Delhi District Court
Cinesales Mfg Private Ltd vs Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd on 15 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-01), NORTH
WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM)/398/2021
CNR No.DLNW010059312021
M/s Cinesales (Mfg) Private Limited
Through Sh. Sunil Chauhan
Director M/s Cinesales (Mfg) Private Limited
Office At C-93, Wazirpur Industrial Area Main Ring
Road, Delhi-110052
Mobile No-9810272444
Email- [email protected]
...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/s Carnival Films Private Limited
Popularly known as Carnival Group
Through-Shri Kunal Sawhnay VO Operations
Shri A C Dinesh - Director Finance
Shri P V Sunil Managing Director -
Having its registered office at:
Cinemas Carnival House, 801, 8 Th Floor, A Wing
Express Zone, Off Western Express Highway Malad
(East), Mumbai-400097 Maharastra
Mobile No-9167722014
Email - [email protected]
...DEFENDANT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY U/S 6 OF THE COMMERCIAL
COURTS, COMMERCIAL DIVISION AND COMMERCIAL
APPELLATE DIVISION OF HIGH COURTS ACT 2015 OF
Digitally signed
by DEVENDER
DEVENDER KUMAR
CS
KUMAR (Comm.) No.398/2021
JANGALA Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 1 of 43
Date:
JANGALA 2026.04.15
16:18:35
+0530
RS.14,10,000/- (RUPEES FOURTEEN LAKH TEN
THOUSAND ONLY) ALONG WITH PENDENTE LITE AND
FUTURE INTEREST & OTHER CHARGES
Date of institution : 16.08.2021
Date of final arguments heard : 13.03.2026
Date of judgment : 15.04.2026
JUDGEMENT
1. By way of present judgment, this Court shall adjudicate upon
the suit of plaintiff for recovery of Rs.14,10,000/- (Rupees Fourteen
Lakh Ten Thousand Only) alongwith pendentlite and future interest,
from the date of filing till its realization. Plaintiff has also prayed for
award of costs of the suit in its favour.
2. The brief facts as averred in the plaint is that the plaintiff
Cinesales (Mfg) Pvt Ltd is a Private Limited Company having its
registered office at C-93, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Main Ring
Road, Delhi-110052, India and Shri Sunil Chauhan is its Director.
That the plaintiff is running their business for the last 50 years of
purchase, installation, fabrication, assembly, erection, fitting,
testing, insulation, commissioning, main curtains, rear curtains,
screen, speakers, frills, lights, ladders, light bars, light dimmers,
control panel, wiring, safety chain, programming, sound
reinforcement system, stage lights, video system, projection
systems, integration of audio visual systems, accessories,
consumables, Xenon Lamps, supply spares, maintenance other
related works all related to cinema halls, conference halls,
auditoriums on turnkey basis etc. That the plaintiff company is duly
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 of 43
registered with the ROC having the Registration No-5799 dated 30-
09-1971. That the plaintiff company is also registered with the
GSTIN vide Registration No.07AAACC2345M1ZP dated
24.09.2017.
3. That the Board of Directors of the plaintiff Company has
authorized one of its Director Shri Sunil Chauhan to look into and
pursue the legal proceedings against the defendant M/s Carnival
Films Pvt Ltd as he is well conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the case. It is stated that the plaintiff company has
duly authorized Sh. Sunil Chauhan/Director to appoint advocate,
send legal notice, file commercial recovery suit, sign & verify
petition & application, affidavits, evidence, statements &
vakalatnama & appeals & reviews & revisions, instruct advocate
and to do all the other acts and deeds deemed necessary for the same
by a Board Resolution dated 10.03.2021.
4. That the defendant M/s Carnival Films Pvt Ltd is also a
Private Limited Company and the defendant company is duly
registered with the ROC and is having the Registration No.27484
dated 16.01.2012. It is stated that the defendant Company Master
Data also shows the Registered Office and list of Directors. It is
stated that the defendant company is in the business of running
cinema screens under the Carnival Group and brand Carnival
Cinemas. That the defendant is running these cinema screens in
various cities of India under the names of the defendant’s various
Group Private Limited Companies. It is stated that Sh. Kunal
Sawhnay is the Vice President Operations, Sh. P.V. Sunil is the
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 43
Managing Director Cinemas and Shri A.C. Dinesh is the Director
Finance and including others officials of the defendant are
managing, running, responsible and liable for all the acts and deeds
of the defendant. The other group companies of the defendant
include Cinema Ventures, Carnivals Ventures Pvt Ltd and Stargaze
Entertainment Pvt Ltd. It is stated that the defendant had contacted
the plaintiff for the purchase of accessories, consumables including
Xenon Lamps for use and replacement in the defendant’s various
cinema screens in different cities in India. That the defendant placed
various purchase orders for the same from time to time after
finalizing the rates and terms and conditions as mentioned in the
invoice and agreed orally with the plaintiff. That the defendant also
directed plaintiff to maintain only one account in the plaintiff’s book
of accounts as the defendant shall make all the payments to the
plaintiff in the same in a running account for all purchase orders
placed and goods supplied to the various companies and their
cinema screen in different cities under the defendant’s group
companies. That the plaintiff had also issued three debit notes in
favour of the defendant for adjustments of previous sales. That the
defendant had placed various specific written purchase orders for
specific items to be supplied at the various cinema screens in
different cities in India from time to time by the defendant and its
group companies to the plaintiff.
5. That the plaintiff had got the orders and delivered them by
road transport against receipt to the defendant at the specified
addresses in the purchase orders in the various cities of India vide
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 of 43
various invoices.
6. That the list / details of the 16 purchase orders as well as of
the invoices are as under:-
Table 1: Details of 16 purchase orders
S. Purchase Purchase Order
Dated Destination City Amount
No. Order No. by Company
PO/ 14-09- Cinema Carnival Big Crystal
1 1,12,064
0917/0000154 2017 Ventures Pvt Ltd Mall, Rajkot, Gujarat
PO/ 12-12- Cinema Cinemagic Big
2 1,03,309
1217/0000058 2017 Ventures Pvt Ltd Cinemas, Bikaner
Carnival
PO/ 12-12- Carnival Films
3 Krishnaplex, 61,180
1217/0000049 2017 Pvt Ltd
Alambaug, Lucknow
PO/ 12-12- Stargaze
4 Carnival Glitz City 96,760
1217/0000010 2017 Entertainment
Mall Bilaspur /
PO/ 11-08- Carnival Films
5 Carnival Funstar 61,478
0118/0000056 2018 Pvt Ltd
Cinema, Jaipur
Stargaze
PO/ 13-02- Carnival Glitz Blue
6 Entertainment 73,750
0218/0000004 2018 City Mall, Jodhpur
Pvt Ltd
Carnival Gold Pune,
PO/ 09-03- Carnival Films
7 Marigold Complex, 1,47,500
0318/0000055 2018 Pvt Ltd
Pune
PO/ 09-03- Cinema Carnival Crystal
8 81,009
0318/0000066 2018 Ventures Pvt Ltd Mall, Rajkot, Gujarat
PO/ 09-03- Cinema Sangam Carnival
9 81,009
0318/0000067 2018 Ventures Pvt Ltd Cinemas, Nagpur
PO/ 09-03- Cinema Carnival Viva Big
10 1,62,018
0318/0000068 2018 Ventures Pvt Ltd Cinemas, Jalandhar
PO/ 09-03- Cinema Odean Carnival
11 81,009
0318/0000069 2018 Ventures Pvt Ltd Cinemas, New Delhi
PO/ 09-03- Cinema IMAX Carnival
12 81,009
0318/0000070 2018 Ventures Pvt Ltd Cinemas, Wadala
Huma Huma
PO/ 09-03- Cinema
13 Carnival Cinemas, 81,009
0318/0000071 2018 Ventures Pvt Ltd
Mumbai
PO/ 09-03- Cinema Carnival Cinemas,
14 60,180
0318/0000065 2018 Ventures Pvt Ltd Pacific Mall,CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 5 of 43
S. Purchase Purchase Order
Dated Destination City Amount
No. Order No. by Company
Mathura
PO/ 09-03- Carnival Films Carnival Rap
15 60,180
0318/0000054 2018 Pvt Ltd Magnum, Meerut
Carnival World
PO/ 09-03- Carnival Films
16 Square Mall, 73,750
0318/0000056 2018 Pvt Ltd
GhaziabadTable 2 : Details of invoices
S.
