The court confirmed that jurisdiction is established where significant parts of the cause of action arise, supported by relevant documentation, and upheld the decree in absence of a legitimate triable issue.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The present Appeal, filed by the Appellant [Defendant before the learned Single Judge], is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2018 [hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Judgment'] passed by learned Single Judge in CS(COMM) No. 927/2016, whereby the learned Single Judge decreed the summary suit instituted by the Respondent [Plaintiff before the learned Single Judge] for recovery of Rs. 2,33,46,254/-, together with pre-suit interest @ 15% per annum calculated after expiry of 60 days from the date of each invoice till institution of the suit, and pendente lite as well as future interest @ 9% per annum while declining leave to defend the suit.

2. The issue which arises for consideration in the present Appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in refusing leave to defend and consequently decreeing the summary suit, on the premise that the defence raised by the Appellant did not disclose any bona fide or triable issue warranting trial.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Appeal, it would be apposite to briefly notice the relevant facts. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties shall be referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Single Judge.

4. The Plaintiff instituted a summary suit seeking recovery of amounts allegedly due towards supply of Thermo Mechanically Treated (TMT) bars. It was the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant had placed three purchase orders dated 06.05.2013, 26.07.2013 and 01.10.2013 for procurement of TMT bars. Pursuant thereto, the Plaintiff supplied the goods and raised invoices as under:

i. In respect of purchase order dated 06.05.2013- invoices dated26.05.2013, 31.05.2013, 01.06.2013 and 03.06.2013;

ii. In respect of purchase order dated 26.07.2013- invoices dated 16.08.2013, 19.08.2013 and 28.08.2013;

iii. In respect of purchase order dated 01.10.2013- invoices dated 16.10.2013 and 27.10.2013. According to the Plaintiff, despite due delivery of goods under the aforesaid invoices, the Defendant failed to clear the outstanding amounts and made only a solitary payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- in May, 2014.

5. The Plaintiff further averred that two debit notes, one dated 19.08.2013 for Rs.28,767/- and another dated 28.08.2013 for Rs.2,061/-, allegedly issued by the Defendant on account of short supply of material, had been duly adjusted in the statement of accounts. It was additionally pleaded that the Defendant had confirmed the balance outstanding and had also issued 'C' Forms acknowledging receipt of the goods. The Plaintiff further relied upon an email dated 12.09.2014 sent by Punit Kumar Bansal, Manager (Purchase) of the Defendant Company, inter alia to Mukesh Gupta, Deepak Garg, Deepak Bansal (who are all employees of the Defendant) as well as to the email address of Plaintiff being sasumorove@gmail.com to contend that the Defendant acknowledged the liability to pay. Notwithstanding the same, the Defendant failed to liquidate the outstanding liability.

6. Upon service of summons, the Defendant entered appearance and filed an application seeking leave to defend the suit. The principal grounds urged in the application were that the Courts at Delhi lacked territorial jurisdiction; that the email dated 12.09.2014 relied upon by the Plaintiff was fabricated and was not issued from the registered email address of the Defendant; and that no certificate under Section 65 -B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [hereinafter referred to as 'Evidence Act'] had been filed in support of the electronic record. The Plaintiff subsequen