Delhi District Court
Meenu Jain vs Sachin Kumar on 2 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-07,
CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM.) NO. 212-2024
CNR NO. DLCT 010017072024
DLCT010017072024
Meenu Jain,
Proprietor of M/s Rishabh Textile,
Through SPA Mr. Nikunj Jain,
Having its registered office at:-
989/1, Ground Floor, Kucha Natwa,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006.
Mob. 8860390887 .....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Sachin Kumar,
(Proprietor of M/s Kashyap Textiles)
2. Ms. Manju
W/o Mr. Sachin Kumar
Both at : A-538, Amar Colony,
Gokulpuri, Delhi-110094.
Mobile No.08802112254, 073003631356.
..Defendants.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.5,39,813/-
Date of Institution of the suit :06.02.2024
First date before this court :28.03.2024
Date on which Judgment reserved :30.07.2025
Date of Decision :02.08.2025
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
Appearance(s) : Mr. Hardik Agarwal, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
MUKESH
KUMAR
KUMAR
GUPTA : Mr. S.K. Singh and Shri Ankush, Advs, Ld. Counsel for the
Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.02
16:10:26
defendants.
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 1/32
JUDGMENT
(A) PRELUDE:-
1. By way of present judgment, I shall conscientiously adjudicate
upon the suit of Plaintiff for recovery of Rs.5,39,813/- (including pre-
suit interest amount of Rs.1,66,155/- and charges for dishonoured
cheque Rs.4,425/-) alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @18% per
annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
(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) Plaintiff is the sole proprietor of a proprietorship firm M/s
Rishabh Textile having its office at 989/1, Ground Floor, Kucha Natwa,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 and is running trading business of
Sarees, suits, lehangas and clothes items which is being looked after by
her husband & son. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff through her
son and Special Power of Attorney Holder, Mr. Nikunj Jain who is well
conversant with the facts and circumstances of case.
2.2) The defendant No.1 Mr. Sachin Kumar is the proprietor of
proprietorship firm M/s Kashyap textiles and is engaged in the business
of textiles having its shop at A-538, Amar Colony, Gokulpuri, Delhi-
110094 and defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1.
2.3) Defendants No.1 and 2 have approached the plaintiff and
purchased the goods from the plaintiff for the period 13.02.2019 to
21.02.2019 and the plaintiff has supplied the same on credit basis to theDigitally signed
defendants vide various invoices and duly received by the defendants to
by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMARtheir satisfaction. The plaintiff used to maintain a running account of the
GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.02
16:10:33
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 2/32
defendants. However, the defendants have failed to pay the outstanding
amounts despite repeated calls and contacts made by the plaintiff.
2.4) As per the case of the plaintiff, the defendants used to pay
the amount in piecemeal on account basis and the last purchase made by
the defendant from the plaintiff was on 21.02.2019 vide bill No. 2580
and the last payment made by the defendant was on 09.12.2021 for
Rs.1,000/-.
2.5) As per the case of the plaintiff, the defendants on various
occasions had also issued cheques to pay their debt but the same have
been dishonoured by the bank. In this regard, a complaint case under
section 138 of N.I. Act is pending in the NI court. Plaintiff has
approached the defendants several times to clear the outstanding amount
against the goods purchased but all in vain and the total outstanding
principal amount payable by the defendant after adjusting the part
payments received from the defendants is Rs.3,69,233/- and the
defendant is also claimed to be liable to pay Rs.4,425/- for the charges of
dishonoured of cheques incurred to the plaintiff besides accrued pre-suit
interest. The plaintiff has also exhausted the statutory remedy of pre-
institution mediation (PIMS) resulting into issuance of Non-Starter
Report by the concerned DLSA on 15.10.2022.
2.6) The plaintiff has claimed cause of action on supply of goods
to the defendants, on the dates when the invoices were raised by the
plaintiff firm against the goods were sold to the defendants, on the date
when the defendant made the payment of Rs.1,000/-, on the date when
defendant had issued a cheque for the amount of Rs.10,000/- which was
dishonoured and the same is continuing. Hence, the present suit with
Digitally signed
by MUKESH
interest & costs.
MUKESH KUMAR
GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.02
16:10:40
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 3/32
(C) DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE:-
3. On receipt of summons for settlement of issues, the defendant
contested the suit by filing a detailed Written Statement denying each
and every averments.
3.1) The defendants have taken various preliminary objections
viz. the suit is not maintainable being without any cause of action,
plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and suppressed
material facts, suit is barred by limitation, this court has no jurisdiction
to entertain the present suit as the defendant is residing and works for
gain and running his business within the jurisdiction of District Shahdara
and not within the jurisdiction of this court. The suit is also not
maintainable and the same is liable to be rejected on the ground of
deficiency of court fee. It has also been contended that the suit of the
plaintiff is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the ground
that the plaintiff has placed manipulated and false invoices against the
defendant and as such the defendant is not liable to pay.
3.2) On merits, all the allegations made in the plaint are denied
as incorrect. It is contended that there is no outstanding amount against
the defendant and the account which is maintained by the plaintiff
against the defendant is a part of business and not a part of liability
against any party or the defendant. It has further been contended that
nothing is due upon the defendants to pay to the plaintiff as no business
relation has ever existed between the parties and the invoices placed on
record, are hand written, false and fabricated. The defendants have
further denied issuance of any cheque against their debt liabilities. It
has further been contended that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain
Digitally
the present suit as the defendants is residing, working for gain and
signed by
MUKESH
running his business within the jurisdiction of Shahdra and it does not
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.02
16:10:47
+0530 CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 4/32
fall within the jurisdiction of this court. It has, also been contended that
the present suit is nothing but an attempt to pressurize the defendant and
extort money from his as nothing is due from the defendant.