Invoice No. Dated Destination Amount
No.
Carnival Big Crystal Mall,
1 TX032/17-18 21-09-2017 1,14,816
Rajkot, Gujarat
Cinemagic Big Cinemas,
2 TX057/17-18 20-12-2017 1,05,610
Bikaner
Carnival Krishnaplex,
3 TX062/17-18 26-12-2017 61,301
Alambaug, Lucknow
Carnival Glitz City Mall,
4 TX066/17-18 11-01-2018 99,002
Bilaspur
5 TX071/17-18 16-01-2018 Carnival Funstar Cinema, Jaipur 62,599
Carnival Glitz Blue City Mall,
6 TX083/17-18 16-02-2018 74,871
Jodhpur
Carnival Gold Pune, Marigold
7 TX088/17-18 13-03-2018 1,49,742
Complex, Pune
Carnival Crystal Mall, Rajkot,
8 TX092/17-18 14-03-2018 82,130
Gujarat
Sangam Carnival Cinemas,
9 TX093/17-18 15-03-2018 82,130
Nagpur
Carnival Viva Big Cinemas,
10 TX094/17-18 15-03-2018 1,64,260
Jalandhar
Odean Carnival Cinemas, New
11 TX095/17-18 15-03-2018 81,599
Delhi
IMAX Carnival Cinemas,
12 TX096/17-18 15-03-2018 82,130
Wadala
Huma Huma Carnival Cinemas,
13 TX097/17-18 15-03-2018 82,130
Mumbai
Carnival Cinemas, Pacific Mall,
14 TX101/17-18 23-03-2018 60,770
Mathura
15 TX102/17-18 28-03-2018 Carnival Rap Magnum, Meerut 61,301CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 6 of 43
S.
Invoice No. Dated Destination Amount
No.
Carnival World Square Mall,
16 TX105/17-18 30-03-2018 73,750
Ghaziabad
7. That the plaintiff regularly maintains its book of accounts
including the running account in the name of the defendant. It is
stated that the plaintiff also regularly updates the sale of all goods
by the plaintiff and payments made by the defendant and maintains
the running ledger account of the defendant in the book of accounts
of the plaintiff. That all the entries in the book of accounts of the
plaintiff were also got cross-checked from the book of accounts
maintained by the defendant. That there is no dispute with regard to
the outstanding payment to be made by the defendant to the
plaintiff. That the plaintiff had lastly sold and supplied goods to
the defendant on 30.03.2018. That the defendant after making
some part payments on 07.07.2018, 10.07.2018 and 22.10.2018 has
failed to pay the dues.
8. That the plaintiff thereafter made several requests to the
defendant on telephone and by e-mails to make the outstanding
payments to the plaintiff. It is stated that various e-mails were sent
to the defendant i.e., 25.05.2018, 16.06.2018, 27.06.2018,
02.07.2018, 22.01.2019, 23.03.2019, 08.05.2019, 24.06.2019,
18.09.2019, 19.09.2019, 23.09.2019, 07.11.2019, 18.11.2019 and
17.02.2020. That the defendant failed to make the balance payment
due to the plaintiff and have delayed the same on one pretext or
another as is clear from the defendant’s emails dated 25.05.2018,
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 of 43
27.06.2018, 23.03.2019, 23.09.2019, 18.10.2019, 31.10.2019,
23.10.2019, 31.10.2019, 30.10.2019 and 17.02.2020.
9. That a sum of Rs.10,36,867/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Thirty Six
Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Seven only) is still outstanding
towards the plaintiff in books of accounts which is outstanding
against the defendant. That the defendant has also admitted to the
outstanding payments in their emails dated 02.07.2019, 23.09.2019,
18.10.2019 and 17.02.2020 but still failed to make the outstanding
payments. That the plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice
dated 12.03.2021 to the defendant through their counsel. That the
legal notice was also sent to the defendant through registered post
and speed post on 12.03.2021.
10. That the defendant and the officials named and other officials
are jointly & severally liable to pay the principal amount of
Rs.10,36,800/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Thirty Six Thousand Eight
Hundred and Sixty Seven only) plus the interest at the rate of 12%
from the date of last invoice i.e. 01.04.2018 till date 01.03.2021
amounting to Rs.3,73,200/- (Rupees Three Lacs Seventy Three
Thousand and Two Hundred Only), totaling to Rs.14,10,000/- in
discharge of their legal liability.
11. That the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendant from 14.09.2017 to 09.03.2018, when the
defendant placed the 19 written purchase orders to the plaintiff and
when the plaintiff supplied goods to the defendants by various
invoices and the goods were duly received by the defendant. It again
arose on 07.07.2018, 10.07.2018 and 22.10.2018 when the
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 8 of 43
defendant made part payments to the plaintiff. It also arose on
25.05.2018, 16.06.2018, 27.06.2018, 02.07.2018, 22.01.2019,
23.03.2019, 08.05.2019, 24.06.2019, 18.09.2019, 19.09.2019,
23.09.2019, 07.11.2019, 18.11.2019 and 17.02.2020 when the
plaintiff sent email to the defendant to make the balance due
payments. It also arose when the defendant delayed the payment on
one pretext or another by emails dated 25.05.2018, 27.06.2018,
23.03.2019, 23.09.2019, 18.10.2019, 31.10.2019, 23.10.2019,
31.10.2019, 30.10.2019 and 17.02.2020. It also arose on
02.07.2018, 23.09.2019, 18.10.2019 and 17.02.2020 as per emails
sent by the defendant in which defendant admitted the outstanding
amount It again arose on 12.03.2021 when the plaintiff got issued
legal notice to the defendant. That the cause of action is still
continuing and persisting till date as the defendant has failed to
discharge their legal debt & liability jointly & severally till date.
Hence the present Suit.
12. Summons for settlement of issues, in respect of the present
Suit were sent to the defendant. Defendant were duly served through
e-mail on 24.08.2021. However, defendant failed to appear before
the Court despite due service, as per law and accordingly, was
proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22.11.2021.
13. Plaintiff in support of its case examined Sh. Sunil Chauhan,
who is its Director, as PW-1. PW-1 Sh. Sunil Chauhan, tendered his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/17 bearing his signatures at
Point A and Point B.
14. Sh. Sunil Chauhan, further deposed as PW-1 and relied upon
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 9 of 43
the following documents in evidence :-
1. Computer generated ROC certificate, which is now exhibited as
Ex.PW-1/1.
2. Computer generated master data of the plaintiff company, which is
now exhibited as Ex.PW-1/2.
3. Computer generated GST registration certificate of plaintiff
company, which is now exhibited as Ex.PW-1/3
4. The original Board Resolution of plaintiff company, which is now
exhibited as Ex.PW-1/4.
5. Computer generated master data of defendant company, which is
now exhibited as Ex.PW-1/5.
6. Computer generated copy of 3 debit notes, which are collectively
exhibited as Ex.PW-1/6 (Colly.)
7. Computer generated copy of 16 purchase orders, which are now
collectively exhibited as Ex.PW-1/7 (Colly.)
8. Computer generated copy of 16 invoices, which are collectively
exhibited as Ex.PW-1/8 (Colly.)
9. The copies of e-mail exchanged between the plaintiff company and
the defendant company, which are collectively exhibited as
Ex.PW-1/9 (Colly.), 22 pages.
10. Copy of legal notice, which is now exhibited as Ex.PW-1/10.
11. The true copy of email for legal notice, which is now exhibited as
Ex.PW-1/11
12. The original copies of two postage slips, which is now exhibited as
Ex.PW-1/12 & Ex.PW-1/13.
13. The computer copies of the two postal tracking reports, which is
now exhibited as Ex.PW-1/14 (Colly.)
14. The certified computer copy of statement of account of the
defendant in plaintiff’s book of account, which is now exhibited as
Ex.PW-1/15.
15. The Plaintiff did not examine any other witness and vide
statement dated 15.09.2022, plaintiff’s evidence was closed.
