$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 14^th January, 2026 Uploaded on: 20^th January, 2026 + RFA(COMM) 577/2025 & CM APPL. 64360/2025 RANJEET SAINI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ujjwal Jha, Mr. Kartavya Batra &

Mr. Rohan Gupta, Advs.

(8235256364)

versus M/S BANWARILAL ARORA AND SONS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Devansh Dua, Adv.

(9896181187)

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 96 and Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed challenging the impugned judgment dated 19^th May, 2025 passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court-01) North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in CS(Comm.) No. 381/2020. Vide the impugned judgement the suit preferred by the Respondent/Plaintiff has been decreed in the following terms:

“RELIEF:

20. In view of my finding given on the above said issues, plaintiff shall be entitled, against the defendant, to a decree for a sum of Rs.20,49,632/- which is the principal outstanding amount. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% on the amount of Rs. 20,49,632/- from

12.01.2018 till realization.

21. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to the cost of the suit.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent/Plaintiff had filed the subject suit seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.30,64,453/- along with interest. The Respondent/Plaintiff is a partnership firm engaged in dealing and stocking of products of M/s. Parag Milk Products. The Appellant/ Defendant had approached the Respondent for supply of the said products namely Goverdhan Ghee, Badam Milk etc. Supplies were stated to have been made on the basis of a running account which was maintained in the regular course of business. Timely payments were to be made to the Respondent. However, an outstanding of Rs.20,49,632/- was remaining, which amount was not paid by the Appellant. The Appellant is stated to have issued a cheque dated 30^th April, 2018 in favour of the Plaintiff/ Respondent for the said amount and when the same was presented to the bank, a Bank Memo was issued stating that the “payment was stopped by drawer”.

4. The Respondent then filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and also filed the subject suit seeking the principal amount of Rs. 20,49,632/- and interest @ 18% from 12^th January, 2018 to 12^th October, 2020 i.e., Rs.10,14,821/-.

5. In the suit, the Appellant filed the written statement taking a plea that the bills were raised by the Respondent to the tune of Rs. 48,78,804/- but the goods were retained by the Appellant only to the tune of Rs.28,29,172/- and the remaining goods were returned. Thus, the amount of Rs.20,49,632/- is not liable to be paid by the Appellant.

6. In the subject suit, issues were framed on 25^th July, 2022. The said issues are captured below:

“(i) Whether the plaintiff had supplied goods worth of Rs.20,49,632/- to the defendant? OPP (ii) Whether the cheque bearing no.000100 dated 30.04.2018 in the sum of Rs.20,49,632/- issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff was in fact issued as a blank security cheque only as contended by the defendant in the written statement? OPD (iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree in the amount of Rs.30,64,453/- as prayed for? OPP (iv) Whether plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP (v) Relief.”

7. Evidence was led by both parties. The Commercial Court came to the conclusion that the Appellant, who was cross-examined, had admitted his signatures on all the invoices exhibited, except at page No.35 of the Respondent’s documents, which was an invoice for a sum of Rs.11,29,930/-. The sum total of all the invoices was Rs.48,78,804/- and this amount was the same as reflected in Ex.PW1/5 i.e., the ledger of the Respondent. These invoices were exhibited as Ex.PW1/6 collectively. Further, the