Delhi District Court
Surinder Mohan Jindal vs Krishan Lal on 24 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH.RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-05,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM.) No.524/2024
(Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja)
CNR No. DLWT01-005507-2024
Mr. Surinder Mohan Jindal
S/o Mr. Moti Ram Jindal
Proprietor of
M/s Jindal Paper Mart
R/o B-134, Sudhra Colony,
Sarai Rohilla, Delhi-110 035.
Office at:-
982/5, Goyal Market,
Chhota Chippiwara,
Chawri Bazar, Delhi-110 006.
........Plaintiff
Through:-Mr. Archit Singhal along with
Ms. Ritu Jain and Ms.Kritika advocates.
Versus
Mr. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja
S/o Late Sh. Manohar Lal Suneja
Proprietor of
Global Enterprises,
R/o BF-15, Third Floor,
BF Block, Tagore Garden, Delhi-110 027.
Office at:-
C-159, Room No.201-A,
Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I,
South-West Delhi, Delhi-110 028.
Also at:-
B-234, Naraina Industrial Area,
Digitally
signed by
CS (COMM.) No.524/2024
Raj Raj Kumar
Tripathi (Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 1 of 22
Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.24
14:14:54
+0530
Phase-I, South-West Delhi, Delhi-110 028.
......Defendant
Mr. Rishi Manchanda along with
Mr. Siddharth Mullick, advocates
Date of filing of suit : 27.06.2024
Arguments heard on : 12.02.2026
Date of Judgment : 24.02.2026
JUDGMENT:
1.1 This is a suit filed by plaintiff against defendant for
seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.1,01,97,217/- (Rupees One
Crore One Lakh Ninety Seven Thousand Two Hundred Seventeen
only) along with pendente lite and future interest @ 30% per
annum and cost of the suit.
Brief facts of the case:-
2.1 Plaintiff Mr.Surinder Mohan Jindal, proprietor of
M/s Jindal Paper Mart, is inter alia engaged in the business of
paper & boards (hereinafter to be referred as ‘products’).
2.2 Mr.Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja, proprietor of M/s
Global Enterprises, is also engaged in the wholesale and retail
business of paper and board materials.
2.3 Defendant approached the plaintiff and expressed his
desire to have business dealings with him. He placed orders upon
plaintiff as per his requirements, who duly supplied the desired
products to him as per agreed terms and conditions.
2.4 As per plaintiff, defendant placed various orders at
different point of time. Defendant used to make part payments
availing some credit, which was allowed by plaintiff in good
Raj Kumar faith, trust and believing the assurance given by defendant that
Tripathi
Digitally signed by
Raj Kumar Tripathi
Date: 2026.02.24 CS (COMM.) No.524/2024
14:15:00 +0530
(Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 2 of 22
payment will be made shortly.
2.5 Plaintiff raised and issued various invoices against
the goods supplied to defendant. He claims to have maintained a
running account of defendant. As per the ledger account, an
amount of Rs.94,86,217/- is due and payable by defendant.
2.6 Plaintiff made several requests to defendant through
e-mail, telephonic communications, messages and by sending
personal messenger to his office for releasing the outstanding
dues, who kept on assuring to pay the same within a short period
but failed to honour his promises.
2.7 Constrained by the acts of defendant, plaintiff sent a
legal notice dated 26.03.2024 to him, demanding the release of
outstanding amount, who despite service of the same, failed to
clear the payment. Hence, the present suit.
2.8 Before filing of the suit, plaintiff filed an application
for Pre-Institution Mediation before West District Legal Services
Authority, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 12.04.2024 in compliance
of section 12A of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, where due
to non-appearance and non-participation by defendant despite
issuance of notices, the process of mediation was treated as non-
starter vide Report dated 13.05.2024.
Defence of defendant
3.1 Defendant contested the suit by way of filing written
statement. In the written statement, he contended that the sole
intention of filing the present suit by plaintiff is to extort money
from him and to unjustly enrich himself at his cost. Plaintiff has
not come to the Court with clean hands and concealed the true,
Digitally
signed by
Raj Raj Kumar
Tripathi
Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.24
14:15:06 CS (COMM.) No.524/2024
+0530
(Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 3 of 22
crucial and material facts, relevant for adjudication of controversy
from this Court. No cause of action has arisen in favour of
plaintiff and against defendant. He has filed the present suit with
malafide intentions to cause harassment, loss and mental agony to
defendant.