Defendant has finally prayed for dismissal of suit.
4. A detailed replication to the Written Statement was also preferred
by the plaintiff reiterating the contents of the plaint and vehemently
denying the contents of the Written Statement. The plaintiff has
reiterated that the suit be decreed with interest and costs.
(D) CRYSTALLIZING THE DISPUTE:-
5. On the pleadings of the parties, documents placed on record and
after perusing the affidavit of admission & denial of the defendants, the
following issues have been framed for adjudication vide order dated
07.01.2025.
ISSUES.
(i) Whether there is no cause of action in favour
of the plaintiff and against the defendants ?
OPD
(ii) Whether the court has no territorial
jurisdiction to entertain and try the instant
suit ? OPD
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a recovery
of Rs.5,39,813/- against the defendant ? OPP.
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any
interest on such amount, if so, at what rate
and for what period?OPP.
Digitally
(v) Relief.
signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.02
16:10:54
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 5/32
(E) EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF:-
6. Plaintiff, in support of his case, got examined his Special Power
Attorney Shri Nikunj Jain as PW1 who has reiterated the contents of the
plaint on oath in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He got exhibited the following
documents:
1. The Internet Print out of GSTIN Ex.PW1/1
Registration of plaintiff.
2. Special Power of Attorney in favour of Ex.PW1/2
plaintiff.
3. Internet downloaded GST registration of Ex.PW1/3
firm of defendant No.1.
4. The Tax Invoice No.2493, 2494, 2495, Ex.PW1/4(colly)
2496, 2497, 2498, 2499, 2580. (OSR)
5. The Ledger Account of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/5
6. Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Ex.PW1/6
Act,
7. Internet downloaded copy of GSTR-1 Ex.PW1/7
8. Non Starter Report darted 15.10.2022 Ex.PW1/8
The witness has also exhibited the certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 as Ex.PW1/9. He has further deposed that the suit is
correct and the defendants are liable to pay the outstanding amount
alongwith interest.
7. The witness was subjected to a detailed cross-examination by Ld.
Counsel for defendant Sh. Satyendra Kumar Singh who has tried to
puncture the testimony of PW1 on the point of purchase of material by
the defendant, maintenance of accounting books payment to agent,
Digitally signed
by MUKESH
jurisdiction and other aspects. He has deposed that he has been handling
MUKESH KUMAR
GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.02
16:11:14
+0530
all work involved in the business i.e. marketing, selling, accounting etc.
CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 6/32
and in the market, he has visited shops of various shopkeepers to
promote his goods distributing visiting cards and requesting for
purchase thereof. He has denied the knowledge of exact date when the
defendant has approached the plaintiff to purchase the clothes. He has
further deposed that purchasers purchase their goods in cash as well as
on credit, admitting that there is no fixed terms and conditions for
payment where the goods are purchased on credit. He has voluntarily
added that there was specific credit period of 45-60 days for making
payment. He has further deposed that they sold the goods on 100%
credit basis and there is no written agreement executed between the
parties as all the transactions have been made verbally. He has further
deposed that no device is mentioned in the affidavit Ex.PW1/A to show
that all electronic records are taken from it and filed with the plaint.
Upon showing the Ex.PW1/5, the witness has replied that he has
received part payments of Rs.1,33,500/- against total sales of goods
supplied to the defendant. He has admitted that he has filed a case u/s
138 of N.I. Act, against Ms. Manju in the court of Ld. CMM, Tis Hazari
Courts and has exhibited a copy thereof as Ex.PW1/X. He has also
deposed that the transaction has taken place between the parties
through entry at page No. 25 of Mark PW1/X of his ledger account. He
has further deposed that he has not mentioned the sales entry in the
ledger account filed u/s 138/132 of N.I. Act, before the court of Ld.
CMM, THC. The witness has admitted, after seeing Mark PW1/X and
Ex.PW1/5, that page No.26 of Mark PW1/X reflects a different voucher
entries numbers as reflected in Ex.PW1/5. He has further deposed that
he does not know whether the amount mentioned in the complaint case
u/s 138 N.I. Act, is different from the amount claimed in the instant suit.
Digitally
signed by
He has further deposed that he has filed the hand written invoices
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.08.02
16:11:22 CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
+0530
Page no. 7/32
despite using the computer for preparation of Statement of Account. He
has further deposed that no receiving for delivery of the goods has been
taken on the invoices and voluntarily added that the business operates on
trust and as per convention, no such signatures is required to be taken on
the invoices. He has denied the suggestions that there has been
overwriting on the invoices and the ledger Ex.PW1/5 is forged and
fabricated. He has further deposed that the payments reflected as
received in the ledger Ex.PW1/5 were collected by his staff and
sometimes the plaintiff himself. He has further deposed that he has
maintained the record of business transactions with the defendant for
last 2-3 years and the goods sold by the plaintiff were collected by the
defendant from the plaintiff’s shop itself. He has further deposed that
the defendant is trading from Loni but he does not know the exact
district of defendant’s place of work being Shahdara. He has further
deposed that he had no past relation or acquaintance with the defendant
for the purpose of supply of goods on credit and has voluntarily added
that as per trade and as matters of trust, there is no credit limit
specifically decided for first time purchasers. The witness has deposed
that the discrepancies in invoice No. 2495 in respect of the amount
marked at point ‘A’ and the GST Return Ex.PW1/7 at point ‘B’ in respect
of amount of invoices to be Rs.70,434/- and Rs.67,072/- respectively are
on account of calculation mistake at point C on the tax invoice where the
amount was corrected from Rs.3,080/- to Rs.1925/-.
