IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, Tejas Karia, JJ.
M/S CNR Exports - Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Qadeer Prop. Of M/S Mehtab Export House - Respondent
RFA(COMM) 48 of 2025 and CM Nos.3855-56 of 2025
Decided On : 02-04-2025
(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 13(2) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI - Recovery of outstanding amount - Plaintiff claimed ₹3,73,383/- for goods supplied, which defendant failed to pay - Commercial Court decreed the amount with interest at 9% per annum - Defendant's claims of defective goods and return were not substantiated by evidence. (Paras 1, 2, 12, 24)
(B) Burden of Proof - The burden lies on the party asserting a claim to establish it with credible evidence - The defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support claims of defective goods and return. (Paras 12, 24)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff supplied goods worth ₹3,73,383/- to the defendant, who did not pay the amount. The defendant claimed the goods were defective and returned, but failed to substantiate this claim with evidence. (Paras 2, 4, 24)
Findings of Court:
The Commercial Court found that the plaintiff established his claim for recovery of ₹3,73,383/- and awarded interest at 9% per annum. (Paras 12, 24)
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount claimed and whether the suit was maintainable. (Paras 9)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the defendant did not provide credible evidence to support his claims regarding the goods being defective or returned, thus affirming the plaintiff's entitlement to the amount claimed. (Paras 12, 24)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
1. The appellant (defendant in the suit) has filed the present appeal under Section 13(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereafter the CPC], impugning a judgment dated 13.09.2024 [hereafter the impugned judgment] passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-04 [hereafter the Commercial Court], in CS (COMM) 614/2022 titled Mohd. Qadeer v. M/s CNR Exports.
2. The respondent (hereafter also referred to as the plaintiff) had filed the said suit [CS (COMM) No.614/2022] for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,73,383/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 24% per annum till the date of realization of the said amount. Additionally, the plaintiff had also sought a decree for costs and litigation charges. The learned Commercial Court allowed the aforementioned suit by the impugned judgment and decreed a sum of Rs.3,73,383/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of realization.
FACTUAL CONTEXT
3. The appellant (hereafter also referred to as the defendant) is a sole proprietorship concern of Mr Vinayak Choudhary. It is stated that, he is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting of leather and leather garments under the name of his proprietorship concern (M/s CNR Exports). The plaintiff is the sole proprietor of M/s Mehtab Export House and is engaged in the business of raw skin, finished leather, hides and skins.
4. It was the plaintiff’s case that Mr. Vinayak Choudhary had approached him to purchase certain goods (skins), which were supplied to him. The plaintiff had thereafter raised invoices for the sale of the said goods, however, the defendant failed to discharge the said invoices in entirety and a sum of Rs.3,73,383/- remained outstanding. The plaintiff had thereafter pursued the defendant for recovery of the said amount, however, the defendant had failed to repay the same.
5. The plaintiff claimed that he caused a legal notice dated 26.09.2020 to be issued to the defendant. The same was duly served on the defendant but the defendant had not responded to the same.
6. In the given circumstances, the plaintiff initiated pre-institution mediation proceeding, which was a non-starter.
7. The defendant filed a written statement contesting the suit. He claimed that he had placed an order for supply of certain raw material with the plaintiff sometime in July-August, 2020. He claimed that the total price of the goods, along with the rate difference, leather shaving charges, and freight charges was Rs.3,73,383/-, however, the plaintiff did not raise any invoice with respect to sale and purchase of the said goods. He claimed that the goods in question arrived at his factory and were found to be defective and not upto the mark. Accordingly, he claimed that transaction for purchase of the goods was cancelled, and the goods were returned. He stated that he had issued two debit notes dated 24.08.2020, aggregating an amount of Rs.3,73,381/- and the goods were returned to the plaintiff on the very same date.
8. The defendant claimed that on the said date, that is 24.08.2020, the plaintiff visited the factory premises and was handed over a cheque amounting to Rs.2,45,528/- which was the amount outstanding with respect to the past transactions/business dealings between them.
ISSUES
9. In view of the rival pleadings, the learned Commercial Court framed the following issues for consideration:
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.3,73,383/- alongwith interest from the defendants, as alleged? OPP.
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD.
3. Whether there is no cause of action? OPD.
4. Relief.”
10. Both parties led the evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and testified to the invoices raised [Ex.PW-1/3 (colly)]; Certificate of GST Registration [Ex.PW-1/2] Statement of Accounts/Ledger [Ex.PW-1/5]; Messages exchanged between th
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting a claim, and failure to provide credible evidence results in upholding the original judgment.
The burden of proof lies with the claimant to substantiate claims with credible documentation, and evidence of timely payments to claimants influence recovery judgments.
Entries in business accounts are relevant but insufficient alone to establish liability; plaintiffs must provide credible evidence to support their claims.
In a suit based on invoices, the invoices must be treated as a written contract. If the Defendant raises no genuine triable issues or the defense is frivolous, the Plaintiff shall be entitled to judg....
The plaintiff failed to prove defects in goods supplied under the Reseller Agreement, resulting in dismissal of the suit and a decree for the defendant's counter-claim for unpaid invoices.
The unauthorized sale of goods by one party constitutes a breach of contract, entitling the other party to recover payments made along with interest.
The burden of proof lies on the defendants to provide documentary evidence of full payment, and failure to do so may result in adverse inferences by the Court.
The absence of certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not render computer-generated ledger accounts inadmissible, and the non-examination of the person who made entrie....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.