3.2 He further contended that the suit filed by plaintiff is
hopelessly barred by law of limitation as he is claiming the
amount for the invoices pertaining to the year 2018 onwards.
Plaintiff filed the present suit in June 2024 i.e. after a period of
six years. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
3.3 As per defendant, the parties are known to each other
for last more than twenty five years and they are engaged in the
business of paper and paper boards. He submits that in 2018,
plaintiff approached him and communicated that he is facing
sever losses in his business and his business sales are drastically
going down. Plaintiff intended to take financial assistance from
various banks and financial institutions and for the same, he
required help and assistance of defendant.
3.4 Plaintiff also requested defendant to start business
dealings with him and accordingly, he started purchasing goods
from plaintiff to help him. Plaintiff raised invoices against
defendant, who made payment in terms of invoices.
3.5 Defendant contends that besides actual dealings,
plaintiff also raised various extra invoices in his favour, without
actual trading of goods to show his (plaintiff) business on a higher
side. As per defendant, plaintiff communicated him that in order
to further increase sales of his business and to show trading on the
Digitally
signed by
higher side, he would generate bills in his (defendant’s) firm’s
Raj Raj Kumar
Tripathi
Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.24
14:15:13
+0530CS (COMM.) No.524/2024
(Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 4 of 22
name i.e. Global Enterprises without actual trading of goods
which would help him (plaintiff) to show his sales on a higher
side and would enable him to take loans and financial assistance
from the banks i.e. HDFC bank, Tata Capital, ICICI Bank,
Standard Chartered bank etc. amounting Rs.40,00,000/-, which
plaintiff was unable to repay.
3.6 It is submitted that the parties were in business
dealings with each other till October, 2020 and thereafter,
defendant had closed down his business and had made the entire
payment to plaintiff till 2021 regarding the purchases made by
him and nothing is due and payable by him towards plaintiff.
3.7 Defendant avers that he returned the benefits on the
bills issued by plaintiff to him by depositing the cash in plaintiff’s
bank account and by handing over cash to him on his specific
demand. He alleged that plaintiff filed the present false and
frivolous suit on the basis of fabricated bills generated by him.
Denying all the other averments and allegations of the plaint,
defendant prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary cost.
Issues
4.1 From the pleadings of the parties, the following
issues were framed on 07.01.2026:-
(i) Whether the suit filed by plaintiff is barred
by law of limitation as alleged in para no.9 of
the preliminary objections of the written
statement?OPD.
(ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of
an amount of Rs.1,01,97,217/- as prayed for?
OPP.
(iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest, if
so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
Raj Kumar (iv) Relief. Tripathi Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2026.02.24 14:15:19 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.524/2024
(Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 5 of 22
Evidence of parties
5.1 In support of his case, plaintiff examined himself as
PW1. He filed his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.PW1/A,
wherein he has reiterated and reaffirmed the same facts as stated
in the plaint.
5.2 Before coming to the testimony of PW1, the
documents relied upon by him are put in a tabulated form as
under:-
S.No. Details of Document Exhibit Mark
1. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex.PW1/1
2. GST details of his firm Ex.PW1/2
3. Copy of GST details of defendant firm Ex.PW1/3
4. Copy of invoices Ex.PW1/4
(colly)
5. E-way bills Ex.PW1/5
(colly.)
6. Copy of proof of delivery Ex.PW1/6
(colly.)
7. Copy of ledger account Ex.PW1/7
8. Certificate u/s 65B of The Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW1/8
9. Original legal notice dated 26.03.2024 Ex.PW1/9
10. Original postal receipts and tracking report Ex.PW1/10
11. Copy of legal notice sent via whatsapp dated Ex.PW1/11
30.03.2024
6.1 On the other hand, in his defence, defendant
examined himself as DW1. He filed his evidence by way of
affidavit, Ex.DW1/A, wherein, he has deposed on the lines of
defence taken in the written statement.
Findings and Observations:
Digitally
signed by
7.1 I have heard and considered the rival submissions of
Raj Raj Kumar
Tripathi
Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.24
14:15:26
+0530CS (COMM.) No.524/2024
(Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 6 of 22
both the parties and perused the material on record.
Issue wise findings are as under:-
Issue no.(i)
Whether the suit filed by plaintiff is barred by law of limitation
as alleged in para no.9 of the preliminary objections of the written
statement?OPD.