8. PW2 Shri Akash Kumar, the Assistant Manager of Axis bank has
brought the summoned record i.e. Statement of Account for the period
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
01.04.2019 to 31.03.2021 of Account no. 919020028663004 and a copy
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.08.02
16:11:30
of the cheque bearing No. 121851 dated 16.10.2019 drawn on Axis
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 8/32
Bank, Branch Jyoti Nagar, Delhi and exhibited the same as Ex.PW2/2
and Ex.PW2/3 respectively. He has deposed that the defendant has made
payment of Rs.10,000/- by way of cheque on 17.10.2019 to the plaintiff
which is highlighted at point ‘A’ on Ex,.PW2/2 and Ms. Manju defendant
No.2 is the authorised signatory of the cheque Ex,PW2/3.The witness
was also subjected to cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant
who has tried to puncture the testimony of PW2 on the aspects of
genuineness of the bank statement.
9. PW3 Shri Arif Ullah Khan, GST Officer posted at Trade & Taxes
Department ITO Delhi has brought the summoned record i.e. GSTR 2A
of GST No.07BDUPK0354H1ZD in respect of M/s Kashyap Textiles
and got exhibited the same as Ex.PW3/2. He has exhibited his ID card
as Ex.PW3/1. He has deposed that the records pertains to the purchase
made by M/s Kashyap Textiles and the entries as shown at point ‘A’ in
Ex.PW3/2 show that the purchases have been made by M/s
KashapTextiles from Ms. Meenu Jain. He has further deposed that the
record is computer generated and the same is a certified copy of a
genuine record which is maintained in his department. The witness was
also subjected to cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant who
has tried to puncture the testimony of PW3 on the aspects of non-
relevance of record in respect of the defendant. He has deposed that
there is no name of M/s Kashyap Textiles on this record and the GST
number has been written by his staff i.e. Stenographer. He has further
deposed that the name of M/s Kashap Textiles is written by him in the
court, however, the GST number has been written as per office record.
He has further deposed that the entries made in the Ex.PW3/2 are the
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.08.02
16:11:39
purchases made by M/s Kashyap Textiles and the GST returns are filed
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 9/32
by 10th day of the next month from the date of purchase. He has further
deposed that the Ex.PW3/2 is not showing the claim of GST by the
Kashyap Textiles.
10. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff and the evidence
of the plaintiff was closed vide statement dated 08.04.2025.
(F) DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE :-
11. The defendant in his defence only got examined a summoned
witness Shri Gaurav Rana, Assistant Ahlmad posted in the court of Ms.
Pooja Suhag, Ld. JMFC-01 (Digital Court, NI Act), Central District,
Delhi as DW1. He got exhibited the copy of complaint case bearing
No. CC6186/2022 as Ex.DW1/1, Copy of ledger Account for the period
01,04.2019 to 31.03.2020 and 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2022 as Ex.DW1/2
(colly), copies of cheque bearing No. 000042 dated 27.02.2022 for
Rs.10,0000/-, 000043 dated 10.03.2022 for Rs.10,000/-, 000044 dated
20.03.2022 for Rs.10,000/- all drawn on AU Small Finance Bank as
Ex.DW1/3 (colly), Legal Notice dated 04.06.2022 as Ex.DW1/4, and
Affidavit of Evidence of Shri Nikunj Jain dated 14.07.2022 as
Ex.DW1/5. The witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff.
12. No other witness was examined by the defendant and the evidence
of the defendant was closed vide statement dated 28.04.2025.
Digitally
signed by
(G) ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED:-
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.08.02
16:11:46
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 10/32
ARGUMENTS OF PLAINTIFF.
13. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff Shri Hardik Aggarwal has vehemently
argued that the plaintiff has proved its case in all aspect. It has been
argued that during the period 13.02.2019 to 21.02.2019, the defendant
has purchased Sarees, Lehangas vide 8 tax invoices No. 2493 to 2580
Ex. PW1/4 (colly) from the plaintiff. Further, the defendant used to
make the payment in parts against such sale and the goods were
received by the defendant to their satisfaction. Ld. Counsel has further
argued that plaintiff has been maintaining a running ledger account as
per which an outstanding amount of Rs.3,69,233/- is payable by the
defendant for the said period. He has further argued that the defendant
is also liable to pay interest of Rs.1,66,155/- on the delayed payment for
which the parties have agreed to.
14. On the point of delivery, Ld. Counsel has sought to have argued
that according to the GST Department, GSTR-1 and GSTR2A records,
there are entries for each supply of goods to the defendant from the
plaintiff.
15. On the point of limitation, it has been argued that as per article
113 of the Limitation Act, there are three years, however when the goods
are supplied to the defendant, the same is covered under Article14 of the
Limitation Act, 1963. If the last payment made by the defendant through
bank on 12.05.2022 is taken into consideration then also the suit is well
within the period of limitation besides considering the judgment of
Digitally
signed by
Hon’ble Apex Court on Covid-19 in SMWP © No. 3/2020 In re:
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR
GUPTA
GUPTA
Date:
2025.08.02
Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2022) 3 Supreme Court
16:12:01cases 117 and ARB.P 427/2024 G4s Secure Solutions (India) Pvt Ltd
+0530CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 11/32
Vs. Matrix Cellular (International) Services Ltd which has extended
the limitation. It has been finally argued that not only the suit be
decreed with interest and costs but exemplary costs and damages should
also be imposed upon the defendant.
ARGUMENTS OF DEFENDANT:-
16. Ld. counsel for the defendant Shri S.K. Singh on the other hand
has vehemently opposed the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff and has stated that the plaintiff has not approached the court
with clean hands and the suit is liable to be dismissed. Ld. Counsel for
defendant has vehemently argued that there is no existence of business
relation between the parties as nothing has been purchased by the
defendant from the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has further
vehemently argued that the claim of the plaintiff is based upon the false
and frivolous bills and ledger to extort money from the defendant and
as such the defendants have no legal liability towards the plaintiff.
