Delhi District Court
M/S Shriram Enterprises Through Its … vs M/S Rcc Eco-Rcc Infra Ventures Ltd … on 7 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER, (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY MS. RICHA SHARMA
CS NO. 920-2022
CNR No. DLWT-03-00-1593-2022
M/s SHRIRAM ENTERPRISES
Through its Partner
Sh. Sanjay Bansal
Having registered office at:
B-9, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi. ....Plaintiff
Versus
M/s RCC ECO-RCC INFRA VENTURES LTD.
Through its Director (s)
Ujjawal-GMS Road, Maharani Bagh,
Dehradun, Uttrakhand-248006.
Also at:
3,4,5,14,26 GF, Vipul Agora
M. G. Road, Gurugram,
Haryana-122002. ...Defendant
Date of institution : 07.06.2022
Date of judgment : 07.05.2025
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.2,58,682/- (RUPEES TWO LACS FIFTY
EIGHT THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY TWO ONLY) ALONG
WITH PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. The brief facts of the case are, that the plaintiff is the registered
partnership firm and duly registered with the Registrar of Firms and
Sh. Sanjay Bansal is one of the managing partner of the firm and
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
CS NO. 920/22 M/s SHRIRAM ENTERPRISES VS. M/s RCC ECO-RCC INFRA VENTURES LTD. 1 of 15
duly authorized to file, sign and conduct the entire proceeding of the
case.
2. It has been averred, that the plaintiff is an authorized distributor for
Sika India Pvt. Ltd / STP Ltd. and has been dealing in the trade of
Sika Viscocrete, Sikaplast, Sikarep Microcrte. It has been averred,
that the defendant has been purchasing the afore-said products from
time to time from 13.06.2018 to 14.06.2019 from the plaintiff and
the same had been supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant under
the various invoices and said goods of then invoices were duly
received and acknowledge by the defendant. Further, the defendant
did not raise any objections with regards to the quality, quantity and
standard of the goods.
3. It has been averred, that the plaintiff has been maintaining a running
account in the name of the defendant in its account book through the
computerized system kept in the regular course of business and as
per books of account duly maintained by the plaintiff, the defendant
is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,56,468/- after adjusting the payments
made by the defendant during the intervening period from time to
time. The last purchase was made by the defendant on 14.06.2019.
4. It has been averred, that thereafter from time to time, the plaintiff
has been making requests and demands to the defendant for
clearance of the due amount but despite assurances, the defendant
had not paid any heed to the requests of the plaintiff. As per the
terms and condition of the invoices the defendant is liable to pay
interest at the rate of 24% annum on the outstanding dues of
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
CS NO. 920/22 M/s SHRIRAM ENTERPRISES VS. M/s RCC ECO-RCC INFRA VENTURES LTD. 2 of 15
Rs.1,56,468/- from 14.06.2019 to 30.04.2022, which comes to Rs.
1,03,224/-, totalling to Rs. 2,58,682/-. Thus, the defendant is total
liable to pay amount Rs.2,58,682/- to the plaintiff.
5. It has been averred that the Plaintiff issued a Legal Demand Notice
dated 07.04.2022 to the defendant through his Advocate and sent the
same to the defendant through registered speed post. The defendant
refused to accept the said notice and same was return back to the
counsel of the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit was instituted by the
plaintiff for recovery of the amount.
6. Summons of the present suit were sent to the defendant and the
defendant was duly served at Uttarakhand address on 30.07.2022
and at Gurgaon address on 27.07.2022. Thereafter, neither the
defendant appeared nor filed any WS and accordingly vide order
dated 21.11.2022, the right defendant was proceeded exparte and
the right to file WS also stands closed.
Thereafter, on 21.12.2022, Learned Counsel for the defendant
appeared and sought time to file application for setting aside the
above exparte order. Again on 08.02.2023, Learned Counsel for the
defendant appeared and sought time to file application.