8.1 Onus to prove this issue lies on defendant.
8.2 In para no.9 of the written statement, defendant
contended that plaintiff’s suit is hopelessly barred by law of
limitation as he is claiming the amount for the invoices pertaining
to the year 2018 onwards. Plaintiff has filed the present suit in
June, 2024 i.e. after a period of six years. Therefore, the suit of
plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
8.3 Per contra, learned counsel for plaintiff submitted
that defendant has admitted the terms and conditions of invoice
and subsequently made payment to plaintiff as per the invoices
raised again him. He submitted that the total liability of
defendant comes to Rs.1,01,97,217/- which he failed to pay
despite issuance and service of legal notice. He further submitted
that the defendant lastly made payment of Rs.30,000/- on
31.12.2023, thereby admitting the subsisting business relationship
with plaintiff. He submitted that plaintiff has filed the present suit
within three years from the date of last payment made by
defendant and thus, the suit is well within limitation.
8.4 PW1 has proved the ledger account of defendant as
Ex.PW1/7. The said ledger is showing debit and credit entries in
Raj Kumar
Tripathi respect of transactions between the parties. Defendant has failed
Digitally signed by
Raj Kumar Tripathi
Date: 2026.02.24 to point out any discrepancy in respect of debit and credit entries
14:15:32 +0530
CS (COMM.) No.524/2024
(Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 7 of 22
in the ledger account maintained by plaintiff. The said ledger
reflects that defendant lastly made payment of Rs.30,000/- to
plaintiff on 31.12.2023. Plaintiff filed the present suit on
27.06.2024 i.e. within three years from the date of last payment
made by defendant. Thus, the suit filed by plaintiff is found to be
well within limitation.
8.5 In view of above, in the opinion of this Court,
defendant has failed to discharge the onus to prove the issue.
According, issue no.(i) is decided in favour of plaintiff and
against the defendant.
Issue no.(ii)
Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of an amount of
Rs.1,01,97,217/- as prayed for?OPP.
9.1 Onus to prove this issue lies on plaintiff.
9.2 In order to discharge the onus to prove the issue,
plaintiff Mr. Surinder Mohan Jindal examined himself as PW1.
He filed his evidence by way affidavit, Ex.PW1/A, wherein, he
has deposed and corroborated about the facts as mentioned in the
plaint. He proved the documents, Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/11 as
mentioned in para no.5.2 of the judgment.
9.3 PW1, in his affidavit of evidence, has deposed that
defendant approached him for purchase of products and he
supplied/delivered the desired products against invoices
(Ex.PW1/4-colly.). He further deposed that defendant made part
payments against the invoices. He proved the ledger account as
Ex.PW1/7 showing the payments made by defendant from time to
time. As per, Ex.PW1/7, an amount of Rs.94,86,217/- remained
Digitally
signed by
outstanding and payable by defendant. Plaintiff served a legal
Raj Raj Kumar
Tripathi
Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.24
14:15:38CS (COMM.) No.524/2024
+0530(Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 8 of 22
notice (Ex.PW1/9) to defendant via whatsapp (Ex.PW1/11), who
despite service of the same, failed to pay the outstanding amount.
The invoices, Ex.PW1/4 (colly.), e-way bills, Ex.PW1/5 (colly.),
proof of delivery Ex.PW1/6 (colly.) and copy of ledger account,
Ex.PW1/7 have been supported by a Certificate u/s 65 B of The
Indian Evidence Act,1872 Ex.PW1/8.
9.4 To prove his case, plaintiff also got examined a
witness namely Mr. Mohit from GST Department, Vyapar
Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi as PW2. PW2 was authorized vide
Authority Letter, Ex.PW2/1 to produce the summoned record to
the Court. He brought the documents i.e. GSTR-2A (Ex.PW2/3-
colly.) and GSTR-3B (Ex.PW2/4-colly.). He also produced letter
no.DT&T/GSTO/W-104/2023-24/03 dated 28.01.2026
(Ex.PW2/5) and Certificate u/s 63 of The Bhartiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023 (Ex.PW2/2) in support of documents Ex.PW2/3
(colly.) and Ex.PW2/4 (colly.).
9.5 On the other hand, to prove his defence, defendant
himself entered into the witness box and examined himself as
DW1. He filed his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.DW1/A,
wherein, he has deposed on the lines of defence taken in the
written statement.
9.6 It is well settled that in a civil case, the evidence is
weighed on the scale of “preponderance of probabilities”.