16. Written Submissions were filed by the plaintiff through which
the plaintiff reiterated and reaffirmed its case and stance as
mentioned in the plaint as well as its evidence.
17. I have heard Sh. Arun Aggarwal and Sh. Suraj Kumar, Ld.
counsel for the plaintiff and perused the entire record including theCS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 10 of 43
pleadings, documents and oral testimony of PW1 Sh. Sunil Chauhan
on record. The defendant has remained ex-parte and has not cross-
examined the sole plaintiff witness PW1, the testimony of PW1
remains unrebutted and unchallenged. However, Court is to examine
the entire case of the plaintiff in light of the evidence, both oral and
documentary, to determine if the plaintiff has been able to discharge
the onus to prove its entitlement to the claimed amount, relying
upon standard of proof by way of ‘preponderance of probabilities’,
as per law.
18. It is settled position of law that in civil proceedings, the
standard of proof is governed by the principle of preponderance of
probabilities. The court is not required to attain absolute certainty,
rather, it must assess whether, on the basis of the material on record,
one version appears more probable than the other. If the evidence
leads the court to conclude that a fact is more likely than not to have
occurred, the burden of proof stands discharged. However, where
the probabilities are evenly balanced, the party bearing the burden
must fail. (See Phipson on Evidence, 20th edn., LexisNexis,
2023).
19. This standard is not uniform in its application and may
admit of varying degrees depending upon the nature and gravity of
the subject-matter involved. In cases involving serious allegations or
grave consequences, the court is expected to exercise greater caution
and require a higher degree of probability, though still within the
civil standard. Thus, while proof beyond reasonable doubt is not
required, the evidence must inspire sufficient confidence to persuade
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 11 of 43
the court that the version advanced is reasonably probable and
worthy of acceptance. (See Miller v. Minister of Pensions, (1947) 2
All ER 372; Bater v. Bater, 1951 P 35 (CA)).
20. Thus, proof of a fact depends upon the probability of its
existence. The finding of the court must be based on the test of a
prudent person, who acts under the supposition that a fact exists and
in the context and circumstances of a particular case. (See “proved”
under Section 3, para 7 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and
Section 2(1)(j) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).
Analysing this, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.G. Dastane v. S.
Dastane, reported as (1975) 2 SCC 326 observed as follows:
“The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a
balance of probabilities. A prudent man faced with conflicting
probabilities concerning a fact situation will act on the supposition
that the fact exists, if on weighing the various probabilities he finds
that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular
fact. As a prudent man, so the court applies this test for finding
whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved. The first step in this
process is to fix the probabilities, the second to weigh them, though
the two may often intermingle. The impossible is weeded out at the
first stage, the improbable at the second. Within the wide range of
probabilities the court has often a difficult choice to make but it is
this choice which ultimately determines where the preponderance of
probabilities lies. Important issues like those which affect the status of
parties demand a closer scrutiny than those like the loan on a promissory
note:’the nature and gravity of an issue necessarily determines the
manner of attaining reasonable satisfaction of the truth of the issue [Per
Dixon, J. in Wright v. Wright, (1948) 77 CLR 191 (Aust).] , CLR at
p. 210′; or as said by Lord Denning, ‘the degree of probability depends
on the subject-matter’. In proportion as the offence is grave, so ought
the proof to be clear [Blyth v. Blyth, 1966 AC 643], All ER at p. 536′.
But whether the issue is one of cruelty or of a loan on a pronote, the test
to apply is whether on a preponderance of probabilities the relevant fact
is proved. In civil cases this, normally, is the standard of proof to apply
for finding whether the burden of proof is discharged.”
(emphasis supplied)
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 of 43
21. In State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal, (1988) 4 SCC 302, this Court
observed :
“26. The concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously
be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to
how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the
degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic
probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense
and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the Judge.”
(emphasis supplied)
22. In Harish Mansukhani vs. Ashok Jain, reported as
2009(109) DRJ (DB) (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
noticed that the plaintiff has to prove his case and had to stand on
his own legs. Similarly, in Ganpatlal v. Nandlal Haswani & Ors.,
AIR 1998 M.P. 209, the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court
took note of the elementary rule of civil litigation in this country
that the plaintiff must stand or fall on the strength of his own case.
The relevant para of Ganpatlal (supra) is reproduced below:
“8…It is necessary to stress that it is the strong “prima facie case “of
the plaintiff that is the requisite to be considered; not the weak
defence. This evidently flows from the elementary rule of jurisprudence
of civil litigation in India that the plaintiff must stand or fall on the
strength of his own case….”
(Emphasis supplied)
23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu
Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak & Ors, decided on
12.08.2013, reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 also provided the
present position of burden of proof while providing that the burdent
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 13 of 43
of proof as to a fact lies on a person who asserts it. The relevant para
of Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra) is reiterated as follows:
“38.3. … This is so because it is settled law that the burden
of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the
person who makes a positive averment about its existence.
It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a
negative fact….”
(Emphasis supplied)
24. The Apex Court in Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha
Ranjan Debbarma, decided on 04.01.2023, reported as (2023) 19
SCC 782 while taking help of Addagada Raghavamma
v. Addagada Chenchamma, AIR 1964 SC 136, stated that the
proving of a fact is to be based on the person who asserts it in terms
of Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 104 of
the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). The relevant porition
of Smriti Debbarma (supra) is reproduced below:
“37. The burden of proof to establish a title in the present case lies
upon the plaintiff as this burden lies on the party who asserts the
existence of a particular state of things on the basis of which she claims
relief. (See Addagada Ragha-vamma (supra). This is mandated in
terms of Section 101 of the Evidence Act, which states that burden of
proving the fact rests with party who substantially asserts in the
affirmative and not on the party which is denying it. This rule may not
be universal and has exceptions, but in the factual background of the
present case, the general principle is applicable. In terms of Section 102
of the Evidence Act, if both parties fail to adduce evidence, the suit must
fail. Onus of proof, no doubt shifts and the shifting is a continuous
process in the evaluation of evidence, but this happens when in a suit for
title and possession, the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of
probability to shift the onus on the defendant. In the absence of such
evidence, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and can be discharged
only when he is able to prove title. (See Venkatachala
Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple, (2003) 8 SCC
752). The weakness of the defence cannot be a justification to decree the
suit. (See Union of India v. Vasavi Coop. Housing Society Ltd.,CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 14 of 43
(2014) 2 SCC 269 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 66).”
25. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Equus Stud Pvt.Ltd
vs Dharmil A Bodani And Ors., decided on 11 July, 2024,
reported as 2024:BHC-OS:10260-Db, while relying upon Punjab
Urban Planning & Development Authority vs. Shiv Saraswati
Iron & Steel Re-Rolling Mills, 1998 (2) MPWN 187, observed
that the rights of the plaintiff stand independent and do not depend
upon the failure of the defendant’s case. The Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Jagdish Prasad Patel (Dead) & Ors. vs. Shivnath & Ors.,
AIRONLINE 2019 SC 2298, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that the plaintiff can succeed only on the basis of his own
evidence, irrespective of whether the defendant has been able to
prove his case or not. The relevant paras of Equus Stud Pvt. Ltd.
(supra) as observed by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay are
reproduced as follows:
“36. ….In such context, Mr. Narichania would be correct in his
contention in placing reliance on the decision in Punjab Urban
Planning & Development Authority vs. Shiv Saraswati Iron & Steel
Re-Rolling Mills, 1998 (2) MPWN 187, when he contends that the
position in law is well-settled that the plaintiff must succeed or fail on
his own case and cannot take advantage of weakness in the defendant’s
case to get a decree. Such rights would stand independent and would not
depend on the failure of adjudication of defendant’s right in defendant’s
proceedings.
37. In Union of India & Ors. vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society
Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 937 even in the context of suit for
declaration of title, the Supreme Court observed that the burden always
lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting
such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the
defendants could not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff.