Thenceforth on 27.03.2023, defendant filed an application
under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC along with WS filed. Thereafter, the
said application was withdrawn and Learned Counsel for the
defendant sought time to file fresh application.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
CS NO. 920/22 M/s SHRIRAM ENTERPRISES VS. M/s RCC ECO-RCC INFRA VENTURES LTD. 3 of 15
On 05.07.2023, an application under Order 9 Rule 7 r/w
Section 151 CPC was filed on behalf of the defendant. Thereafter,
vide order dated 03.04.2024, the said application was allowed
subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/-. Vide the said order, it was made clear
that if the cost is not paid, the WS shall not be taken on record.
Thereafter on 30.05.2024, the defence of the defendant was
struck off due to the non-appearance as well as for non-payment of
cost.
ISSUES
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed on 30.05.2024 :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a
decree of sum of Rs. 2,58,682/- along with
pendentelite and future interest, as prayed
for ? OPP
2. Relief.
8. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for the plaintiff’s evidence.
9. During evidence, plaintiff has examined Sh. Sanjay Kumar Goel as
PW-1, who tendered in evidence his duly sworn in affidavit, which
is exhibited as Ex.PW1/1. In his testimony, following documents
were exhibited:-
1. Copy of the partnership deed marked as
“Mark-A”.
2. The Registration Certificate of the firm
_____________________________________________________________________________________________CS NO. 920/22 M/s SHRIRAM ENTERPRISES VS. M/s RCC ECO-RCC INFRA VENTURES LTD. 4 of 15
marked as “Mark-B”.
3. GST Registration Certificate of the firm is
exhibited as Ex-PW-1/3.
4. Copy of the invoices alongwith transport
receipts is exhibited as Ex-PW-1/4.
5. The statement of account of the transaction
and payments between the parties during the
course of the business is exhibited as Ex-PW-1/5.
6. The Certificate under section 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act is exhibited as Ex-PW-1/6.
7. The copy of the legal demand notice is
exhibited as Ex-PW-1/7.
8. The postal receipts is exhibited as Ex-
PW-1/7A.
9. Postal Cover of the notice return back by the
post master is exhibited as Ex-PW-1/8.
10. Despite opportunity, the defendant did not come forward to cross-
examine PW1.
11. Thereafter, the plaintiff got examined Sh. Sanjay Bansal, its partner
as PW2, who tendered in evidence his duly sworn in affidavit,
which is exhibited as Ex.PW2/A. He had brought the originals of
the documents already marked as Mark A and Mark B and the same
were again exhibited as Ex.PW2/1 (OSR) i.e. the copy of the
partnership deed and Ex.PW2/2 (OSR) i.e. registration certificate of
the firm.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
CS NO. 920/22 M/s SHRIRAM ENTERPRISES VS. M/s RCC ECO-RCC INFRA VENTURES LTD. 5 of 15
12. Thereafter, the plaintiff’s evidence was closed and the matter was
fixed for final arguments.
13. I have heard the submissions advanced by Ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff at length and have perused the record carefully.
14. Thereafter, written arguments filed on behalf of the defendant.
15. My issue-wise findings are as under :-
Issue No. 1
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of sum
of Rs. 2,58,682/- along with pendentelite and future
interest, as prayed for ? OPP
16. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
17. Before delving into the merits of the case, this Court deems it fit to
discuss in brief the law pertaining to the burden of proof as entailed
under the earlier Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the present Bhartiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023.
18. The burden of proof in civil trial is the obligation upon the plaintiff
that the plaintiff would adduce evidence that proves his claim
against the defendant and is based on preponderance of the
probabilities. Under Indian law, until and unless an exception is
created by law, the burden of proof lies on the person making any
claim or asserting any fact. A person who asserts a particular fact is
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
CS NO. 920/22 M/s SHRIRAM ENTERPRISES VS. M/s RCC ECO-RCC INFRA VENTURES LTD. 6 of 15
required to affirmatively establish it. Relevant provisions of
the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 dealing with burden of proof
are produced as under:-
Burden of proof:-
104. Whoever desires any Court to give
judgment as to any legal right or liability
dependent on the existence of facts which
he asserts, must prove that those facts
exist.
When a person is bound to prove the
existence of any fact, it is said that the
burden of proof lies on that person.
105. On whom burden of proof lies.–
The burden of proof in a suit or
proceeding lies on that person who would
fail if no evidence at all were given on
either side.