17. He has vehemently argued that the suit of the plaintiff is time
barred as the alleged purchase was made on 13.02.2019 and the plaintiff
has neither demanded any suit amount prior to the filing of the suit nor
issued any legal notice to the defendant. He has further argued that there
is no acknowledgment of the defendant on the invoices/bills and thus the
invoices are forged and fabricated. The plaintiff has neither relied upon
the mode of transportation of the goods in the invoices/bills nor there is
any e-way bill on record. Ld. Counsel has further argued that there are
discrepancies in voucher numbers and their reflected amount in the
Digitallyledger account leading to manipulation of the same by the plaintiff.
signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.08.02
16:12:08
+0530
Ld. Counsel has finally disputed the GST number of the defendant as
CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 12/32
placed on record by the plaintiff. He has finally argued that the suit is
liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
(H) ANALYSIS & DETERMINATION:-
18. 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”
19. The onus to prove this issue was held upon the defendant who has
taken a preliminary objection in the Written Statement that the suit of
the plaintiff is devoid of any cause of action and plaintiff has filed the
present suit against the defendant on false and fabricated documents and
as such the plaint of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected under order VII
Rule 11 CPC. Although, 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 cause of
action by referring the plea that the plaintiff has manipulated and
fabricated the invoices and ledger account. The defendants have also
vaguely taken a plea that they have never purchased and placed any
order of goods to the plaintiff.
20. In this regard, a bare perusal of the evidence led by the defendants
shows that there is no specific and cogent evidence showing the absence
of cause of action for filing the instant suit. In legal terms, a cause of
action can be described as:.
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
KUMAR
MUKESH
KUMAR
GUPTA
“The cause of action means a bundle of material facts
GUPTA Date:
2025.08.02
16:12:16
which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to
+0530
get relief in the suit. [2024] 5 S.C.R. 404: 2024 INSC 333
CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 13/32
Arcadia Shipping Ltd. V. Tata Steel Limited and
Others.”
21. The court will have to examine whether these bundle of facts are
missing so as to non-suit the plaintiff in the light of contentions raised. It
may be seen that the plaintiff has duly filed not only the Statement of
account but also filed the supporting documents i.e. 8 tax invoice
Ex.PW1/4 (colly) and the internet downloaded GSTR-1 Ex.PW1/7 and
GSTR-2A Ex.PW3/2 showing details of dealings between the parties.
Though, the evidentiary value of these invoices Ex.PW1/4 (colly),
Statement of Account Ex.PW1/5, GSTR-1 and GSTR-2A shall be
examined by the court in subsequent issue regarding entitlement of
plaintiff but for the purpose of present issue, it cannot be said that the
instant suit is devoid of any cause of action. Admittedly, the defendants
have not led any cogent evidence to show that there was an absence of
cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
22. Furthermore, as per the record of GST Department, Ex. PW1/7
and even Ex.PW3/2 clearly proves that goods were supplied to the
defendants. The defendants have not been able to bring any cogent
evidence on record to rebut the same and has simply denied his liability
to pay the plaintiff. On the basis of these documents, there is an existing
outstanding amount which has been paid partly by the defendants in cash
and by cheques (including Ex.PW2/3 which was duly encashed). The
defendants have also issued cheques which got dishonoured as per
Ex.PW2/2 but the defendants have failed to pay the outstanding amount
giving rise to a valid cause of action in favour of the plaintiff.
Digitally signed
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.02
16:12:23 +0530CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 14/32
23. Thus, taken on the yardstick of preponderance of probability and
on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the defendants have utterly
failed to prove this issue by way of any clear or cogent evidence so as to
non-suit the plaintiff. This issue is, accordingly, decided against the
defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE No.2. “Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the instant
suit ? OPD”
24. The onus of proving this issue has been held upon the defendants
who have taken a preliminary objection in its Written Statement that this
court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as the defendants
are residing, working for gain and running their business within the
jurisdiction of Shahdara District and as such no cause of action has taken
place within the jurisdiction of this court. Even in this regard, it may be
seen that the defendants have failed to lead any specific evidence or file
any specific document to show lack of jurisdiction of the court.
However, since the aforesaid question is a mixed question of law and
facts, the court shall decide the same on the basis of oral as well as
documentary evidence which has come on record.
25. Ld. Counsel for the defendants has argued that the invoices
Ex.PW1/4 (colly) relied upon by the plaintiff issued from the Central
District but the defendants are working for gains at Shahdra District.
He has further relied upon the Section 20 of the CPC to argue that a suit
must be filed in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
defendants reside, carries on business, or where the cause of action either
Digitally in full or part arises which the plaintiff has failed to establish.
signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.08.02
16:12:30
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 15/32
26. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand, has argued that the
registered office of plaintiff is at 989/1, Ground Floor, Kucha Natwa,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 and the invoices have been raised from
Central District, part payments from time to time thereof have been
received at Chandni Chowk, Delhi and the goods were supplied from
plaintiff’s shop at Chandni Chowk, Delhi only. It has also been argued
that even the payments made by the defendants in the plaintiff’s bank
account were received at Chandni Chowk, Delhi only and as such only
Central District Courts have jurisdiction to entertain the instant suit.