9.7 In the case in hand, as far as delivery of
goods/acknowledgment is concerned, PW1 has brought on record,
proof of delivery as Ex.PW1/6 (colly.) along with e-way bills,
Ex.PW1/5 (colly.). The vehicle numbers through which the goods
Raj Kumar were transported are mentioned in tax invoices, Ex.PW1/4 (colly.)
Tripathi
Digitally signed by
Raj Kumar Tripathi
Date: 2026.02.24
14:15:44 +0530
CS (COMM.) No.524/2024
(Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 9 of 22
and e-way bills, Ex.PW1/5 (colly.). The proof of delivery clearly
shows that goods were received by defendant. The defendant, in
the affidavit of admission/denial dated 06.01.2026 qua plaintiff’s
documents, has admitted receipt of invoices and e-way bills.
Thus, plaintiff has brought on record sufficient proof by way of
exhibiting the documents, Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/11 qua business
transactions and the outstanding amount.
9.8 Learned counsel for defendant submitted that
plaintiff has filed 491 invoices with the present suit. However, in
support of said invoices, he has filed only 21 e-way bills and 24
delivery notes (out of which only 17 bears the signature of
defendant) which clearly demonstrate that all other invoices
without the e-way bills and delivery notes are entry bills (extra
invoices/sham transactions) and were only generated by plaintiff
to show his sales on the higher side without there being any actual
delivery of goods from plaintiff to defendant.
9.9 He further submitted that since plaintiff has failed to
file the corresponding e-way bills and delivery notes regarding
the alleged invoices, therefore, he has failed to prove that the
goods were in fact actually delivered by him to defendant and an
adverse inference should be drawn against plaintiff. Relying
upon the judgments titled as Mohinder Kumar Gandhi v. Praveen
Kumar RFA (COMM) 489/2025 dated 08.10.2025 passed by
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi; M/s Anant Raj Industries v. M/s
DLF Construction & Engineering 2011 SCC OnLine Del 854 and
J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Dynamic Cement Traders 2012 SCC
OnLine Del 4817, counsel for defendant submitted that as
Digitally
signed by
plaintiff has failed to prove the delivery of goods regarding each
Raj Raj Kumar
Tripathi
Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.24
14:16:05
+0530
CS (COMM.) No.524/2024
(Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 10 of 22
and every invoice, he is not entitled for recovery of the amount as
prayed in the plaint.
9.10 Per contra, learned counsel for plaintiff submitted
that pursuant to purchase orders placed by defendant, plaintiff
supplied goods to him and raised invoices Ex.PW1/4 (colly.).
The defendant has admitted the invoices, e-way bills, Ex.PW1/5
(colly.) and delivery notes, Ex.PW1/6 (colly.). Plaintiff
maintained a running ledger account with defendant, Ex.PW1/7
(colly.) showing an outstanding amount of Rs.94,86,217/- and
after adding interest @ 30% per annum as per terms and
conditions of invoices, the total liability of defendant comes to
Rs.1,01,97,217/-. Defendant made last payment of Rs.30,000/- to
plaintiff on 31.12.2023, thereby admitting the subsisting business
relationship.
9.11 He further submitted that in order to prove the
delivery of goods, plaintiff has examined PW2 Mr. Mohit, a
witness from GST Department, who has proved the documents
i.e. GSTR-2A, Ex.PW2/3 (colly.) and GSTR-3B, Ex.PW2/4
(colly.). He submitted that defendant has taken the GST input as
reflected in GSTR-3B which clearly substantiates the delivery of
goods to defendant. He argued that if the invoices are forged and
fabricated as alleged, then how they are reflecting in 2A because
as per GST Act, only those invoices which are received and goods
are delivered can only be reflected in 2A. In support of his
submissions, counsel for plaintiff placed reliance on judgment
Haryana Medical Hall & Others v. Roshan Lal Aggarwal & Sons
Pvt. Ltd. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8105.
Raj 9.12 He also invited attention of this Court to the Kumar Tripathi Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi CS (COMM.) No.524/2024 Date: 2026.02.24 14:16:10 +0530 (Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 11 of 22
provisions contained in section 16 (2) (b) of The Central Goods
And Services Act, 2017 (in short “CGSA, 2017), Sub-Rules 11
and 12 of Rule 138 of The Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
He also placed reliance upon Sun Flag Iron & Steel Co. v. State of
U.P. & Others MANU/UP/3652/2023. Referring to the above,
learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that the goods were
actually delivered to defendant and delivery of same stands
proved on the strength of documents proved by plaintiff and the
GST witness summoned by him. He prayed to decree the suit
accordingly.