106. Burden of proof as to particular fact.-
The burden of proof as to any particular
fact lies on that person who wishes the
Court to believe in its existence, unless it
is provided by any law that the proof of
that fact shall lie on any particular person.
109. Burden of proving fact especially
within knowledge.–
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
CS NO. 920/22 M/s SHRIRAM ENTERPRISES VS. M/s RCC ECO-RCC INFRA VENTURES LTD. 7 of 15
When any fact is especially within the
knowledge of any person, the burden of
proving that fact is upon him.
19. Therefore, on the basis of the law laid down as above, court
proceeds with the appreciation of evidence as adduced in the present
suit.
20. In order to prove his case, the Partner of the plaintiff examined
himself as PW-1, who in his testimony placed on record and
exhibited the various documents.
21. Plaintiff has placed on record the copy of the partnership deed,
which was earlier marked as Mark A and after the production of
original during the evidence of PW2, the same was exhibited as
Ex.PW2/1. Perusal of the said document reveals, that it is a
partnership deed which was executed on 22.03.1995 between Sh.
Sanjay Kumar and Sh. Sanjay Kumar Goel.
Further, the plaintiff has relied upon the document i.e. Form B
/ Acknowledgment of Registrar of Firm, which was earlier marked
as Mark B and after the production of original during the evidence
of PW2, the same was exhibited as Ex.PW2/2. Perusal of the said
document reveals, that the plaintiff is a partnership firm and it was
registered under the Registrar of Firms .
22. Plaintiff has further placed on record the computerized GST
Registration certificate of the plaintiff exhibited as Ex.PW1/3.
Perusal of the said document reveals, that the trade name and the
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
CS NO. 920/22 M/s SHRIRAM ENTERPRISES VS. M/s RCC ECO-RCC INFRA VENTURES LTD. 8 of 15
legal name is mentioned as Shriram Enterprises. Thus, it is proved
that the plaintiff is a Partnership firm duly registered under the GST
and Sh. Sanjay Kumar and Sh. Sanjay Kumar Goel are its partners.
23. Further, the plaintiff has relied upon the computer generated copy of
the bank statement of the plaintiff exhibited as Ex.PW1/5 in respect
of the payments received by the plaintiff from the defendant and
copies of the invoices exhibited as Ex.PW1/4, showing the goods
and the amounts of the goods purchased by the defendant. The
statement of account reveals that an amount of Rs. 1,56,468/- was
due and outstanding against the defendant.
24. In support of the computer generated documents, plaintiff has placed
on record the certificate under section 65B is of the Indian Evidence
Act is exhibited as Ex-PW-1/6
25. The plaintiff has also sent the legal notice exhibited as Ex.PW1/7
with the postal receipts exhibited as Ex.PW1/7A and postal cover
exhibited as Ex.PW1/8, thereby demanding the outstanding amount
due against the defendant. The same was refused by the defendant,
which deemed to be a proper service. It is a settled proposition of
law that, if a party despite service of legal notices chooses not to
reply to the same, the averments of the notice stands admitted.
Furthermore, the legal notice along with postal receipts was also
sent by plaintiff to the defendant and at this stage inference can be
drawn on the basis of Section 119 of the Bhartiya Sakshar
Adhiniyam, 2023 (earlier Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act),
which states that, “the court may presume the existence of any fact
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
CS NO. 920/22 M/s SHRIRAM ENTERPRISES VS. M/s RCC ECO-RCC INFRA VENTURES LTD. 9 of 15
which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the
common course of natural events, human conduct and/a private
business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case .” The
Clause (f) appended to the section clearly states that, ” common
course of business has been followed in a particular case, implying
that where a letter or legal notice as in the present case is sent to the
defendant, it would have ordinarily been delivered in the common
course of business to the party to whom it was addressed.”
26. In this case the delivery of the legal notice also stands proved by the
postal receipts placed on record.
27. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in judgment titled as
Abdul Gaffar vs. DDA 2001 Rajdhani Law Reporter 249 that if a
legal notice is given by a party, the same is not replied and contents
not denied then, silence of the notice raises presumption against
him. Another judgment of Hon’ble High Court titled as Kalu Ram v
Sita Ram 1980 Rajdhani Law Reporter (Note) 44 is on the same
aspect.