27. Adverting to analysis, it may be seen that the present case is based
on the outstanding amount in respect of goods, i.e. Sarees, suits and
Lehangas, supplied by the plaintiff to the defendants vide 8 Invoices
Ex.PW1/4 (colly). The said Invoices have been issued by the plaintiff in
favour of defendants from time to time. The plaintiff has its registered
office at Chandni Chowk, Central District in Delhi and the goods have
been supplied from Central District, Delhi only, though the the
defendants reside and work for gain at Shahdra District, Delhi. The
payments made by the defendants have also been received at Central
Delhi resulting into part cause of action in terms of section 20 of CPC
being arisen in Central District of Delhi.
28. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Shrada Wassan and Ors. Vs.
Anil Goel and Anr. 2009 SCC Online Del 1285. after examining a
number of judgments has clearly held that when the money is expressly
or impliedly payable under a contract and payments are to be made at
MUKESH
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
KUMAR
Delhi, or received as such, a part of cause of action arises where it is
KUMAR GUPTA
received. Relying upon the pronouncement of law laid down by Hon’ble
Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.02
16:12:38
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 16/32
Supreme Court in A.B.C Laminart Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.P. Agencies, (1989),
2 SCC 163, the Hon’ble court has even laid down that if a demand of
the payment, preceding the suit, was made from Delhi for payments at
Delhi, the principle of debtor must seek the creditor applies with the
exception of a promissory notes. The principle is applied in respect of
payments received at the place of plaintiff under an express or implied
contract and unless there is a clear ouster of jurisdiction, the place of the
plaintiff shall also be the place where a legal action can be filed. This
principle was succinctly followed in subsequent judgments of our own
Hon’ble High Court in TKW Management Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Sherif Cargo and Anr. (2023) SCC Online Del. 593, and Transasia
Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sherif Cargo and Anr. (2023) SCC Online
Del. 593, by holding the jurisdiction of courts at Delhi on the ground
that the payments were received in Central, Delhi.
29. In the instant case not only all the payments made by the
defendants were received by the plaintiff in Central Delhi and goods
were supplied from shop of the plaintiff situated at Central District,
Delhi. Even the invoices Ex.PW1/4 (colly) have been issued by the
plaintiff in Central District besides demand have been made for the
outstanding amount from the plaintiff’s shop. The testimony of PW1
even during his cross-examination is clear and categoric that goods sold
by the plaintiff to the defendants were collected by the defendants from
the plaintiff’s shop (situated in Central District ) only. Nothing contrary
to the aforesaid has been proved by the defendants by way of any oral or
documentary evidence. Thus, when taken on the yardstick of
Digitally
signed by
preponderance of probability and on the basis of the aforesaid
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
discussion, while the defendants have failed to prove this issue in its
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.08.02
16:12:46
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 17/32
favour, the plaintiff has established the jurisdiction of courts at Central
Delhi. This issue is, accordingly, decided against the defendants and in
favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 3: “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a recovery of Rs.5,39,813/-against the
defendants ? OPP. “.
30. The onus of proving this issue was held upon the plaintiff and
since this issue pertains to the entitlement of the plaintiff to the relief
claimed, the same is pivotal to the entire controversy. The plaintiff has
claimed recovery of Rs.5,39,813/- including principal amount of
Rs.3,69,233/-, pre-suit interest of Rs.1,66,155/- and cheque bouncing
charges of Rs.4,425/- on the basis of the Statement of Account/ledger
Ex.PW1/5 which shows an outstanding amount of Rs.5,02,733/- as on
21.02.2019. For corroboration, he has relied upon 8 invoices [Ex.PW1/4
(colly)], GST Record (Ex.PW1/7) and testimony of PW2, GST officer
coupled with certified copy of GSTR-2A from Ex.PW3/2. 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
Digitally
signed by after the lapse of particular period by a public policy and expediency
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR
GUPTA
GUPTA
Date:
2025.08.02
AIR 1991 Kerala 83 Craft Centre V. Koncherry Coir Factories. It
16:12:53
+0530CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 18/32
may be seen that the plaintiff has claimed an extension of limitation on
the basis of last payment of Rs.10,000/- which according to Ex.PW1/5
has been made on 12.05.2022 by the defendant to the plaintiff through
cheque Ex.PW2/3 which got dishonoured. If the said date is considered
for reckoning the limitation, by applying the section 18 of Limitation
Act, 1963, the present suit ought to have been filed on or before
11.05.2025. Even otherwise, if the last sale through invoice dated
21.02.2019 is considered, the plaintiff shall have the benefit of extension
of limitation in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
SMWP © No. 3/2020 In re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation
(supra) and G4s Secure Solutions (India) Pvt Ltd Vs. Matrix
Cellular (International) Services Ltd (supra). Hence, the present suit
having been filed on 06.02.2024 (e-mode) is well within the period of
limitation.
31. Now adverting to the entitlement of the plaintiff to the claimed
amount on the basis of the Statement of Account/ledger Ex.PW1/5, the
same is supported by 8 invoices for the period 13.02.2019 to 21.02.2019
Ex.PW1/4 (colly). These invoices are hand written which clearly show
not only the invoices numbers, the date of invoices, details of
purchaser/receiver of goods, bank name, account number but also the
terms and conditions regarding return of goods, rate of interest for
delayed payment and jurisdiction as well. These invoices clearly mention
the name of seller as Rishabh Textiles (proprietorship firm of plaintiff)
with complete address of the plaintiff and the name of buyer/receiver as
Kashyap Textiles, Amar Colony which is the proprietorship firm of the
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
defendant No.1with its GST number.
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.08.02
16:13:00
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 19/32
32. On the other hand, the defendants have taken various pleas such as
non-existence of business relationship between the parties, documents
produced on record are forged and fabricated and there being no
acknowledgement of the defendants on the invoices nor any proof of
transportation of goods i.e. e-way bills etc. The defendants have also
raised the objections of the genuineness of the Certificate u/s 65-B of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and non-issuance of Legal Notice for
demanding the suit amount.