9.13 For ease of convenience, the relevant provisions
contained u/s 138 of The Central Goods Services Tax (CGST)
Rules, 2017 are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
“138. Information to be furnished prior to
commencement of movement of goods and
generation of e-way bill.
11) The details of the e-way bill generated under this
rule shall be made available to the-
(a) supplier, if registered, where the information in
Part A of FORM GST EWB-01 has been furnished
by the recipient or the transporter; or
(b) recipient, if registered, where the information in
Part A of FORM GST EWB-01 has been furnished
by the supplier or the transporter, on the common
portal, and the supplier or the recipient, as the case
may be, shall communicate his acceptance or
rejection of the consignment covered by the e-way
bill
(12) Where the person to whom the information
specified in sub-rule (11) has been made available
does not communicate his acceptance or rejection
within seventy two hours of the details being made
available to him on the common portal, it shall be
deemed that he has accepted the said details.”
(emphasis added)
9.14 A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions shows that
Digitally
signed by
Raj Raj Kumar
Tripathi
Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.24
14:16:17
+0530 CS (COMM.) No.524/2024
(Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 12 of 22
Rule 138 (12) of CGST Rules, 2017 creates a statutory
presumption that if the buyer does not reject the e-way bill within
72 hours on the GST portal, acceptance of goods is deemed.
9.15 In Sanjana Aggarwal v. Namashivai Apparel Pvt.
Ltd. 2024:DHC:9987, it was held as under:-
“38. Rule 138 of CGST Rules provide for the rules
for generation of “e-way bills”. Sub-Rule (11) and
(12) of Rule 138 of the CGST Rules provide that the
details of “e-way bills” generated under Rule 138 of
the CGST Rules shall be available on the common
portal and the supplier or the recipient, as the case
may be, shall communicate his acceptance or
rejection of the assessment of the goods covered in
the “e-way bills”. Sub-Rule (12) of Rule 138 of the
CGST Rules provides that if a rejection is not made
available within 72 hours on the common portal or at
the time of delivery, it shall be deemed that the
recipient has accepted the goods.”
9.16 Further, in the case of M/s Sun Flag Iron And Steel
Company Ltd. (supra.), Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held as
under:-
“12. The purpose of e-way bill is that the department
should know the movement of goods. Once the e-
way bill has been generated and same has not been
canceled by the petitioner within the time prescribed
under the Act, the movement of goods as well as
genuineness of transaction in question cannot be
disputed. The goods in question could not reach to
its destination due to the breakdown of vehicle as
stated above and after repair, the vehicle was ready
for its onward journey but the same was intercepted
in the intervening night of 2/3.6.2023. Since the
authorities below have not recorded a finding that
there was any intention of the petitioner to evade the
payment of tax, the penalty is not justified”.
9.17 In the case in hand, admittedly, defendant has never
rejected or objected to the e-way bills. The e-way bills filed by
Digitally
Raj
signed by
Raj Kumar
Tripathi
plaintiff along with plaint have been admitted by defendant in his
Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.24
14:16:24
+0530CS (COMM.) No.524/2024
(Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 13 of 22
affidavit of admission/denial dated 06.01.2026. Thus, proof of
delivery qua the goods supplied to defendant through e-way bills
stands proved on record.
9.18 As far as delivery of goods qua other invoices are
concerned, defendant has taken input tax credit as reflected in
GSTR-3B (Ex.PW2/4-colly.) in respect of the invoices raised by
plaintiff as reflected in GSTR-2A (Ex.PW2/3-colly.) which
substantiates the delivery of goods to defendant. Chapter-V of
CGSA, 2017 deals with input tax credit. For ease of reference,
the provisions contained in section 16 of CGSA, 2017 are
extracted herein below:-
“16. Eligibility and conditions for taking input tax
credit. (1) Every registered person shall, subject to
such conditions and restrictions as may be
prescribed and in the manner specified in section 49,
be entitled to take credit of input tax charged on any
supply of goods or services or both to him which are
used or intended to be used in the course or
furtherance of his business and the said amount shall
be credited to the electronic credit ledger of such
person.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this
section, no registered person shall be entitled to the
credit of any input tax in respect of any supply of
goods or services or both to him unless-
(a) he is in possession of a tax invoice or debit note
issued by a supplier registered under this Act or such
other tax paying documents as may be prescribed;
(aa) the details of the invoice or debit note referred
to in clause (a) has been furnished by the supplier in
the statement of outward supplies and such details
have been communicated to the recipient of such
invoice or debit note in the manner specified under
section 37;]
(b) he has received the goods or services or both.”