28. At this stage, it is also pertinent to mention Section 27 of the
General Clauses Act :
“Where any Central Act or Regulation made
after the commencement of this Act authorizes
or requires any document to be served by post,
whether the expression “serve” or “given” or
“send” or any other expression is used, then,
unless a different intention appears, the service
shall be deemed to be effected by properly
addressing, pre-paying and posting by
registered post, a letter containing the
_____________________________________________________________________________________________CS NO. 920/22 M/s SHRIRAM ENTERPRISES VS. M/s RCC ECO-RCC INFRA VENTURES LTD. 10 of 15
document, and, unless the contrary is proved,
to have been effected at the time at which the
letter would be delivered in the ordinary
course of post.”
29. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.Bhaskaran vs Sankaran
Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 510 observed as under :
“The principle incorporated in Section 27 of the
General Clauses Act could profitably be
imported in a case where the sender had
dispatched the notice by post with the direct
address written on it. Then it can be deemed to
have been served on the addressee, unless he
proves that it was not really served and he was
not responsible for such non-service. These
were the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court while dealing with a case relating to
service of notice U/s 138 of NI Act. ”
30. Defendant has filed the written arguments, in which, it has been
stated that the defendant’s company engaged the plaintiff for supply
of the products i.e. Sika Viscocrete, Sikaplast, Sikarep Microcrte
required for execution work at its different project sites. The
defendant made a purchase order of the goods from the plaintiff but
the goods delivered were defective, of poor quality and sub standard
and the defendant requested the plaintiff many times to return or to
replace the defective goods, but the plaintiff avoided the calls and
escape from the situation, thereby causing gread hardship to the
defendant in completion of its site work.
31. It is pertinent to note, that the defendant’s right to defend the suit
was struck off vide order dated 30.05.2024 due to non-compliance
with the court’s order dated 03.04.2024 and failure to deposit the
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
CS NO. 920/22 M/s SHRIRAM ENTERPRISES VS. M/s RCC ECO-RCC INFRA VENTURES LTD. 11 of 15
cost imposed. Furthermore, the defendant did not contest the suit at
any stage, nor did he avail the opportunity to cross-examine the
plaintiff’s witness, thereby failing to rebut or challenge the
plaintiff’s evidence in any manner. This consistent non-participation
indicates a deliberate and willful abandonment of his right to
defend, leaving the plaintiff’s case unrebutted and uncontroverted.
Further, the written arguments have been filed by the defendant at
the much belated stage / on the day which was fixed for judgment
and the averments made in the written arguments are merely the
bald averments.
32. Further, the issues in civil cases are to be decided on the scale of
preponderance of probabilities. The doctrine of preponderance of
probabilities was discussed in the judgment titled Postgraduate
Institute of Medical Education and Research v. Jaspal Singh , (2009)
7 SCC 330 which reads as under:
“17. In Syad Akbar v. State of
Karnataka (1980) 1 SCC 30 this court
dealt with in details the distinction
between negligence in civil law and in
criminal law. It has been held that there
is marked difference as to the effect of
evidence, namely, the proof, in civil and
criminal proceedings. In civil
proceedings, a mere preponderance of
probability is sufficient, and the
defendant is not necessarily entitled to
the benefit of every reasonable doubt;
but in criminal proceedings, the
persuasion of guilt must amount to such
a moral certainty as convinces the mind
of the court, as a reasonable man,
beyond all reasonable doubt”.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
CS NO. 920/22 M/s SHRIRAM ENTERPRISES VS. M/s RCC ECO-RCC INFRA VENTURES LTD. 12 of 15
33. In Dr. N.G. Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane on 19th March, 1975 AIR
1975 SC 1534, (1975), SCC 326, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as
under:-
“24.The normal rule which governs
civil proceedings is that a fact can be
said to be established if it proved by a
preponderance of probabilities. This is
for the reason that under the Evidence
Act, Section 3, a fact is said to be
proved when the court either either
believes it to exist or considers its
existence so probably that a prudent
man ought, under the circumstances of
the particular case, to act upon the
supposition that it exists. The belief
regarding the existence of a fact may
thus be founded on a balance of
probabilities. A prudent man faced with
conflicting probabilities concerning a
fact-situation will act on the supposition
that the fact exists, if on weighing the
various probabilities he links that the
preponderance is in favour of the
existence of the particular fact. As a
prudent man, so the court applies this
test for finding whether a fact in issue
can be said to be proved. The first step
in this process is to fix the probabilities,
the second to weigh them, though the
two may often intermingle. The
impossible is weeded out at the first
stage, the improbable at the second.