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 15 of 43
38. In Jagdish Prasad Patel (Dead) & Ors. vs. Shivnath & Ors.,
AIRONLINE 2019 SC 2298, the Supreme Court reiterated the
principle as laid down in the case UOI v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing
Society Ltd., AIR 2014 SC 937, The relevant observation as made by
the Court reads thus:
“45. Observing that in a suit for declaration of title, the
plaintiffs- respondents are to succeed only on the strength of
their own title irrespective of whether the defendants- appellants
have proved their case or not, in Union of India and Others vs.
Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Limited and others,
2002(5) ALD 532, it was held as under:-
“15. It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, the
burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and
establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and
the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants
would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff.”
26. It may be relevant now to consider the law pertaining to
discharge of burden of proof of the issues as relevant and applicable
to the Civil Jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Chowdamma v. Venkatappa, decided on 25.08.2025, reported as
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1814, while relying upon its own judgment
in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558, and
Addagada Raghavamma (supra), discussed the difference between
burden of proof and onus of proof. The relevant paras of
Chowdamma (supra) are extracted as follows:
“BURDEN OF PROOF AND ONUS OF PROOF
43. This Court in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh (2006) 5 SCC
558, observed thus:
“19. There is another aspect of the matter which should
be borne in mind. A distinction exists between burden of proof
and onus of proof. The right to begin follows onus probandi. It
assumes importance in the early stage of a case. The question ofCS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 16 of 43
onus of proof has greater force, where the question is, which
party is to begin. Burden of proof is used in three ways: (i) to
indicate the duty of bringing forward evidence in support of a
proposition at the beginning or later; (ii) to make that of
establishing a proposition as against all counter-evidence; and
(iii) an indiscriminate use in which it may mean either or both of
the others. The elementary rule in Section 101 is inflexible. In
terms of Section 102 the initial onus is always on the plaintiff
and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which
entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove
those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff
to the same.”
44. Also, in Addagada Raghavamma (supra), this Court observed
as follows:
“12. … There is an essential distinction between burden of
proof and onus of proof : burden of proof lies upon the person
who has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus of proof
shifts. …Such considerations, having regard to the circumstances
of a particular case, may shift the onus of proof. Such a shifting
of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence.
…” ”
27. As observed in the judgments discussed above, it is trite
law that the onus to prove is upon the plaintiff and if the plaintiff
discharges that onus and makes out a case to entitle him to the relief
asserted, in these circumstance, the onus shifts upon the defendant
to prove such circumstances which may disentitle the plaintiff to the
relief claimed.
28. At the outset, this court is required to discuss whether
the present suit has been instituted in right jurisdiction. The present
suit has been instituted within the jurisdiction of this court stating
that the defendant contacted the plaintiff for purchase of Xenon
Lamps for use and replacement at the registered address of the
Plaintiff at C-93, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Main Ring Road,
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 17 of 43
Delhi-110052, and placed various purchase orders for the same from
time to time after finalizing the rates and terms and conditions as
mentioned in the invoices and agreed orally with the plaintiff which
comes in territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The testimony of
plaintiff in this regard remained unrebutted and unchallenged. The
part cause of action/transaction has taken place within the
jurisdiction of this court, hence this court is having territorial
jurisdiction as per Section 20(c) of CPC. In view of unrebutted
submission of PW- 1 Sh. Sunil Chauhan, it is held that this court is
having the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit
as per Section 20(c) of CPC.
29. Now the Court shall examine the limitation aspect. The
present suit has been filed by the plaintiff on 16.08.2021. The
plaintiff relied upon 16 invoices with dates ranging from 21.09.2017
to 30.03.2018. The law of limitation provides the limitation period
of three years for filing the suit for recovery of money. The right to
sue will survive within a period of three years from the date of last
invoice, i.e., till 30.03.2021. However, the present suit is filed on
16.08.2021, beyond the period of three years from the date of supply
of goods/invoice dated 09.03.2018.
30. It is claimed by the plaintiff that the limitation stands
extended by way of part payment under Section 19 of the Limitation
Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “LA, 1963”). It is submitted
that the defendant made various part payments dated 07.07.2018,
10.07.2018, and on 22.10.2018. It is also submitted that the
limitation period would start running from 22.10.2021. As a result, it
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 18 of 43
is necessary to examine the provisions of extension of limitation
period as a result of written acknowledgement or part payment
under the LA, 1963.
31. Section 18 of the LA, 1963 provides for extension of
limitation by way of written acknowledgement. The Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in Technical Construction Company v.
Engineering Project (India) Limited, decided on 15th March,
2024, reported as 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1924 discussed in detail
on aspect of written acknowledgement vis-a-vis Section 18 of the
LA, 1963 while relying upon the celebrated decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India v. Assam State
Cooperative Marketing & Consumer Federation Ltd, decided
on26.10.2004, reported as (2004) 12 SCC 360. The relevant
paragraphs of the Technical Construction (supra) are extracted
hereinbelow:
“22. Section 18 of the Limitation Act, reads:
(1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a
suit or application in respect of any property or right, an
acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right
has been made in writing signed by the party against whom
such property or right is claimed, or by any person through
whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation
shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment
was so signed.
(2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is
undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was
signed; but subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (1 of 1872), oral evidence of its contents shall not be
received. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,–
(a) an acknowledgment may be sufficient though it omits to
specify the exact nature of the property or right, or avers that the
time for payment, delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yetCS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 19 of 43
come or is accompanied by a refusal to pay, deliver, perform or
permit to enjoy, or is coupled with a claim to set off, or is
addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the
property or right,
(b) the word “signed” means signed either personally or by an
agent duly authorised in this behalf, and
(c) an application for the execution of a decree or order shall not
be deemed to be an application in respect of any property or
right.
23. The above-mentioned provision clearly provides that if there is an
express acknowledgement of liability in writing by the opposite party, a
fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when
acknowledgement was signed. The same has also been laid down by the
Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India (supra), wherein it was
held that that to amount to an acknowledgement of liability within the
meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, it need not be accompanied
by a promise to pay either expressly or even by implication. The
relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are set out below:
“14. According to Section 18 of the Limitation Act,
an acknowledgement of liability made in writing in respect of
any right claimed by the opposite party and signed by the party
against whom such right is claimed made before the expiration
of the prescribed period for a suit in respect of such right has the
effect of commencing a fresh period of limitation from the date
on which the acknowledgement was so signed. It is well settled
that to amount to an acknowledgement of liability within the
meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, it need not be
accompanied by a promise to pay either expressly or even by
implication.
15. The statement providing foundation for a plea of
acknowledgement must relate to a present subsisting liability,
though the exact nature or the specific character of the said
liability may not be indicated in words. The words used in the
acknowledgement must indicate the existence of jural
relationship between the parties such as that of debtor and
creditor. The intention to attempt such jural relationship must be
apparent. However, such intention can be inferred by implication
from the nature of the admission and need not be expressed in
words. A clear statement containing acknowledgement of
liability can imply the intention to admit jural relationship of
debtor and creditor. Though oral evidence in lieu of or making a
departure from the statement sought to be relied on as
acknowledgement is excluded but surrounding circumstancesCS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 20 of 43
can always be considered. Courts generally lean in favour of a
liberal construction of such statements though an
acknowledgement shall not be inferred where there is no
admission so as to fasten liability on the maker of the statement
by an involved or far-fetched process of reasoning. So long as
the statement amounts to an admission, acknowledging the jural
relationship and existence of liability, it is immaterial that the
admission is accompanied by an assertion that nothing would be
found due from the person making the admission or that on an
account being taken something may be found due and payable to
the person making the acknowledgement by the person to whom
the statement is made.”
32. Thus, it can be said that if there is an express written
acknowledgment of liability by the defendant, a fresh period of
limitation shall start from the time when such acknowledgment was
signed. While strongly relying upon Food Corporation of India
(supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Technical
Construction (supra) said that within the meaning of Section 18 of
the LA, 1963, it need not be accompanied by a promise to pay either
expressly or even by implication. The statement which provides
foundation for a plea of acknowledgement must relate to a present
subsisting liability, though the liability may not be indicated in
words. The words as used in the acknowledgement must show that
there is an existing jural relationship between the parties which can
be implied by a clear statement containing acknowledgement of
liability. Courts generally apply a liberal construction method of
statutory interpretation in ascertaining whether an acknowledgement
of debt results in extension of limitation under Section 18 of the LA,
1963.