9.19 From the aforesaid and as the defendant has
admittedly availed input tax credit in respect of the invoices
Digitally
signed by
Tripathi CS (COMM.) No.524/2024
Raj Raj Kumar
Kumar Date:
(Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja)
Tripathi 2026.02.24 Page No. 14 of 22
14:16:31
+0530
raised by plaintiff, he is deemed to have received the goods. In
Haryana Medical Hall and Others (supra), Hon’ble Delhi High
Court held as under:-
“The respondent had also produced GSTR returns,
which were referred to by the learned Commercial
Court. The contention that the said returns had no
evidentiary value is erroneous. The said returns
clearly indicated that the respondent had paid
Central tax as well as State/UT tax and the benefit of
such input tax credit of the said amount would be
available to the appellants.”
9.20 The defence of defendant that the entry bills were
raised by plaintiff and there was no actual delivery of goods
stands falsified by the documents Ex.PW2/3 (colly.) and
Ex.PW2/4 (colly.) produced by PW2 Mr. Mohit.
9.21 It is pertinent to note that post GST cancellation of
defendant, plaintiff raised the following four invoices:-
S.No. Page No. Invoice No. Date Amount (Rs.)
485 530 962 01.09.2020 53,077/-
489 531 964 07.10.2020 85,138/-
490 532 965 14.10.2020 90,180/-
491 533 966 29.10.2020 29,019/-
Total 2,57,414/-
9.22 Plaintiff has neither filed the delivery challans
acknowledged by defendant nor filed the e-way bills in respect of
the aforesaid four invoices. Thus, he failed to prove the delivery
of goods qua the aforesaid invoices. Accordingly, plaintiff is not
entitled for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,57,414/- against
invoice no.962,964, 965 and 966.
9.23 PW1 has proved the invoices raised upon defendant
DigitallyRaj
signed by
Raj Kumar
Tripathi
as Ex.PW1/4 (colly.) and ledger account as Ex.PW1/7. These
Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.24
14:16:37
+0530
CS (COMM.) No.524/2024
(Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 15 of 22
documents are supported with requisite Certificate u/s 65B of The
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ex.PW1/8.
9.24 Section 28 of The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
2023 relates to entries in books of account. It provides that the
entries in the books of account, including those maintained in an
electronic form, regularly kept in the course of business are
relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has
to enquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient
evidence to charge any person with liability.
9.25 In the case of Dharam Chand Joshi v. Satya Narayan
Bazaz AIR 1993 Gau 35, it was held that books of account being
only corroborative evidence must be supported by some evidence.
9.26 Further, in the case of Jay Ambe Industries,
proprietor Shri Dineshkumar Bajranglal Somani v. Garnet
Speciality Paper Ltd. AIR 2022 Guj 90, it was held that without
corroboration, entries in the ledger cannot be brought within the
purview of section 34 of The Evidence Act.
9.27 In the case in hand, the ledger account, Ex.PW1/7 is
supported with the invoices, Ex.PW1/4 (colly.) raised by plaintiff
upon defendant towards supply of goods/products. All the
payments made by defendant are duly reflected in the ledger
account, Ex.PW1/7. Defendant, in his cross-examination,
admitted that all the invoices of the plaintiff have been duly
received by him. In reply to question no.11, defendant stated that
he used to make part payment to plaintiff. Defendant has not
filed any documentary proof on record i.e. ledger account,
payment receipts, bank statement etc. to prove that he has made
Digitally
signed by
Raj Raj Kumar
Tripathi
Kumar Date:
payment of the outstanding amount to plaintiff. He has further
Tripathi 2026.02.24
14:16:43
+0530CS (COMM.) No.524/2024
(Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 16 of 22
failed to point out any discrepancy in the ledger account,
Ex.PW1/7 maintained by plaintiff in the regular course of
business. Thus, there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the
ledger account produced by plaintiff.