33. In so far as the plea of the defendants that there is no business
relationship between the parties is concerned, the defendants have
pointed out the deposition of PW1 to the effect that he has not
approached the defendants and also he does not remember the exact date
when the defendants have approached the plaintiff for purchasing the
clothes. However, the record of the GST Department i.e. GSTR-2A
Ex.PW3/2 shows the trade/legal name of the supplier as Meenu Jain i.e.
plaintiff and GSTR-1 Ex.PW1/7 clearly shows details of invoices
generated by the plaintiff in the name of the buyer i.e. Kashyap Textile.
The testimony of summoned witness PW3 Asif ullah Khan, GST Officer
is also clear and categoric that the GST Number 07BDUPK0354H1ZD is
that of Kashyap Textile (the defendant herein). The GSTR-2A
(Ex.PW3/2) is also that of defendants and the witness is clear and
unbreached that the record pertains to purchases made by Kashyap
Textile (proprietorship firm of defendant No.1) from Meenu Jain
(plaintiff herein). Even during cross-examination witness has reiterated
Digitally
that Kashyap Textiles made the purchases.
signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.08.02
16:13:07
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 20/32
34. Though, the defendants have disputed the voucher numbers in the
entries of the Statement of Account Ex. PW1/5 for the period 14.08.2021
to 20.03.2022 and the statement of account filed in the case u/s 138 of
N.I. Act pending before the Ld. CMM, Central District, Delhi, however,
it is clear from the Statement of Accounts produced in both the cases that
the defendants have issued cheques as well as made payments through
cash to the plaintiff. A bare perusal of records of the said case shows
that the alleged cheques have been issued in the name of plaintiff and
therefore, a presumption arises under section 139 of N.I. Act, in favour
of the holder that the holder of a cheque received the cheque for the
discharge of any debt or other liability. Further, a dishonoured cheque is
also an acknowledgement of debt in terms of Section 18 of the
Limitation Act, 1963. The defendants on their part have failed to rebut
the legal presumption as well as acknowledgement of debt by way of any
clear and cogent evidence. The defendants have also failed to bring any
evidence or summon the hyped Shri Dinesh Kumar Jain to show the
purpose for which the cheques have been issued. In absence of any clear
and cogent evidence, mere denial of a legal presumption so arisen in
favour of plaintiff is insufficient to discharge the onus shifted upon the
defendants in consequence of abovesaid legal presumption. In view of
the above, there exists a relationship of seller and buyer between the
parties and the above said plea of the defendants is not tenable in eyes of
law.
35. Adverting to the plea of the defendants that the invoices Ex.PW1/4
(colly) and the ledger Ex.PW1/5 are forged and fabricated. It is settled
Digitally
signed by proposition of law under Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR
the entries made in books of account including those maintained in
GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.08.02
16:13:13
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 21/32
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 required to be corroborated by the plaintiff
by way of other corroborating evidence for fastening liability on the
defendants. Reliance placed on (2000) 1 SCC 434 Ishwar Dass Jain
(Dead) through LR’s Vs. Sohan Lal (Dead) by LR’s. The testimony
of PW1 in this regard more particularly, the ledger account Ex.PW1/5
being corroborated by the invoices Ex.PW1/4 (colly) for the relevant
period coupled with the testimony of GST Officer PW3 and documents
proved on record, is clear and categoric. Ld. Counsel for the defendants
has argued that the invoice No. 2495 Ex.PW1/4 (colly) contain
discrepancy as the amount of Rs.70,434/- is mentioned in the said
invoice whereas the amount reflected in the ledger account is
Rs.67,072/-.
36. In response thereof, PW1 has deposed that the discrepancy in
invoice No. 2495 is on account of calculation mistake at point “C” on the
tax invoice where the amount was corrected from Rs.3,080/- to
Rs.1,925/- which has not been corrected at point “D” by the accountant,
however, the same has been correctly mentioned in the GST Return
Ex.PW1/7. He has further deposed that the invoices placed on record
are hand written, however, Statement of Account used to be prepared
weekly by the accountant using a computer.
37. On critical analysis, although it is evident that there is
Digitally
discrepancy in the invoice No. 2495 and the said invoices are hand
signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH
KUMAR
KUMAR
GUPTA
Date:
written yet the entry in the Statement of Account Ex.PW1/5 with respect
GUPTA 2025.08.02
16:13:19
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 22/32
to invoice No.2495 stands clearly corroborated by the corresponding
entry in GSTR-1 Ex.PW1/7 showing the amount of Rs.67,072/-.
Similarly, the amount of remaining invoices shown in Statement of
Account are duly corroborated with the corresponding entries of GSTR-
1 as well as GSTR-2A Ex.PW3/2. The defendants have failed to
produce on record any clear and cogent evidence to disprove the above
and failed to produce their counter statement of account or any
invoices/documents or even their GSTR returns to rebut. Mere denial is
not sufficient to prove that the documents placed on record by the
plaintiff are forged and fabricated where the defendants is 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).
38. The defendants have also disputed the voucher numbers in the
entries for the period 14.08.2021 to 20.03.2022 of Ex. PW1/5 and the
statement of account filed in the case u/s 138 of N.I. Act pending before
the Ld. CMM, Central District, Delhi, however, the same is well
Digitally
explained and hardly of any consequence in view of the aforesaid
signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH
KUMAR
KUMAR
GUPTA
Date:
discussion & determination.
