$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA(COMM) 110/2026 & CM APPL. 11868/2026 MALHOTRA ELECTRONICS PVT LTD .....APPELLANT Through: Mr.Sushant Singhal, Mr.Prateek Sharma, Advs.

versus KAIZEN SHIPPING PVT LTD .....RESPONDENT Through: Nemo.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

O R D E R

% 20.02.2026 CM APPL. 11869/2026 (Exemption

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of CM APPL. 11870/2026(delay of 2 days in re-filing)

3. For the reasons explained as also for the sufficient cause being shown in the application, the delay of two days in re-filing is condoned.

4. The application, accordingly, stands disposed of.

RFA(COMM) 110/2026

5. Heard.

6. This appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 14^th November 2025 passed by learned District Judge, Commercial Court, West District, Tis Hazari in CS COMM No.553/2024 titled as “M/s Kaizen Shipping Pvt. Ltd.

v. M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/original defendant, while substantiating his contention that the liability of the appellant/original defendant was not established has invited our attention to the ledger account produced by the plaintiff/respondent.

8. According to him, the ledger account, Ex. PW1/4, was disputed by the appellant and as such, it was incumbent upon the respondent to prove the said document by adducing cogent evidence.

9. His further contention is that the said document shows an opening balance of Rs. 1,63,79,291/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty-Three Lakhs Seventy- Nine Thousand Two Hundred Ninety-One only) as on 01^st April 2020. According to him, the said document was put to the plaintiff’s witness, PW- 1, who is an Accounts Executive and he stated that there is no document on record to substantiate that there was opening balance of Rs. 1,63,79,291/- on

01^st April, 2020.

10. By accepting the said, his contention is that neither the contents of document Ex.PW1/4 ledger account are proved nor any specific oral evidence to that effect is placed on record. He would further claim that the opening balance of Rs. 1,63,79,291/- as on 01^st April 2020 has neither been established nor proved.

11. According to him, the learned District Judge, Commercial Court, has made his own notes as part of the evidence, which is otherwise not permissible in law.

12. In such an eventuality, the suit was decreed without there being any substantial evidence.

13. His further contention is that, even assuming for the sake of argument that the ledger account was proved, the same cannot be considered a substantial piece of evidence unless it is corroborated by supporting evidence. 14. The learned counsel invited our attention to the failure of the respondent to produce supporting evidence to prove the ledger entries.

15. That being so, issue notice to the respondent through all permissible modes returnable before this Court on 06^th July 2026. 16. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J AJAY DIGPAUL, J FEBRUARY 20, 2026/sky/sk