33. Before going over the merits of the present case, the Court
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 21 of 43
shall also discuss current judicial position with respect to part
payment and its effect on limitation expressly provided under
Section 19 of the LA, 1963. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam SEB, decided on
18.12.2019, reported as (2020) 2 SCC 677 discussed in detail while
excerpting Section 19 of the LA, 1963. The relevant portion is
provided as follows:
“12. Section 19 of the Limitation Act is as follows:
“19. Effect of payment on account of debt or of
interest on legacy.–Where payment on account of a
debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the
expiration of the prescribed period by the person
liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly
authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation
shall be computed from the time when the payment
was made:
Provided that, save in the case of payment of interest
made before the 1st day of January, 1928, an
acknowledgment of the payment appears in the
handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person
making the payment.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this section–
(a) where mortgaged land is in the possession
of the mortgagee, the receipt of the rent or
produce of such land shall be deemed to be a
payment;
(b) “debt” does not include money payable
under a decree or order of a court.”
15. Order 7 Rule 6 uses the words “the plaint shall show the
ground upon which exemption from such law is claimed”.
The exemption provided under Sections 4 to 20 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 are based on certain facts and events.
Section 19, with which we are concerned, provides for a
fresh period of limitation, which is founded on certain
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 22 of 43
facts i.e. (i) whether payment on account of debt or of
interest on legacy is made before the expiration of the
prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or
legacy, (ii) an acknowledgment of the payment appears in
the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person
making the payment.
16. We may notice the judgment of this Court dealing with
Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which was akin to
present Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In Sant Lal
Mahton v. Kamla Prasad, AIR 1951 SC 477, this Court held
that for applicability of Section 20 of the Limitation Act,
1908, two conditions were essential that the payment must
be made within the prescribed period of limitation and it
must be acknowledged by some form of writing either in
the handwriting of the payer himself or signed by him.
This Court further held that for claiming benefit of exemption
under Section 20, there has to be pleading and proof. In paras
9 and 10, the following has been laid down : (AIR p. 479)
“9. It would be clear, we think, from the language of
Section 20, Limitation Act, that to attract its operations two
conditions are essential : first, the payment must be made
within the prescribed period of limitation and secondly, it
must be acknowledged by some form of writing either in
the handwriting of the payer himself or signed by him. We
agree with the Subordinate Judge that it is the payment which
really extends the period of limitation under Section 20,
Limitation Act; but the payment has got to be proved in a
particular way and for reason of policy the legislature
insists on a written or signed acknowledgment as the only
proof of payment and excludes oral testimony. Unless,
therefore, there is acknowledgment in the required form,
the payment by itself is of no avail. The Subordinate Judge,
however, is right in holding that while the section requires
that the payment should be made within the period of
limitation, it does not require that the acknowledgment should
also be made within that period. To interpret the proviso in
that way would be to import into it certain words which do
not occur there. This is the view taken by almost all the High
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 23 of 43
Courts in India and to us it seems to be a proper view to take.
(See Mohd. Moizuddin Mia v. Nalini Bala Devi [Mohd.
Moizuddin Mia v. Nalini Bala Devi, 1937 SCC OnLine Cal 20
: AIR 1937 Cal 284 : ILR (1937) 2 Cal 137] ; Lal
Singh v. Gulab Rai [Lal Singh v. Gulab Rai, 1932 SCC
OnLine All 265 : ILR (1933) 55 All 280] , Venkata
Subbhu v. Appu Sundaram [Venkata Subbhu v. Appu
Sundaram, ILR (1894) 17 Mad 92] , Ram Prasad
Babu v. Mohan Lal Babu [Ram Prasad Babu v. Mohan Lal
Babu, 1922 SCC OnLine MP 10 : AIR 1923 Nag 117]
and Vishwanath Raghunath Kale v. Mahadeo Rajaram
Saraf [Vishwanath Raghunath Kale v. Mahadeo Rajaram
Saraf, 1933 SCC OnLine Bom 3 : ILR (1933) 57 Bom 453] .)
10. … If the plaintiff’s right of action is apparently barred
under the statute of limitation, Order 7 Rule 6, Civil
Procedure Code makes it his duty to state specifically in the
plaint the grounds of exemption allowed by the Limitation
Act, upon which he relies to exclude its operation; and if the
plaintiff has got to allege in his plaint the facts which entitle
him to exemption, obviously these facts must be in existence
at or before the time when the plaint is filed; facts which
come into existence after the filing of the plaint cannot be
called in aid to revive a right of action which was dead at the
date of the suit. To claim exemption under Section 20,
Limitation Act the plaintiff must be in a position to allege
and prove not only that there was payment of interest on a
debt or part-payment of the principal, but that such
payment had been acknowledged in writing in the manner
contemplated by that section.”
(Emphasis supplied)
34. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shanti
Conductors (supra) while relying upon Sant Lal
Mahton v. Kamla Prasad, decided on 17.10.1951, reported as AIR
1951 SC 477, gave two essentials for a part payment to come under
Section 19 of the LA, 1963 which are as follows:
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 24 of 43
(i) whether payment on account of debt or of interest on
legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period
by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy,
(ii) an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the
handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making
the payment.
35. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shanti Conductors
(supra) while relying upon Sant Lal (supra) held that the part
payment for extension of limitation is to be proved in only by a
written or signed acknowledgment and not by oral testimony.
Unless there is a written acknowledgment in the required form, the
payment by itself is of no avail.
36. Hence, in view of Section 19 of LA, 1963, the new
limitation period begins from the time of payment for a debt or
interest on a legacy only if the payment is made before the original
period expired. The payment is required to be made by the person
liable to pay or duly authorised agent. A plaintiff can claim
exemption only when there was a payment of interest on a debt or
part-payment of the principle along with an acknowledgment in
writing by the person making the payment.
37. Coming back to the facts of the present case, no written
proof of acknowledgement is present on the record stating that the
defendant is acknowledging or admitting any liability against the
suit amount or against any of the invoices placed on record by the
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 25 of 43
plaintiff. Moreover, there is no proof present on record which
establishes that the defendant has made any part payment against
any of the invoices. Thus, without any sufficient proof establishing
extension of limitation either by way of written acknowledgement
or part payment, the right to institute the present suit stands
extinguished being barred by limitation.
38. Notwithstanding the bar of limitation, even on merits, the
plaintiff has failed to establish its claim, for the reasons discussed
hereinafter.
39. The onus to prove the averments and claim of the
plaintiff rests entirely upon the plaintiff, who has to discharge the
burden of proof to establish its case, as per law. In civil litigation, it
is sufficient for the plaintiff to discharge the burden laid upon it
successfully, if the plaintiff is able to prove its case by
preponderance of probabilities. It is the law of land as re-affirmed
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Adiveppa V. Bhimappa (2017) 9
SCC 586. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Adiveppa (supra)
was pleased to uphold that:
“It is a settled principle of law that the initial burden is al-
ways on the plaintiff to prove his case by proper pleadings
and adequate evidence (oral and documentary) in support
thereof.”
Thus, the onus to prove its case and that the burden to
prove the case as per law, entirely lies upon the plaintiff, by way of
documentary and oral evidence.
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 26 of 43
40. The plaintiff is required to prove the delivery of the
goods and the outstanding payment against the said supply. The
present suit is for recovery of Rs. 14,10,000/-, along with pendente
lite and future interest. As the Plaintiff has relied upon the statement
of account Ex.PW-1/15 and 16 invoices Ex.PW-1/8 (Colly.), which
are unilateral documents in nature, it becomes necessary to examine
their evidentiary value in light of Section 34 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 (Section 28 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023;
hereinafter referred to as ‘IEA’ and ‘BSA’ respectively). Section 34
IEA provides as under:
“34. Entries in books of account, including those maintained in an
electronic form, when relevant.–
1[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 inquire, but
such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any
person with liability.”
