the goods
forwarding note;
iii. “consignment” means documents, goods or articles entrusted by the
consignor to the common carrier for carriage, the description or details of
which are given in the goods forwarding note;
iv. “consignor” means a person, named as consignor in the goods forwarding
note, by whom or on whose behalf the documents, goods or articles
covered by such forwarding note are entrusted to the common carrier for
carriage thereof;
v. “goods” includes–
i. Containers, pallets or similar articles of transport used to consolidate
goods; and
ii. animals or livestock;
iii. “goods forwarding note” means the document executed under section
8;
iv. “goods receipt” means the receipt issued under section 9;
v. “person” includes any association or body of persons, whether
incorporated or not, a road transport booking company, contractor and
an agent or a broker carrying on the business of a common carrier;
vi. “prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act;
vii. “registering authority” means a State Transport Authority or a
Regional Transport Authority constituted under section 68 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988);
viii. “registration” means the registration granted or renewed under sub-
section (5) of section
37. Section 2 of this Act also defines the specific terms like Consignee in
Section 2(b), Consignment in Section 2 (c) and Consignor in Section 2 (d).
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
Even the term “Goods Receipt” issued under Section 9 of this Act has also
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.26 CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 22 of 29
16:05:58
+0530
been defined under Section 2 (g).
Section 9 of Carriage by Road Act, 2007 :
Goods Receipt
1. A Common Carrier shall,-
i. in case where the goods are to be loaded by the consignor, on the
completion of such loading; or
ii. in any other case, on the acceptance of the goods by him, issue a goods
receipts in such form and manner as may be prescribed.
2. The goods receipt shall be issued in triplicate and the original shall be
given to the consignor.
3. The goods receipt shall be prime facie evidence of the weight or measure and
other particulars of the goods and the number of packages stated therein.
4. The goods receipt shall include an undertaking by the common carrier about the
liability under Section 10 or Section 11.
38. For ready reference Rule 10 of Carriage by Road Rules, 2011 is
reproduced hereunder:
Rule 10 : Goods forwarding note and goods receipt
i. “Every consignor while booking his goods shall execute a goods
forwarding note as specified under sub-section (1) of section 8,
containing details of the goods in Form 7 and submit it to the
common carrier in duplicate.
ii. For the goods of dangerous or hazardous nature, the goods forwarding
note shall be issued on a paper with upper left hand corners printed in
red as “expand goods.”
iii. An acknowledged copy of the good forwarding note shall be returned by
the common carrier to the consignor.
iv. Every common carrier on receipt of the goods forwarding note from the
consignor for booking of goods to be transported, shall issue a goods
receipt in Form 8.
v. For the goods of dangerous or hazardous nature, the goods receipt
shall be issued on a paper with upper left hand corners printed in red as
“Dangerous and Hazardous goods.”
Digitally signed
by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.26
16:06:06
+0530CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 23 of 29
Form 7 and 8 of Rules, 2011 are pictorially represented as under:
Digitally signed
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.26
16:06:15 +0530CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 24 of 29
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
16:06:23
+0530CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 25 of 29
39. In the backdrop of aforesaid statutory discussion, the sole onus of
proving the delivery of the goods worth Rs. Rs.3,42,642/- is on the
plaintiff and under the law plaintiff has to prove delivery by any of the
following methods:-
i. admission by defendant/defendant acknowledges the
delivery, orii. endorsement of receipt by the defendant or his authorised
representative on the 16 invoices Ex.PW1/2 (colly), oriii. filing and proving Form 7 or Form 8 (Bilty) under
Carriage by Road Rules, 2011 to show that plaintiff
delivered the goods to the carrier and is entitled to benefit
under Section 39 of SoGA, oriv. by proving on record that the GST claimed to have been
deposited by the plaintiff qua these 16 invoices, i.e.
defendant took input tax credit under Section 2 (63) of
CGST Act, 2017 and plaintiff is entitled to presumption
under Section 16 (2) of CGST Act, 2017.
