CM(M) 2065/2023

Page 1 of 16

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment reserved on: 12.01.2024

Judgment pronounced on:12.02.2024

+

CM(M) 2065/2023, CM APPL. 64902/2023 (interim relief)

M/S. M.K. ENTERPRISES

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Adv.

versus

M/S. VOHRA RUBBER AND ELECTRICALS & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Ratnesh Sharma and Mr.

Rahul Raman, Advs.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

J U D G M E N T

1.

The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India seeking to set aside of the order dated 02.12.2023

passed by the learned District Judge, Commercial Court-10, Central, Tis

Hazari Courts, New Delhi in CS(COMM) 3005/2021 (hereinafter as “Trial

Court”) titled as “ M/S. MK Enterprises vs M/S. Vohra Rubbers &

Electricals and Others” whereby it dismissed the application filed by the

petitioner under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(hereinafter “CPC”) for passing of a decree for an amount of Rs.11,20,365/-.

2.

To the extent necessary, this Court notes the facts relevant to the

present case:

3.

In 2013, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 approached the petitioner herein

and expressed their interest in purchasing heavy duty industrial equipment

Digitally Signed

By:NEELAM

Signing Date:15.02.2024

11:51:20

Signature Not Verified

CM(M) 2065/2023

Page 2 of 16

and other such equipments, that the petitioner dealt in. The respondents

herein are a business family hailing from Kanpur (UP) and run their

business under the name of M/s Vohra Rubber and Electricals. The firm is

the proprietorship of the father of the respondents no.2 & 3 but is a family

business being run by all the members. Following this, the petitioner and

respondents proceeded to commence business dealings with one another on

the assurance given by the respondents for prompt and timely payments

against the goods to be supplied within 15 days from the date of respective

supply.

4.

It is not disputed that the respondents committed no defaults in

payment for goods supplied w.e.f 2013 to 03.08.2016, however, subsequent

thereto, there was a delay on payments over two months or so owing to

which the petitioner stopped supplying the goods to the respondents till the

outstanding dues were cleared by them. Upon clearing the entire dues uptill

03.08.2016, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 again approached the petitioner in

October 2016 for the purchase of goods and assured the petitioner that there

would not be a delay of more than 30 days in making the payments, in the

event of delay beyond 30 days, they would pay interest at a rate of 18% p.a

for the delayed period. Upon this assurance, petitioner then proceeded to

provide goods to the respondents and raised the first invoice on 28.10.2016

on renewed terms and assurances. The petitioner made the supplies of

goods as per telephonic orders received from the respondents which were

received by the respondents upto their satisfaction and without any

complaint whatsoever. However, in the year 2017, the respondents failed in

Digitally Signed

By:NEELAM

Signing Date:15.02.2024

11:51:20

Signature Not Verified

CM(M) 2065/2023

Page 3 of 16

abiding by their commitments in making payments within 30 days citing

various excuses.

5.

Nonetheless the petitioner accommodated the respondents in relation

to their delayed payments. During the period of COVID, in March 2020 the

respondents sought goods from the petitioner and stated that payments

would be made within the stipulated time period. However, respondent did

not make the said payments even within a period of 9-10 months, which

adversely impacted the financial situation of the petitioner. The invoices for

the period of 31.07.2020 to 06.04.2021 amounting to Rs. 11,20,365/-

remained unpaid along with interest. However, the respondents made one

last payment of Rs. 50,000/