GUPTA 2025.08.02
16:13:28
+0530 CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 23/32
39. In so far as the delivery of goods is concerned, Ld. Counsel for
the defendants has argued that there is neither any acknowledgement of
the defendants on the said invoices nor any proof for transportation of
goods i.e. e-way bills etc. has been placed on record. Imperatively the
plaintiff for proving its claim to the outstanding amount against delivery
of goods to the defendants are required to clearly prove the actual
delivery thereof when the same is highly disputed by the defendants.
40. 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.”
41. Though, standalone invoices do not prove delivery of the
Digitally
signed by
goods in terms of Section 31, 33 and 39 of SoGA unless there is
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR
GUPTA
GUPTA
Date:
2025.08.02
a physical endorsement of delivery thereon or there is a separate
16:13:42
+0530CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 24/32
document to show that the goods have been actually delivered to
defendants or at least delivered to a carrier of goods, as provided
under Section 23 (2) and Section 39 of SoGA. For ready refer-
ence the same reproduced hereunder:
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.”
42. To prove delivery by a carrier, copies of Rule 7 and 8 of Car-
riage 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.
43. Every transport company or a carrier of goods carries out
MUKESH
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
KUMAR
business under Carriage by Road Act, 2007 whereunder every
KUMAR GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.02
16:15:01
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 25/32
movable article as and when booked for transportation shall be
done as per documentation provided under the statute.
44. In the backdrop of aforesaid discussion, the onus of proving
the delivery of the goods worth Rs.5,39,813/- is on the plaintiff and
under the law in crux 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 8 invoices Ex.PW1/4 (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 8 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.
45. Applying the aforesaid legal principle in the facts of present
case, the plaintiff has successfully produced the GST record i.e.
GSTR-1 Ex.PW1/7 and GSTR-2A Ex.PW3/2 wherein the entries in
respect of the invoices Ex.PW1/4 (colly) are corroborated with the
corresponding entries in the Statement of Account Ex.PW1/5 and the
same have been shown herein under:-
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.08.02
16:15:07
+0530CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 26/32
TABLE
Sl. Date Invoice No. Amount Amount Amount
No. (on invoice) shown in shown in
GSTR-1 GSTR-2A
1. 13.02.2019 2493 65,401/- 65,401/- 65,401/-
2. 13.02.2019 2494 86,957/- 86,957/- 86,957/-
3. 13.02.2019 2495 70,434/- 67,072/- 67,072/-
4. 13.02.2019 2496 75,636/- 75,636/- 75,636/-
5. 13.02.2019 2497 78,503/- 78,503/- 78,503/-
6. 13.02.2019 2498 58,480/- 58,480/- 58,480/-
7. 13.02.2019 2499 60,100/- 60,100/- 60,100/-
8. 21.02.2019 2580 10,584/- 10,584/- 10,584/-
46. As already discussed, the plaintiff in support of delivery of the
goods has also examined the witness PW3 Shri Arif Ullah Khan from
the GST Department who testified that the purchases were made by
the Kashyap Textiles from Meenu Jain. As such, the plaintiff has
successfully established the IVth Yardstick of the delivery of the
goods which requires the plaintiff to prove on record that the GST
claimed to have been deposited by the plaintiff qua this 8 invoices,
defendants 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, which the defendants have failed to rebut by way of any
clear or cogent evidence.
47. The plea of the defendants during arguments that the GST
number of the defendant’s firm on GSTR-1 is false, is also not legally
tenable as he had failed to mention the correct GST number of the
defendants’ firm or produce any document showing any other GST
Digitally signed
by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.02
16:15:27
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 27/32
number. Furthermore, the defendants have also failed to raise any
complaint regarding the same before any competent authority. In
absence thereof, mere raising of such plea is not sufficient to deny
orally the contents of a public document available in public domain.
48. Ld. Counsel for defendants has finally argued that plaintiff has not
sent any legal notice to the defendants for demanding the suit amount.
This leads to an interesting legal proposition as to whether a suit for
recovery of outstanding amount can be filed without issuance of a
demand/legal Notice. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff Shri Aggarwal has
argued that the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of amount shall still be
legal as there is no mandatory legal requirement for a legal notice before
filing the suit except a suit which is filed against the Government or a
Public Officer acting his official capacity, wherein, which a two months
prior notice in writing is must under Section 80 of CPC. He has further
argued that even otherwise, there has been a continuous oral requests for
clearing the outstanding amount to the defendants.
49. On analysis, a legal/demand notice by its very definition, is a kind
of intimation to the other side before a legal action can be initiated. As
per dictionary definition, a legal notice can be described as :
‘A legal notice is a formal written communication between the
parties where the sender notifies the recipient about his intention
of undertaking legal proceedings against the latter. It helps in
making the recipient party aware of the grievances of the sender.