Within the wide range of probabilities
the court has often a difficult choice to
make but it is this choice which
ultimately determines where the
preponderance of probabilities lies.
Important issues like those which affect
the status of parties demand a closer
_____________________________________________________________________________________________CS NO. 920/22 M/s SHRIRAM ENTERPRISES VS. M/s RCC ECO-RCC INFRA VENTURES LTD. 13 of 15
scrutiny than those like the loan on a
promissory note : “the nature and
gravity of an issue necessarily
determines the manner of attaining
reasonable satisfaction of the truth of
the issue “Per Dixon, J. In Wright v.
Wright (1948) 77 C.L.R. 191 at p. 210;
or as said by Lord Denning, “the degree
of probability depends on the subject-
matter. In proportion as the offence is
grave, so ought the proof to be clear”
Blyth v. Blyth (1966) 1 A.E.R. 534 at
536. But whether the issue is one of
cruelty or of a loan on a pronote, the
test to apply is whether on a
preponderance of probabilities the
relevant fact is proved. In civil cases
this, normally, is the standard of proof
to apply for finding whether the burden
of proof is discharged.”
34. Therefore, in view of the detailed discussions above and as a result
of the appreciation of evidence, this court is of the considered
opinion, that plaintiff is able to prove his case on the scale of
preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, the plaintiff is held
entitled to a decree of recovery of Rs. 2,58,682/-.
Furthermore, plaintiff is also awarded the interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till its realization.
35. Issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant.
Relief
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
CS NO. 920/22 M/s SHRIRAM ENTERPRISES VS. M/s RCC ECO-RCC INFRA VENTURES LTD. 14 of 15
36. As a sequel to the above observations and findings made, the suit of
the plaintiff stands decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff is held entitled to a decree of
recovery of Rs. 2,58,682/- along with the interest @ 6% per annum
from the date of the filing of the suit till its realization.
37. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
38. Decree sheet be prepared on deposition of the deficient Court fees,
if any.
39. File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed
by RICHA
SHARMA
RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.07
Announced in the open Court 15:56:42
+0530
on 07.05.2025. RICHA SHARMA
SCJ-cum-RC (West)
THC / Delhi / 07.05.2025
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
CS NO. 920/22 M/s SHRIRAM ENTERPRISES VS. M/s RCC ECO-RCC INFRA VENTURES LTD. 15 of 15
CS SCJ 920/22
M/S SHRIRAM ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PARTNER SH.
SANJAY BANSAL Vs. M/S RCC ECO-RCC INFRA VENTURES LTD
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR(S)
07.05.2025
Present : None for the plaintiff.
Ms. Purnima Jain, Learned Counsel for the defendant through
VC.
Proxy counsel for the defendant.
Written arguments filed on behalf of the defendant. Taken on
record.
List for judgment at 4:00 PM today.
(Richa Sharma)
Sr. Civil Judge - Cum - RC
THC / Delhi / 07.05.2025
Present : None.
Vide separate detailed judgment of the even date announced in
the open Court today, the plaintiff is held entitled to a decree of recovery of
Rs.2,58,682/- along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the
filing of the suit till its realization.
Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
Decree sheet be prepared on deposition of the deficient Court
fees, if any. Digitally
signed by
RICHA
RICHA
File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
SHARMA
SHARMA
Date:
2025.05.07
(Richa Sharma)
15:56:36
+0530Sr. Civil Judge – Cum – RC
THC / Delhi / 07.05.2025_____________________________________________________________________________________________
CS NO. 920/22 M/s SHRIRAM ENTERPRISES VS. M/s RCC ECO-RCC INFRA VENTURES LTD. 16 of 15
[ad_1]
Source link