9.28 As per ledger account, Ex.PW1/7, an amount of
Rs.94,86,217/- remained due and payable by defendant to
plaintiff as on 31.12.2023. In para no.9.22, this Court has held
that plaintiff is not entitled to recover an amount of Rs.2,57,414/-
from defendant since he has failed to prove the delivery of goods
qua the said amount. Thus, plaintiff is held entitled to recover an
amount of Rs.92,28,803/-.
9.29 Defendant claims to have made entire payment to
plaintiff regarding the purchases made by him from plaintiff. As
per defendant, there was nothing due and payable by him to
plaintiff. The entire defence of defendant is based on the bald
assertions made in the written statement. He has not filed any
documentary proof or led any reliable evidence to substantiate the
defence taken in the written statement. Thus, defendant has
miserably failed to prove on record the defence as taken in the
written statement. He has further failed to prove on record that
the payment of the outstanding amount has been made to plaintiff.
9.30 The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for
defendant are not found applicable in the facts and circumstances
of the case. In Mohinder Kumar Gandhi’s case (supra),
independent witness from GST department was not examined to
prove the delivery of goods upon defendant. However, in the
Raj Kumar
Tripathi present case, plaintiff has summoned PW2 Mr. Mohit from GST
Digitally signed by
Raj Kumar Tripathi department, who has proved GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B showing
Date: 2026.02.24
14:16:50 +0530
CS (COMM.) No.524/2024
(Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 17 of 22
delivery of goods upon defendant.
9.31 In J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra), it was held that mere
entry in the statement of account does not fasten any liability and
the entries in the statement of account have to be proved by
means of documents/vouchers of transactions. In the present
case, the entries of the ledger account, Ex.PW1/7 have been
corroborated with invoices Ex.PW1/4 (colly.). Thus, the entries
made in the ledger account supported with invoices are relevant
and admissible in the present facts and circumstances of the case
in terms of section 28 of The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
9.32 In Anant Raj Industries (supra), Hon’ble Delhi High
Court observed that simply by filing statement of account, a suit
cannot be decreed for recovery of money unless the entries are
proved which show the sale of goods. In that case, there was
specific written proof from defendant disputing the three bills.
There was no other document apart from the statement of account
and invoices to prove the delivery of goods. However, in the
present case, apart from e-way bills, the documents i.e.
GSTR-2A, Ex.PW2/3 (colly.) and GSTR-3B, Ex.PW2/4 (colly.)
have been proved by plaintiff to prove the delivery of goods upon
defendant.
9.33 In view of above, plaintiff has succeeded to
discharge the onus to prove the issue. Plaintiff is held entitled to
recover an amount of Rs.92,28,803/- from defendant. Issue no.
(ii) is decided accordingly in favour of plaintiff and against the
defendant.
Issue no.(iii)
Digitally
Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, at what rate and for
signed by
Raj Raj Kumar
Tripathi
Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.24
14:16:56
+0530 CS (COMM.) No.524/2024
(Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 18 of 22
which period? OPP.
10.1 Onus to prove this issue lies on plaintiff.
10.2 Plaintiff has claimed pendente lite and future interest
@ 30% per annum. Plaintiff has relied upon the terms and
conditions mentioned in tax invoices, Ex.PW1/4 (colly.)
10.3 Plaintiff has proved that there is an outstanding
amount of Rs.92,28,803/- against defendant towards the invoices
raised by him which he has failed to pay.
10.4 The business relationship between the parties is not
disputed. Defendant, in his cross-examination, has admitted that
he received all the invoices raised by plaintiff. Plaintiff has
submitted that according to the terms of the invoices, defendant is
liable to pay interest @ 30% per annum.
10.5 Plaintiff demanded the due amount from defendant
by sending legal notice, Ex.PW1/9 through speed post as well as
through whatsapp, Ex.PW1/11. However, the defendant failed to
pay due amount despite due service of legal notice. Therefore, in
terms of section 3 of The Interest Act, 1978, defendant is liable to
pay the contractual interest, if the same is not unreasonable.
10.6 For ease of convenience, section 34 of The Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 which deals with interest is reproduced
hereunder for ready reference:-
“34. Interest.- (1) Where and in so far as a
decree is for the payment of money, the Court
may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as
the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the
principal sum adjudged, from the date of the
suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any
interest adjudged on such principal sum for any
Raj Kumar period prior to the institution of the suit, with
Tripathi further interest at such rate not exceeding six
Digitally signed by
Raj Kumar Tripathi
per cent, per annum, as the Court deems
Date: 2026.02.24
14:17:03 +0530CS (COMM.) No.524/2024
(Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 19 of 22
reasonable on such principal sum, from the
date of the decree to the date of payment, or to
such earlier date as the Court thinks fit.
