$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on:.11.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 25.03.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 25.03.2026 + RFA(COMM) 56/2024 MR PURAN JOSHI (Proprietor of S J Cargo Movers)

.....Appellant Through: Mr. Utkarsh Joshi and Mrs.

Anjali Menon, Advs.

versus DECCAN EDIBLES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Ms. Nistha Gupta and Ms.

Sakshi Mehley, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

INTRODUCTION:

1. The present Appeal, preferred under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, challenges the judgment and order dated 09.12.2023 [hereinafter “Impugned Judgment”] passed by the Commercial Court, whereby the Commercial Court rejected the Appellant‟s suit for recovery under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟].

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, the relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed.

3. The Appellant carries on business under the name and style of „M/s S J Cargo Movers‟ as its sole proprietor. The firm is a specialized logistics provider primarily engaged in inland road transportation. The case of the Appellant, as set out in the Plaint, is that the Respondent, a company specializing in the international export of agricultural perishables, approached the Appellant in the year 2018 for a specific commercial assignment. This assignment required the Appellant to manage the logistics of transporting grapes from various cold storage facilities and agricultural hubs within India to designated custom stations and ports for onward export to the Russian Federation.

4. The Appellant asserts that the nature of the goods required specialized refrigerated transport and a high degree of logistical coordination. Between 11.03.2020 and 09.05.2020, notwithstanding the immense logistical constraints imposed by the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown, the Appellant executed approximately 30 different consignments. For these services, the Appellant raised 30 specific invoices, totalling a principal amount of Rs.9,13,087/-. It is the Appellant‟s categorical stand that these invoices were raised directly against the Respondent and that the Respondent accepted the services, and the accompanying invoices without any contemporaneous objection regarding the quality of service or the billed amounts.

5. Crucially, the Appellant has pleaded a consistent “course of dealing” to establish a direct contractual nexus. The Plaint explicitly states that the Respondent had a history of making direct payments into the bank account of „M/s S J Cargo Movers‟ for prior services. Following the non-payment of the 2020 invoices, the Appellant issued several reminders. In response to a final demand, the Respondent sent an email dated 28.07.2021. While the Respondent disputed the outstanding figures in this email, the Appellant contends that the communication serves as an admission of an active business relationship. After the pre-institution mediation resulted in a Non- Starter Report on 19.09.2022, the Appellant filed the suit seeking recovery of the principal sum along with 24% interest per annum, bringing the total claim to Rs. 15,78,580/.

6. On 07.11.2023, the Commercial Court, on its own motion and prior to the issuance of notice, identified thirteen “anomalies” in the Plaint. These included technical observations regarding the Statement of Truth, territorial jurisdiction, and the lack of a registration certificate under the Carriage by Road Act, 2007. However, the pivot of the rejection was the Commercial Court‟s observation that the export documentation (such as Mate‟s Receipts and ocean freight bills) featured a sister concern of the Appellant, M/s SPJ Cargo Private Limited. The Commercial Court surmised that since the “export cycle” involved the sister concern, the Appellant had no independent standing or “privity of contract” with the Respon