JUDGMENT

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1. The appellant, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, has filed the present appeal impugning a judgment and decree dated 01.02.2023 (hereafter the impugned judgment) delivered by the learned Commercial Court in CS (COMM) No.3547/2021 captioned Sh. Abhishek Jain v. M/s Iyikatech Private Limited.

2. The respondent (plaintiff in the suit – hereafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed the suit [CS (COMM) No.3547/2021] for recovery of a sum of ₹10,00,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest. By the

Signature Not Verified

impugned judgment, the aforesaid suit was decreed and the learned Commercial Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of ₹10,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from

30.08.2018 till its realization.

PLAINTIFF’S CASE

3. The plaintiff claims that he is engaged in the business of selling electrical articles such as LED lights and circuits amongst other goods, and carries on his business under his sole proprietorship concern named M/s Rushabh Traders. The plaintiff carries on his business activities from a shop being Shop No.114, More Sarai Road, Mini Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi-110006.

4. The plaintiff claims that in the second week of August, 2018, one Mr. Vasudev had visited his shop and introduced himself as an Executive / Director of the appellant company. He had represented that the appellant was engaged in the manufacturing of digital/touch electric switches, which were operated through Wi-Fi. He had also demonstrated the functioning of the said products by showing pictures and videos of the electricity boards having smart switches functioning by touch of a finger. The plaintiff being satisfied with the demonstration of the products shown to him placed an order of an aggregate value of ₹20,00,000/-.

5. The plaintiff remitted an advance amount of ₹10,00,000/- on 29.08.2018 through banking channels to the bank account of the appellant company – Current Bank Account No.629205502196 maintained with the ICICI Bank, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006. The

Signature Not Verified

plaintiff claims that despite making an advance payment of ₹10,00,000/-, he did not receive any goods from the appellant. He claims that the appellant continued to make excuses for non-delivery of the goods on one pretext or the other. Subsequently, made the nationwide lockdown in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic an excuse for non-delivery of the goods.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the plaintiff caused a legal notice dated 01.09.2020 to be issued to the appellant. The plaintiff claims that on receipt of the legal notice, the appellant assured that it would refund the amount with interest, however, neglected to do so. The plaintiff further claims that he had also attempted to telephonically contact the representative of the appellant on 15.06.2021 but he did not respond to the said call and stopped responding to the plaintiff’s phone calls altogether.

7. The plaintiff also instituted mediation proceedings before the Central District Legal Services Authority but the mediation was a non- starter. Thereafter, the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of the amount of ₹10,00,000/- along with interest from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the said amount.

APPELLANT’S DEFENSE

8. The appellant filed its written statement contesting the suit. The appellant stated that the suit was not maintainable as the same was not properly valued; plaintiff had no cause of action to file the same; the suit was vexatious and instituted to defame the appellant; the suit was not maintainable under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereafter the

Signature Not Verified

Commercial Courts Act); and the suit was not compliant with the Rules made by the Delhi High Court. However, the written statement neither provides any basis for the said defenses nor mentions any provision(s)

of the Commercial Courts Act to substantiate the same.

9. The appellant claims that the parties had entered into