Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7341
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VINOD KUMAR, V. Kameswar Rao, JJ
PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
UJALA GOEL PROPRIETOR OF R.U. OVERSEAS – Respondent
RFA(COMM)109/2024
For the Respondent:Mr. Kailash Chand Goel, Ms. Rashmi Verma, Ms. Shweta Singh, Advocates
Even an acceptance of a debit note in a business context may not constitute an admission of liability if it was made under pressure or to secure due payments.
Headnote:(A) The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 13(1A) - Claim for recovery of Rs.38,94,070/- along with interest - Plaintiff supplied chemicals and defendant alleged substandard quality; acceptance of debit note by plaintiff debated - While the Trial Court held in favor of plaintiff, the appeal reviews email acceptance and intent during COVID context - Court rules acceptance was tactical to secure payments, not an admission of debt, modifies interest rate to 9%. (Paras 30-30)
(B) Jurisdiction - The principle of jurisdiction based on contracts versus commercial context examined - No binding jurisdiction agreement between the parties found. (Paras 9-9)
Facts of the case:
Dispute arose over alleged non-payment linked to quality of supplied chemicals; allegations of jurisdiction by both parties; detailed email correspondence explored.
Findings of Court:
The acceptance of the debit note did not equate to an admission of debt; properly contextualized amid business pressures.
Issues: Jurisdictional authority, acceptance of debit notes as admissions, and evidence of chemical quality.
Ratio Decidendi: Court emphasized context in determining acceptance of debit notes did not imply debt admission; procedural fairness and evidence standards applied.
Result: Appeal dismissed with modifications only to interest rate.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeal and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts leading to the financial dispute. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. issues and arguments regarding jurisdiction and permissions. (Para 5 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. detailed analysis of email correspondences regarding acceptance. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. decision on the acceptance of liability and judgment modification. (Para 26 , 30) |
1. This Regular First Appeal filed under Section 13 (1A) of The Commercial Courts Act , 2015 is directed against a judgment and decree dated 31.01.2024 passed by learned District Judge (Commercial Court-10), Central District, Delhi in civil suit CS (COMM.) No. 3436/2021. The suit was decreed in favour of the respondent and against the appellant for a sum of Rs.38,94,070/- with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 15 percent per annum and costs.
2. Notice of this appeal was issued to respondent, who contested the appeal. For the sake of convenience, the appellant would also be referred to as ‘defendant’ and respondent as ‘plaintiff’.
3. The plaintiff had filed civil suit no. 3436/2021 pleading that he is in business of trading various chemicals and the defendant is a leading manufacturer and dealer of herbal medicines under its trademark ‘Patanjali’. The plaintiff had been supplying various chemicals to the defendant since 2014. The details of the invoices of goods supplied to the defendant from 12.04.2020 till 20.08.2020 and the details of payments received from the defendant against the said invoices have been given in para 7 and 9 of the plaint. Dispute arose when the defendant withheld an amount of Rs.38,94,070/- by raising a debit note on the ground that material supplied by plaintiff was substandard. Therefore, the plaintiff claimed recovery of Rs.38,94,070/- being the principal amount plus Rs.9,55,272/- being the interest calculated at the rate of 18 percent per annum till filing of the suit. Thus total amount of Rs.48,49,342/- was claimed in the suit along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum.
4. The defendant filed written statement objecting to territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts and claiming that the plaintiff was required to supply ordered chemicals with 99 percent purity, whereas the purity of the material was found to be only 35.54 percent and therefore the defendant imposed a penalty of Rs.38,94,070/- by raising a debit note. Plea of the defendant is that the plaintiff accepted this debit note vide email dated 18.09.2020.
5. In replication, plaintiff denied that he supplied substandard material or that accepted the debit note of Rs.38,94,070/- sent through email dated 18.09.2020. However in affidavit of Admission and Denial, the plaintiff stated that he had only accepted debit note of Rs.1,26,602/-.
6. The issues framed by the Trial Court are as under:
1. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the present suit? OPD
1A. Whether the material was not pure as per agreed terms? OPD
1B. Whether the penalty charges amounting to Rs.38,94,070/- of debit note was accepted/admitted by the plaintiff vide email dated 18.09.2020? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.48,49,342/-? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the said amount? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
4. Relief.
7. Plaintiff (Mr. Ujala Goel) examined himself as PW1 and defendant examined its authorised representative Mr. Mayank Bahuguna as DW1.
8. Trial Court held that Delhi Courts have jurisdiction to try the suit and that the defendant could not prove any impurity in purchased chemicals. Trial Court further held that the plaintiff had not accepted the debit note of Rs.38,94,070/-, rather this acceptance in his email dated 18.09.2020 was only in respect of another debit note of Rs.1,26,602/-. Accordingly, the Trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the appellant is in appeal before this court.
Points for Determination
9. The defe