41. Section 34 IEA makes it clear that entries in books of account
regularly maintained by the plaintiff is not a conclusive piece of
evidence and is to be corroborated with independent documentary
evidence. In the absence of such documents, an adverse inference
must be drawn in accordance with the principles laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CBI v. VC Shukla, (1998) 3
SCC 410. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Manohar Lal
Sharma v. Union of India, (2017) 11 SCC 731 while reiterating
the settled position of law as laid down in V.C. Shukla (supra) held
as under:
“279. It has further been laid down in V.C. Shukla as to the value of
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 27 of 43
entries in the books of account, that such statement shall not alone be
sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability, even if they are
relevant and admissible, and that they are only corroborative evidence.
It has been held that even then independent evidence is necessary as to
trustworthiness of those entries which is a requirement to fasten the
liability.”
42. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Jay Ambe Industries
Proprietor Shri Dinesh Kumar Bajranglal Somani Versus
Garnet Specialty Paper Ltd., decided on 02.02.2022, reported as
2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 18 discusses Section 34 IEA while taking help
from landmark judgments. The relevant portion of Jay Ambe
(supra) is reproduced below for easy reference:
“15) In Chandi Ram vs. Jamind Kanta Deka, reported in AIR 1952
Assam 92, the Assam High Court held that if a ledger is not supported
by any Day-book or Roznama, it would not fulfill the requirement of
Section 34 of the Evidence Act and cannot be regarded relevant under
that section. In the opinion of the Assam High Court there is no daily
opening or closing balance in the ledger accounts which is maintained in
some other books and ledger can be prepared at any time. Therefore, it
cannot be regarded as relevant
16) In Hira Meher vs. Birbal Prasad Agarwal, reported in AIR 1958
Orissa 4, the Orissa High Court held that if the plaintiff relies on the
entries in his credit ledger which he himself has scribed out, the plaintiff
does not assert that the transaction on credit took place actually the
credit register cannot be relied upon because there will be no
corroboration of the entries made therein.
17) In Sohan Lal vs. Gulab Chand, reported in AIR 1966 Raj. 229,
the Rajasthan High Court held that Bahi Khata is an account book if
maintained in regular course of business and entries therein are not
admissible if not supported by corresponding entries on Rokam or Nagal
Behi.
18) In Zehna Sorabji vs. Mirabella Hoter Col. (Pvt.) Ltd., reported
in AIR 1981 Bom 446, the Bombay High Court held that a ledger byCS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 28 of 43
itself cannot be a book of account of the character contemplated by
Section 34 of the Evidence Act unless it is corroborated by the entries in
the cash-book.
19) In Beni vs. Bisan Dayal, reported in AIR 1925 Nag. 445, the
Nagpur High Court held that, the entries in the books of account by
itself are not sufficient to charge any person with liability unless there is
independent evidence of the transaction to which the entries relate.
20) The proposition laid down in the above referred authorities about the
admissibility of ledger without the corroborative evidence being led in
support of the entries in the ledger cannot be disputed. It is well settled
that a ledger, though an account book, has no evidentiary value unless
the entries made therein are proved by independent evidence which, in
other words, would mean that there must be corroboration of entries
which corroboration can be supplied by proving the transaction or by
proving the entries in the Daily cash book or Roznama. Without
corroboration, entries in the ledger cannot be brought within the purview
of Section 34 of the Evidence Act. In the instant case, it is, therefore, to
be seen, whether apart from the entries in the ledger, there was
corroborative evidence in support of the entries in the ledger. This
matter would largely depend on the facts of each case.”
43. Applying the settled position of law to the facts of the
present case, all the documents relied upon by the plaintiff to prove
its case are unilateral in nature and require independent
corroboration in terms of Section 34 IEA. Moreover, invoices as
well as statement of account do not bear any seal or signature of the
defendant. Mere invocation of entries in the Statement of Account
without any bank account statement or any independent bank
witness as per Section 34 IEA does not create any entitlement in
favour of the Plaintiff. (See VC Shukla (Supra); Gopal Krishna
Ketkar v Mohamed Haji Latif, AIR 1968 SC 1413; Mohinder
Kumar Gandhi vs. Praveen Kumar, 2025:DHC:8843-DB). Thus,
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 29 of 43
statement of account as well as unilateral invoices placed on record
by the plaintiff without any supporting independent and
corroborative evidence are not reliable documents and cannot be
relied upon.
44. As most of the documents relied upon by the Plaintiff like
Computer generated master data of defendant company
(Ex.PW-1/5), Computer generated copy of 16 purchase orders
(Ex.PW-1/7 (Colly.)), Computer generated copy of 16 invoices,
(Ex.PW-1/8 (Colly.)), copies of e-mail exchanged between the
plaintiff company and the defendant company (Ex.PW-1/9
(Colly.)), True copy of email of legal notice (Ex.PW-1/11),
Computer copies of two postal tracking reports (Ex.PW-1/14
(Colly.)), and computer copy of statement of account of the
defendant in plaintiff’s book of account, duly certified by the
plaintiff (Ex.PW-1/15) relied upon by the Plaintiff are computer
generated documents are electronic records, their admissibility must
also be tested in light of Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Therefore, the law governing the admissibility of electronic
evidence under Section 65B is to be considered. It is well settled
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K.
Basheer, decided on 18.09.2014, reported as [2014] 11 SCR 399,
that Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
(Section 63 BSA) constitute a complete and exhaustive code
governing the admissibility of electronic evidence. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has categorically held that any information
contained in an electronic record, sought to be relied upon in
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 30 of 43
evidence, is admissible only if the mandatory requirements of
Section 65B are strictly complied with. In particular, the production
of a certificate under Section 65B(4), identifying the electronic
record, describing the manner of its production, furnishing
particulars of the device involved, and certifying that the conditions
stipulated under Section 65B(2) are satisfied, is a sine qua non for
admissibility. Oral evidence or secondary evidence under Sections
63 and 65 of the Evidence Act cannot be substituted for the statutory
certificate prescribed under Section 65B(4). Any contrary view
permitting admissibility of electronic evidence without compliance
of Section 65B(4) is legally unsustainable, and non-compliance with
the said provision renders the electronic evidence inadmissible in
law. The relevant paras are reproduced hereinafter:
“14. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record
under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65-A, can be
proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under
Section 65-B. Section 65-B deals with the admissibility of the
electronic record. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify
secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer.
It may be noted that the section starts with a non obstante clause.
Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act,
any information contained in an electronic record which is printed
on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic
media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document
only if the conditions mentioned under sub-section (2) are
satisfied, without further proof or production of the original. The
very admissibility of such a document i.e., electronic record
which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of
the four conditions under Section 65-B(2). Following are the
specified conditions under Section 65-B(2) of the Evidence Act:
(i) The electronic record containing the information should
have been produced by the computer during the period
over which the same was regularly used to store or process
information for the purpose of any activity regularly
carried on over that period by the person having lawfulCS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 31 of 43
control over the use of that computer;
(ii) The information of the kind contained in electronic
record or of the kind from which the information is
derived was regularly fed into the computer in the
ordinary course of the said activity;
(iii) During the material part of the said period, the
computer was operating properly and that even if it was
not operating properly for some time, the break or breaks
had not affected either the record or the accuracy of its
contents; and
(iv) The information contained in the record should be a
reproduction or derivation from the information fed into
the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity.
15. Under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is
desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an
electronic record, it is permissible provided the following
conditions are satisfied:
(a) There must be a certificate which identifies the
electronic record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the
electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device
involved in the production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions
mentioned under Section 65-B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a
responsible official position in relation to the operation of
the relevant device….
…17. Only if the electronic record is duly produced in terms of
Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, would the question arise as to
the genuineness thereof and in that situation, resort can be made to
Section 45-A–opinion of Examiner of Electronic Evidence.
18. The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of
an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under Section
65-B of the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law now
stands in India….
…20. Proof of electronic record is a special provision introduced by
the IT Act amending various provisions under the Evidence Act.
The very caption of Section 65-A of the Evidence Act, read with
Sections 59 and 65-B is sufficient to hold that the special provisions
on evidence relating to electronic record shall be governed by the
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 32 of 43
procedure prescribed under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. That
is a complete code in itself. Being a special law, the general law
under Sections 63 and 65 has to yield….