It is considered to be a warning to the receiver to fulfill a certain
condition if he does not want to take the matter to the court. It is
Digitally
signed by
very time and cost-effective tool for settling the matter without
any litigation procedure but rather through negotiation,
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.08.02
16:15:39
mediation or arbitration’
+0530CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 28/32
50. Accordingly, a legal notice can be seen as a precursor to a legal
action. In other words, it indicates proposed legal action pursuant to the
notice with an option to the defendant to avoid legal action thereby
complying with the conditions mentioned in the demand/legal notice
within the time framed provided therein. Though, law does not
specifically lay down issuance of a legal notice except in certain specific
cases as provided by the statute or rules, however, it is a generally
accepted convention that before initiation of a legal action, a legal notice
is given. A legal notice may sometimes is also important in as much as it
creates a cause of action between the parties and also triggers the
beginning of the period of Limitation. It also finds mention in certain
sections of the Limitation Act also. However, for the purpose of recovery
of outstanding amount by way of a Recovery Suit, there is no mandatory
requirement for issuance of a legal notice. A Division Bench of Hon’ble
Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice N.R. Mehta (as their lordships
were then) of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has dwelled upon the
aforesaid aspect in RFA 5228 of 2019 titled Jay Ambay Industries
through its proprietor Dinesh Kumar Somani Vs. Garnet Specialty
Paper Ltd. and held :
” The question is, is it mandatory for a plaintiff to first issue a
demand notice and only thereafter file a suit for recovery of
money? We may clarify that there is no such law which obliges
the plaintiff to first issue a demand notice and only thereafter
institute a suit for recovery of money. Ordinarily such notice is
issued only for the purpose of limitation. If the plaintiff is
apprehensive about the issue of limitation that may be raised by
the defendant before the trial court, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, only with the view to meet with such
contingencies, the plaintiff would first issue a notice and then
institute the suit. Demand notice is mandatory only under
Digitally
signed by
Section 12(3((a) and 12 (3) (b) respectively of the Bombay Rent
MUKESH
MUKESH
KUMAR
GUPTA
Act, or if it is a suit against the State, in such circumstances,
KUMAR
GUPTA Date:
2025.08.02
notice under Section 80 of the CPC is requires”.
16:15:46
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 29/32
51. In view of the aforesaid settled law, this court is of the considered
view that a demand/legal notice is not mandatorily required before
initiation of suit for recovery of outstanding amount, if the suit is
otherwise found to be within the period of Limitation.
52. Having discussed the aforesaid, one of the interesting question is
that whether this entitlement is against both the defendants or against
which of the defendants. It may be seen that the plaintiff has relied upon
Ex.PW1/3 which is a computer generated copy drawn from GST portal
which is the GST number of the defendants with its trade name M/s
Kashyap Textiles and the proprietor being Sachin Kumar, the defendant
No.1 herein. This fact has also been mentioned by the plaintiff during its
deposition of PW1 in Ex.PW1/A which has not been subjected to any
challenge during cross-examination. The invoice Ex.PW1/4 (colly)
clearly show that the goods were supplied to M/s Kashyap Textiles only
and even the Statement of Account/Ledger Ex.PW1/5 pertains to the
aforesaid M/s Kashyap Textiles only. There is no personal allegations or
liability being claimed against defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 Mr.
Sachin Kumar being the proprietor of M/s Kashyap Textiles as such
shall only be liable to pay the outstanding amount. Accordingly, the
plaintiff shall be entitled to the recovery of principal outstanding of
Rs.3,69,233/- besides cheque bouncing charges of Rs.4,425/-, thereby
making it Rs.3,73,658/- against defendant No.1 only.
53. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion and findings of the
court the plaintiff has successfully proved its entitlement to the amount
Digitally
MUKESH
signed by
MUKESH
KUMAR
of Rs.3,73,658/- against defendant No.1 Shri Sachin Kumar. Issue No.3
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.08.02
16:17:05
+0530
is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 30/32
ISSUE NO.4: “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if so, at what rate and for which
period ? OPP”
54. The onus of proving this issue was also held upon the plaintiff
who has claimed an interest @ 18% per annum on the outstanding
amount pendentlite and future. Though there is a stipulation on the Tax
Invoices [Ex.PW1/4 (colly)] of interest @ 18% per annum on delayed
payments, however, the plaintiff during his cross-examination, has
deposed that there are no fixed terms & conditions of payments
volunteering that it is generally 45-60 days, plaintiff himself is not very
clear regarding delayed payments and interest thereon. The Hon’ble
Supreme court in a number of judgments reported as Pt. Munshi Ram
@ Associates (P) Lt. Vs. DDA, 2010 SCC Online Delhi 2444,
Rajendra Construction Co. Vs. Maharashtra Housing & Area
Development Authority and others, 2005 (6) SCC 678, McDermott
International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others, 2006 (11)
SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Indag
Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd.
Vs. G. Harischandra, 2007 (2) SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan Vs.
Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC)
has repeatedly mandated that courts must give due consideration and
reduce the high rates of interest on account of the consistent fall in the
rates of interest in changed economic scenario. Further, this case pertains
to extraordinary situations of Covid-19 pandemic which crippled the
entire world and its economic activities. Under the facts and
circumstances of the case, keeping in view the nature of transactions of
Digitally
the case and the aforesaid settled law, court is of the considered opinion
signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH
KUMAR
KUMAR
GUPTA
Date:
that the interest of justice would be met, if an interest @ 7% per annum
GUPTA 2025.08.02
16:16:01
+0530
is granted to the plaintiff on the outstanding amount of Rs.3,73,658/-
CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 31/32
from 12.05.2022 till the date of filing of the suit (pre-suit interest) and at
the same rate pendentlite and future till its realisation. This issue is
decided accordingly.
(I) CONCLUSION:-
ISSUE No.5: Relief.
55. In view of the aforesaid discussions and finding of the court on
the aforesaid issues, the court is of the considered opinion that the
plaintiff has been able to successfully prove its entitlement to the
recovery against the defendant No.1 only. The suit of the plaintiff is
accordingly decreed against the defendant No.1 for a sum of
Rs.3,73,658/-. The plaintiff shall also entitled to a simple interest @ 7%
per annum on such amount w.e.f. 12.05.2022 till its realization.
56. In the specific facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff shall
also be entitled to the costs of the suit throughout.
57. Suit of the plaintiff is accordingly decreed.
58. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
59. File be consigned to record room after due completion.
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.02
16:16:09
+0530
Pronounced in open (Mukesh Kumar Gupta)
court on 02.08.2025 District Judge (Commercial Court)-07
Central District, THC Court 'pk'
CS (Comm.) No.212/2024 Meenu Jain Vs. Sachin Kumar & Anr.
Page no. 32/32