* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 26^th February, 2026 Pronounced on: 30^th March, 2026 Uploaded on: 30^th March, 2026 + RFA (COMM) 162/2025, CM APPL. 16990/2025 & CM APPL.

8357/2026 FEROZ KHAN AND ORS. ...Appellants Through: Mr. Gaurav Dalal, Adv.

versus ANIL JAIN ...Respondent Through: Mr.Tejveer Singh Bhatia &Mr.

Sanjog Singh Arneja,Advs.(M:

8888887663)

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

J U D G M E N T

MADHU JAIN, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellants under Section 13 oftheCommercialCourtsAct,2015readwithSection96oftheCodeofCivil Procedure, 1908, inter alia, assailing the Impugned Judgment and Decree dated 1^st June, 2024 passed bythe ld. District Judge (Commercial Court - 05), Tis HazariCourts,WestDelhi,in CS(COMM.) No.116/2019 titled ‘Sh.Anil Jain v. Sh. Feroz Khan & Ors.’ (hereinafter, ‘Impugned Judgment and Decree’).

3. Vide the Impugned Judgment, the suit preferred by the Respondent/Plaintiff has been decreed in the following terms:

“RELIEF

11. In view of my issues wise findings, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for recovery of Rs.8,89,350/- alongwith costs. Plaintiff is also awarded pendentelite and future interest @ 9% per annum. The defendants shall be jointly and severally liable to paythedecreetalamounttotheplaintiff.Decreesheet be prepared. File be consigned to record Room.”

Factual Background

4. The brief factual matrix giving rise to the present appeal is as follows: 5. The Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter, ‘Plaintiff’) is engaged in the business of sale and supply of various chemical products and carries on business in the name and style of its proprietorship firm M/s Jain Chemicals. Appellant No. 3/Defendant No. 3 is a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s New Chemical Industries, engaged in the business of wholesale and retail trade of various acids and chemicals, and Appellant Nos.1 and 2/Defendant Nos.1 and 2 (hereinafter, collectively ‘Defendants’) are its partners.

6. The Plaintiff and the Defendants had an established business relationship for several years. The Defendants placed orders for chemical products on credit, and goods were supplied in accordance with their instructions. In March 2016, the Plaintiff raised three invoices amounting to Rs.5,77,500/-, and the goods were dispatched from Nangloi, Delhi, in accordancewiththespecificationsprovidedbytheDefendants,whoarestated to have acknowledged receipt thereof.

7. The Plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 23^rd February, 2019 calling upon Defendant No.1 to discharge the outstanding principal amount of Rs.

5,77,500/-. The Plaintiff also claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the said amount, which was calculated at Rs. 3,11,850/-. Accordingly, the total amount claimed by the Plaintiff was Rs. 8,89,350/-.

8. On the contrary, the Defendants stated that although the invoices were delivered by Mr. Ashok Jain, the Special Power of Attorney holder of the Plaintiff, in March 2016, the goods corresponding to those invoices were never physically supplied or delivered to them. According to the Defendants, the said invoices were inadvertently entered in the books of account of Defendant No. 3 and were also reflected in their VAT returns, despite no goods having been received and no corresponding payment having been made.

9. In the Written Statement filed by Defendant No. 1, the stand taken by the Defendants was that the invoices in question were fictitious bills or entry bills and that no goods were ever supplied to them. Furthermore, the entries in the books of accounts were inadvertently made by their accountant and, therefore,no liabilityarises against themin respect ofthesaidinvoices.In the Replication, the Plaintiff denied the averments made bythe Defendants in the Written Statement and reiterated the contents of the plaint.

10. Prior to institution of the suit, the Plaintiff had initiated Pre-Institution Mediation Proceedings before the District L