…22. The evidence relating to electronic record, as noted
hereinbefore, being a special provision, the general law on
secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the
Evidence Act shall yield to the same. Generalia specialibus non
derogant, special law will always prevail over the general law. It
appears, the court omitted to take note of Sections 59 and 65-A
dealing with the admissibility of electronic record. Sections 63 and
65 have no application in the case of secondary evidence by way of
electronic record; the same is wholly governed by Sections 65-A
and 65-B. To that extent, the statement of law on admissibility of
secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record, as stated by this
Court in Navjot Sandhu case [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot
Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1715] , does not lay
down the correct legal position. It requires to be overruled and we
do so. An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not
be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65-
B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same
shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65-B
obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the
secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is
inadmissible.
45. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao
Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors, decided on
14.07.2020, reported as [2020] 7 S.C.R. 180, while clarifying the
settled position of law in Anwar P.V. (supra) has held that:
“73. The reference is thus answered by stating that:
73.1.Anvar P.V., as clarified by us hereinabove, is the law
declared by this Court on Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. The
judgment in Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 178,
being per incuriam, does not lay down the law correctly. Also, the
judgment in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P., (2018) 2 SCC
801 and the judgment dated 3-4-2018 reported as Shafhi
Mohd. v. State of H.P. (2018) 5 SCC 311, do not lay down the
law correctly and are therefore overruled.
73.2. The clarification referred to above is that the required
certificate under Section 65-B(4) is unnecessary if the originalCS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 33 of 43
document itself is produced. This can be done by the owner of a
laptop computer, computer tablet or even a mobile phone, by
stepping into the witness box and proving that the device
concerned, on which the original information is first stored, is
owned and/or operated by him. In cases where the “computer”
happens to be a part of a “computer system” or “computer
network” and it becomes impossible to physically bring such
system or network to the court, then the only means of
providing information contained in such electronic record can
be in accordance with Section 65-B(1), together with the
requisite certificate under Section 65-B(4). The last sentence in
para 24 in Anvar P.V. which reads as “… if an electronic record
as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the
Evidence Act …” is thus clarified; it is to be read without the
words “under Section 62 of the Evidence Act,…”. With this
clarification, the law stated in para 24 of Anvar P.V. does not
need to be revisited.
73.3. The general directions issued in para 64 (supra) shall
hereafter be followed by courts that deal with electronic evidence,
to ensure their preservation, and production of certificate at the
appropriate stage. These directions shall apply in all proceedings,
till rules and directions under Section 67-C of the Information
Technology Act and data retention conditions are formulated for
compliance by telecom and internet service providers.
73.4. Appropriate rules and directions should be framed in
exercise of the Information Technology Act, by exercising powers
such as in Section 67-C, and also framing suitable rules for the
retention of data involved in trial of offences, their segregation,
rules of chain of custody, stamping and record maintenance, for
the entire duration of trials and appeals, and also in regard to
preservation of the metadata to avoid corruption. Likewise,
appropriate rules for preservation, retrieval and production of
electronic record, should be framed as indicated earlier, after
considering the report of the Committee constituted by the Chief
Justices’ Conference in April 2016.”
46. This position of law has been reaffirmed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Sundar @ Sundarrajan vs. State by Inspector
of Police, decided on 21.03.2023, reported as 2023 LiveLaw (SC)
217. The relevant portion is reproduced below:
“37. Therefore, the law is now settled: a Section 65B certificate is
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 34 of 43
mandatory in terms of this Court’s judgment in Anvar P.V. as
confirmed in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar.”
47. After applying the settled position of law to the facts of
the present case, the plaintiff has not placed on record any Section
65B Certificate to prove all the electronic evidence upon which he
has relied. Consequently, the electronic records sought to be proved
through Computer generated master data of the plaintiff company,
(Ex.PW-1/2), Computer generated master data of defendant
company (Ex.PW-1/5), Computer generated copy of 16 invoices,
(Ex.PW-1/8 (Colly.)), copies of e-mail exchanged between the
plaintiff company and the defendant company (Ex.PW-1/9
(Colly.)), True copy of email of legal notice (Ex.PW-1/11),
Computer copies of two postal tracking reports (Ex.PW-1/14
(Colly.)), and statement of account (Ex.PW-1/15) without any
certificate of electronic evidence cannot be relied upon as
admissible evidence, and the same are liable to be excluded from
consideration.
48. Another important issue which needs to be considered by this
Court is that the parties to the present suit are different then the
parties to the present suit are different from that of the parties to the
purchase orders and invoices. As such, the concept of privity of
contract comes into picture. The doctrine of privity of contract is a
fundamental principle in contract law stating that only parties who
are signatories to a contract (or have provided consideration) can
enforce its terms or be bound by its obligations. A third party, or
stranger to the contract, cannot sue for breach, even if they benefit
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 35 of 43
from the agreement.
49. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Utair Aviation vs
Jagson Airlines Limited & Another, decided on 13.04.2012,
reported as 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2114, discussed the well
established principles of privity of contract and its exceptions. The
relevant paras are reproduced as under:
“17. It is well established principle of law that a party who is not privy
to the contract, cannot sue for enforcement of the said contract and the
said principle has been laid down by the English courts from time to
time which has been appreciated by the Indian Courts with the well
recognized exceptions. There are number of exceptions which have been
carved out by the courts to the principle of privy to the contract ever
since the said principle was evolved by the English Courts. This is due
to the reason that the definition of consideration under Section 2(d) of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is wide enough to encompass a situation
wherein contract is entered into between the two parties and the
consideration may or may not pass from them and can pass from the
third party.
…
23. The case of Jnan (supra) was also followed by learned Single Judge
in the case of Babu Ram Buddu Mal v. Dhan Singh Bishan Singh,
reported in AIR 1957 Punjab & Haryana 160. In ‘Bigelow on Estoppel’,
6th Edn., at pp. 158 and 159, the learned author observes the following
on the aspect of creation of privity by way of estoppel:–
“In the law of estoppel one person becomes privy to another (1)
by succeeding to the position of that other as regards the Subject
of the estoppel, (2) by holding in subordination to that
other…………………. But it should be noticed that the ground
of privity is property and not personal relations. To make a man a
privy to an action he must have acquired an interest in the
subject-matter of the, action either by inheritance, succession, or
purchase from a party subsequently to the action, or he must hold
property subordinately.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
24. What is apparent from the reading of the said observations of
Calcutta High Court in the afore-quoted case and the opinion expressed
in the authorities that there may be cases, where there is no privity
existing-at the first place but, the party may by acknowledgement or by
his conduct, can proceed to create such privity with the said third party
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 36 of 43
by virtue of it being a subordinate to the party to the contract or dealing
with the parties to the contract etc. The said privity can be created by
way of conduct also either express or implied and the court has to see in
those cases as to whether actually the party can be said to be a complete
stranger to a contract or where the plea is taken only to defeat the claims
of the party. All this can be seen by looking into the attending
circumstances after the contract.
25. This is more so when all the parties are before the court including
the contracting parties as well as the stranger. In that event of the matter,
it cannot be said that the court is precluded from complete justice
between the parties.
26. There are ample line of authorities to suggest the proposition when
all the parties are there before the court including the contracting parties
as well as the stranger as plaintiff and defendant, then the court can do
complete justice between the parties and that was even a rationale as
laid down in Debnarayan Dutt (supra) while departing from the views
expressed in Twaddle (supra) and making a fine distinction between a
court of equity and the court of law in England and the justice oriented
approach adopted by the Indian Courts as noted therein.
…
28. A reading of the aforementioned judicial opinion coupled with well
recognized exceptions that the privity can be created by virtue of
conduct acknowledgment and admission, it becomes clear that any case
where one party is made aware about the relationship of the other party
with that of a stranger and the said party proceeds to contract out only
with other party in question, knowing fully well the participation and
role of the said stranger, further, it corresponds with the said third
party/stranger, and conduct suggests kind of relationship, then there can
be said to be a nexus or a privity which can be said to have been created
by virtue of conduct. The said question essentially becomes a question
of fact and basing upon the said fact finding, the law has to be
necessarily applied as to whether the said person is a complete stranger
to a contract or whether the privity can be said to have been created by
way of conduct.
