Summary judgment can be granted when the defendant has no realistic prospect of defending the claim, particularly in commercial disputes where evidence is inadequately presented.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BANSAL, J.

I.A. 30226/2025 (seeking condonation of delay in filing the written synopsis as directed vide order dated 20.08.2025

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the defendant no. 1 seeking condonation of delay of 75 days in filing written synopsis.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 75 days in filing the written synopsis on behalf of the defendant no.1 is condoned.

3. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 39590/2024 (under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

4. The present suit has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs. 4,23,34,250/- along with interest @ 18% and costs.

5. The captioned application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter ‘CPC’), as applicable to commercial disputes, seeking a summary judgment against the defendant no.1.

CASE SETUP IN THE PLAINT

6. Brief facts stated in the plaint which are relevant for adjudication of the captioned application are set out below:

6.1. The plaintiff is a company primarily engaged in the trade of electronic goods such as mobile phones and its parts and accessories.

6.2. The defendants no.2 and 3 are involved in the business of seeking short-term financial investment. The plaintiff had a successful business relationship with them in the past.

6.3. The defendant no.1 is the proprietor of M/s AT Gold Enterprises, who is closely associated with the defendants no.2 and 3.

6.4. The defendants no.2 and 3 sought a short-term financial investment of Rs. 3 crores from the plaintiff for procuring OLED screen panels of OPPO mobile phones and assured fixed returns of approximately 35 lakhs within 30 days in exchange of the said financing.

6.5. Lured by the offer of high returns within a short period of time, the plaintiff accepted the offer made by the defendants no.2 and 3 and transferred a sum of Rs. 3 crores on 19^th February 2022 through RTGS to the bank account details provided by the defendant no.2. The said bank account was that of the defendant no.1.

6.6. The defendants no.2 and 3 assured the plaintiff of having acquired the requisite stock between 14^th March 2022 and 31^st March 2022 against the aforesaid amount transferred to the bank account of the defendant no.1 by the plaintiff. In support of the same, the defendants no.2 and 3 also shared six invoices raised by the defendant no.1 in the name of the plaintiff.

6.7. After the last invoice raised in the name of the plaintiff on 31^st March 2022, the plaintiff was assured of the return of the aforesaid investment along with profits by the middle of April 2022.

6.8. In terms of the arrangement between the parties, the aforesaid stock was to be sold and the plaintiff was to be returned the investment amount of Rs.3 crores along with profits.

6.9. When the plaintiff visited the residence-cum-office of the defendants no.2 and 3 in April 2022, the premises were found to be locked. The defendants no.1 and 3 also avoided the calls of the authorized representative of the plaintiff.

7. Since the defendants failed to refund the amount of Rs. 3 crores as also the minimum profit that was assured to the plaintiff, the present suit has been instituted seeking recovery.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUIT

8. Summons in the suit were issued to the defendants on 8^th February 2023.

9. Counsel for the defendant no.1 entered appearance on 12^th May 2023.

10. On 21^st September 2023, the defendants no.2 and 3 were directed to be served with summons through substituted service. Accordingly, the defendants no.2 and 3 w