Provided that where the liability in
relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out
of a commercial transaction, the rate of such
further interest may exceed six per cent, per
annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate
of interest or where there is no contractual rate,
the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced
by nationalized banks in relation to commercial
transactions……”.
10.7 The concept of awarding interest on delayed
payment has been explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Authorized Officer, Karnataka Bank v. M/s RMS Granites
Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.12294/2024, wherein, it was
held as under:-
“It may be mentioned that there is
misconception about interest. Interest is not a
penalty or punishment at all, but it is the
normal accretion on capital. For example if A
had to pay B a certain amount, say ten years
ago, but he offers that amount to him today,
then he has pocketed the interest on the
principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B
ten years ago, B would have invested that
amount somewhere and earned interest thereon,
but instead of that A has kept that amount with
himself and earned interest on it for this period.
Hence equity demands that A should not only
pay back the principal amount but also the
interest thereon to B. [See: Alok Shanker
Pandey v. Union of India: AIR 2007 SC
1198.]”
10.8 Further, in the case of Secretary, Irrigation
Department Government of Orissa v. G.C. Roy (1992) 1 SCC
508, the constitution bench of Hon’ble Apex Court opined that a
person deprived of use of money to which he is legitimately
Raj Kumar
Tripathi entitled has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it
Digitally signed by
Raj Kumar Tripathi
Date: 2026.02.24
14:17:10 +0530
CS (COMM.) No.524/2024
(Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 20 of 22
by any name. It may be called interest, compensation or
damages. This is also the principle of section 34 of The Civil
Procedure Code.
10.9 In the case of M/s Tomorrowland Ltd. v. Housing
and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. & Another SLP(C) No.
34338/2016 decided on 13.02.2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed as under:-
“49. It is trite law that under Section 34 of the CPC,
the award of interest is a discretionary exercise
steeped in equitable considerations. The law in this
regard has been succinctly discussed in the
Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in
Central Bank of India v. Ravindra & Ors.; (2002) 1
SCC 367, which states:
“Award of interest pendente lite or post-decree
is discretionary with the Court as it is
essentially governed by Section 34 of the CPC
de hors the contract between the parties. In a
given case if the Court finds that in the principal
sum adjudged on the date of the suit, the
component of interest is disproportionate with
the component of the principal sum actually
advanced, the Court may exercise its discretion
in awarding interest pendente lite and post-
decree interest at a lower rate or may even
decline to award such interest. The discretion
shall be exercised fairly, judiciously, and for not
arbitrary or fanciful reasons.
Emphasis supplied”
10.10 In the case in hand, plaintiff has claimed pre-suit,
pendente lite and future interest @ 30% per annum. The rate of
interest claimed by plaintiff appears to be exorbitant and
excessive. Thus, applying ratio of law laid down in the
aforementioned cases with respect to grant of interest to the facts
of the present case and as the transaction between the parties is
commercial in nature, this Court is of the considered view that
Digitally
signed by
Raj Raj Kumar
Tripathi
Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.24
14:17:16
+0530CS (COMM.) No.524/2024
(Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 21 of 22
interest of justice shall be subserved, if plaintiff is granted interest
@ 8% per annum on the delayed payment.
10.11 The issue no.(iii) is decided accordingly in favour of
plaintiff and against the defendant.
Relief
11.1 For the forgoing reasons and discussions and
findings returned on issue no.(i) to (iii), the suit of plaintiff is
decreed with cost. Defendant is directed to pay an amount of
Rs.92,28,803/- to plaintiff along with interest @ 8% per annum
w.e.f. 01.01.2024 (last payment made by defendant on
31.12.2023) till the date of filing of the suit and from the date of
filing of the suit i.e. 27.06.2024 till the date of actual payment.
He is further directed to pay legal fees of Rs.11,000/- to plaintiff.
12.1 Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
13.1 File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court Digitally
signed by
Dated: 24.02.2026 Raj
Kumar
Raj Kumar
Tripathi
Date:
Tripathi 2026.02.24
14:17:22
+0530(RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-05,
West District, Tis Hazari Courts, DelhiCS (COMM.) No.524/2024
(Surinder Mohan Jindal v. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja) Page No. 22 of 22