29. Therefore, the said question relating to privity having been created
by virtue of conduct, acknowledgment and admission becomes a mixed
question of fact and law as it requires a fact finding as well as due
application of law. Furthermore, once the judicial opinion exists that
courts are entitled to do justice when all are before the court, then it is
unwise to reject the plaint at the threshold, considering the question of
privity of contract as a pure question of law when actually the conduct
of the parties and the attending circumstances reveal otherwise.”
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 37 of 43
50. Thus, it can be said that the doctrine of privity of contract in
India establishes that only parties to a contract are entitled to
enforce its terms. However, unlike the rigid application in English
law, Indian jurisprudence adopts a more flexible and equitable
approach. Owing to the wide scope of “consideration” under Section
2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, courts have consistently
recognized that strict adherence to privity may, in certain cases,
defeat the ends of justice. Accordingly, the rule is not treated as
absolute, and its application depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case.
51. Coming back to the facts of the present case, the Plaintiff has
relied upon 16 computer generated invoices Ex. PW-1/8 (Colly.).
The details of the defendants to which these 16 invoices are sent are
provided below:
Defendant
S. No. Invoice No. Complete Address
NameCarnival Big Crystal Mall Big Cinema, F.P. No. 853, Ra-
1 TX032/17-18
Crystal Rajkot jkot, Gujarat – 360005, IndiaCinemagic Big Cinemas, Road No. 5, Rani
Carnival Cin-
2 TX057/17-18 Bazar Industrial Area, Bikaner, Rajasthan –
emagic Bikaner
334001, India
Carnival Krishnaplex, Alambagh, 551 KA/
Carnival Films
3 TX062/17-18 CC, Bhilawan, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh –
Pvt. Ltd.
226005, India
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 38 of 43
Defendant
S. No. Invoice No. Complete Address
Name
Stargaze Enter- City Mall, 36 Mungeli Road, Mangla
4 TX066/17-18 tainment Pvt. Chowk, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - 495001,
Ltd. India
Funstar Cinema, 1st Floor, Times Square
Carnival Films
5 TX071/17-18 Mall, Central Spine, Vidhyadhar Nagar,
Pvt. Ltd.
Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302039, India
Stargaze Enter- Carnival Glitz Cinemas, Blue City Mall,
6 TX083/17-18 tainment Pvt. Ajeet Bhawan, Circuit House Road, Jodh-
Ltd. pur, Rajasthan - 342001, India
Carnival Gold Pune, Marigold Complex,
Carnival Films
7 TX088/17-18 Mariplex Mall, Kalyani Nagar, Pune, Maha-
Pvt. Ltd.
rashtra - 411014, India
Cinema Ven- Crystal Mall, Opp. Rani Tower, Kalawad
8 TX092/17-18
tures Pvt. Ltd. Road, Rajkot, Gujarat - 360005, India
Ayab Layout, Near Sangam Cinemas, 369-
Cinema Ven-
9 TX093/17-18 A, Sakkardara, Nagpur, Maharashtra -
tures Pvt. Ltd.
440009, India
Viva Big Cinema, Lily G.T. Road, Viva Col-
Cinema Ven-
10` TX094/17-18 lege Mall, 3rd Floor, Paragpur, Near Haveli,
tures Pvt. Ltd.
Jalandhar, Punjab - 144005, India
Odeon - Carnival Cinemas, Block D, Inner
Cinema Ven-
11 TX095/17-18 Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi -
tures Pvt. Ltd.
110001, India
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 39 of 43
Defendant
S. No. Invoice No. Complete Address
Name
Cinema Ven- Crystal Mall, Opp. Rani Tower, Kalawad
8 TX092/17-18
tures Pvt. Ltd. Road, Rajkot, Gujarat - 360005, India
IMAX Wadala, IMAX Carnival Cinemas,
Cinema Ven- Bhakti Park, Anik Wadala Link Road,
12 TX096/17-18
tures Pvt. Ltd. Wadala, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400037,
India
Huma Huma Carnival Cinemas, Huma City
Cinema Ven-
13 TX097/17-18 Mall, LBS Marg, Kanjurmarg (West), Mum-
tures Pvt. Ltd.
bai, Maharashtra - 400078, India
Pacific Mall Mathura - Carnival Cinemas,
Cinema Ven- C-1 Industrial Area, Opp. Mathura Refinery,
14 TX101/17-18
tures Pvt. Ltd. NH-2, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh - 281006, In-
dia
Carnival Rap Magnum, Magnum Mall, Near
Carnival Films
15 TX102/17-18 Hapur Railway Crossing, Delhi Road,
Pvt. Ltd.
Meerut, Uttar Pradesh - 250002, India
Carnival World Square Mall, Mohan Nagar
Carnival World
16 TX105/17-18 T Point, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh - 201007,
Square Mall
India
52. The present suit for recovery of Rs. 14,10,000/- is filed
against the Defendant M/s Carnival Films Private Limited having
its registered place of business at Cinemas Carnival House, 801,
8th Floor, A Wing Express Zone, off Western Express Highway,
Malad (East), Mumbai-400097, Maharastra. As per the details of
tax invoices along with the parties to which the tax invoices are
addressed, not even a single invoice in Ex. PW-1/8 (Colly.)
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 40 of 43
mentions the above address. No cause of action lies against the
defendant in the present case, whereas the documentary record itself
clearly demonstrates that the unilateral documents as well as alleged
transactions and invoices were not raised upon the defendant but
were raised upon distinct and separate legal entities different from
the present defendant, which are independent juristic persons and
cannot be acted against in the present suit as per the provisions of
the Companies Act, 2013.
53. It is a settled principle of law that only a party to a contract
can be bound by or enforce the same, and a stranger to the contract
cannot be made liable. In the absence of any cogent evidence to
demonstrate that the defendant had undertaken any liability for the
transactions of other group entities, or that any recognized exception
to the doctrine of privity of contract such as agency,
acknowledgment, assignment, or creation of privity by conduct, is
attracted, the plaintiff cannot seek recovery against the present
defendant for transactions admittedly entered into with separate
entities. Mere assertion that all group companies maintained a
common running account, without any written agreement or legally
admissible evidence, is insufficient to override the settled doctrine
of separate corporate personality and privity of contract.
54. In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove,
this Court finds that the plaintiff has failed to establish its
entitlement to recover the claimed amount of Rs. 14,10,000/-. The
alleged part payment on 07.07.2018, 10.07.2018 and 22.10.2018
without any written acknowledgment during the limitation period
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 41 of 43
does not revive or extend or start a new limitation period of three
years in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Even on
merits, the statement of account (Ex.PW-1/15) or the invoices
(Ex.PW-1/8 (Colly.)). all are unilateral documents created by the
plaintiff and there is no acknowledgment or endorsement made by
the defendant by way of signature or seal on them to prove that the
defendant actually ordered anything to the plaintiff. The electronic
documents like master data of the plaintiff company, (Ex.PW-1/2),
Computer generated master data of defendant company
(Ex.PW-1/5), Computer generated copy of 16 invoices, (Ex.PW-1/8
(Colly.)), copies of e-mail exchanged between the plaintiff company
and the defendant company (Ex.PW-1/9 (Colly.)), copy of email of
legal notice (Ex.PW-1/11), Computer copies of two postal tracking
reports (Ex.PW-1/14 (Colly.)), and statement of account
(Ex.PW-1/15) without any certificate of electronic evidence cannot
be relied upon as admissible evidence, and the same are liable to be
excluded from consideration. Moreover, there is not a single tax
invoice against the The plaintiff has not been able to establish its
entitlement for recovery against the defendant and has not been able
to duly discharge its onus to prove its case by way of the standard of
proof required in Civil cases i.e., proving its case by way of by
preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, the present suit is
liable to be dismissed on the aforesaid grounds, as per law.
55. In light of the above discussions having regard to the
overall facts and circumstances of the case, the present suit for
recovery of Rs. 14,10,000/- along with pendente lite and future
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 42 of 43
interest is dismissed.
56. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned
to record room, after due completion.
Announced in the open Court today
on this 15th day of April, 2026
( Devender Kumar Jangala )
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
North-West, Rohini, Delhi.
15.04.2026
CS (Comm.) No.398/2021 Cinesales MFG Private Ltd. Vs. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. Page 43 of 43