40. Applying the aforesaid legal principle in the facts of present
case, the plaintiff has failed to produce any purchase order showing
the demand of goods by the defendant. Even if the best case of the
plaintiff is considered that the orders were oral/telephonic, proof of
supply of goods to the defendant was must, more so when the same is
highly disputed by the defendant. The plaintiff has, however utterly
failed to prove the delivery of alleged goods to the defendant by any
of the above accepted legal modes. During the cross-examination, the
defendant has for the first time, brought the fact that the defendant
Digitally
signed by
used to visit the plaintiff’s shop to purchase the goods. He has also
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26 CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 26 of 29
16:06:46
+0530
deposed that he himself used to go the different cities to promote his
business and also for the sale as well as supply of the alleged goods to
the defendant. However, a bare perusal of 16 invoices
Ex.PW1/2(colly) shows that there is neither any endorsement of
receipt nor any acknowledgment qua delivery of the alleged goods to
the defendant. Further PW1 has also admitted that he used to send the
goods purchased by different buyers through transport as well as by
hand. However, he has not filed any document of transport regarding
the supply of the alleged goods to the defendant. Consequently, the
defendant has failed to produce on record or to prove any receipt/bilty
in terms of Form 7 and Form 8 of Carriage by Road Rules, 2011
promulgated under Carriage by Road Act, 2007 have been filed or
proved on record. Further PW1 in his cross-examination, has stated
that the articles were sent through a paper challan, however, he has
failed to place on record the said challan or any copy thereof. The
plaintiff has also failed to prove on record that the GST claimed to
have been deposited by the plaintiff qua this 16 invoices, defendant
took input tax credit under section 2 (63) of the CGST Act, 2017 and
he is entitled to presumption under Section 16(2) of the said Act.
Hence, the plaintiff has utterly failed to satisfy the aforesaid four
yardstick of a valid delivery of the goods to the defendant. In these
circumstances, mere reliance on the ledger account is not sufficient to
prove the actual delivery of material upon the defendants. Reliance
placed on Chandradhar Goswami and Ors. Vs. The Gauhati
Bank Ltd: MANU/SC/0031/1966: AIR 1967 SC 1058; Harish
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
KUMAR
MUKESH
KUMAR
GUPTA
Mansukhani Vs. Ashok Jain (supra) and Khemka Capital
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
16:06:59
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 27 of 29
Services (P) Ltd. and Ors. Vs. I.S. Gupta and Ors;
MANU/DE/2414/2011.
41. Considering the case law on the subject and in the absence of any
evidence, whatsoever, to show that the goods were in fact delivered by
the plaintiff to the defendants, the suit of the plaintiff cannot be decreed
merely on the basis of a ledger account Ex.PW1/1 and unacknowledged
invoices Ex.PW1/2 (colly).
42. Before parting with the issue, it would also be pertinent to point
out that even the statement of Account Ex.PW1/1 could not be correctly
corroborated with the invoices Ex.PW1/2 (colly) and shows a
discrepancies in as much as the ledger account Ex.PW1/1 shows an entry
of supply of goods on 09.02.2019 through challan no. 49 for a sum of
Rs.58,150.40ps against which no other corroborating invoice or
document has been produced on record leaving an arena of doubt
regarding its correctness being maintained in ordinary course of
plaintiff’s business.
43. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion and findings of the
court the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove its entitlement to the amount
claimed. The issues are decided accordingly.
Issue no.4: “Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any interest on such amount and for what rate and for
Digitally
signed by
what period? OPP
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR
44. The onus of proving this issue was also held upon the plaintiff.
GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.26
16:07:09
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 28 of 29
However, when the plaintiff has failed to prove his entitlement to the suit
amount as determined in issue No.3 on the yardstick of preponderance of
probabilities, the plaintiff shall not be also entitled to any interest also.
This issue is, accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of
defendant.
(J) CONCLUSION:- Issue No. 5: "Relief"
45. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings of the court on
the aforesaid issues, the court is of the considered opinion that the
plaintiff has not been able to successfully prove his entitlement to the
claim against the defendants. The suit of the plaintiff is, accordingly
dismissed.
46. In the specific facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left
to bear their own respective costs.
47. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
48. File be consigned to record room after due completion.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT . Digitally signed
th MUKESH by MUKESH
On this 26 July, 2025 KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
2025.07.26
GUPTA 16:07:18
+0530
(MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA)
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMM. COURT)-07
CENTRAL/DELHI(pk)
CS (Comm.) No. 943/2022 Sunil Rai Vs. Amrinder Singh Page no. 29 of 29