Delhi District Court
Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd vs M/S Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd on 21 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA, DISTRICT
JUDGE, (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02, WEST, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, EXTENSION BLOCK, DELHI
"AMONGST 20 OLDEST CASES"
CS (COMM) No. 273/2023
CNR NO.DLWT010025282023
M/S MALHOTRA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED
Through Its Authorized Representative
Having Registered Address:
J-9/10, Basement, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi - 110027
Also at :-
11-C, Udyog Kendra,
Greater Noida, 201306
...Plaintiff
Vs.
M/S VEWTRON INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.
Through its Directors and Authorised Representatives
a. Mr. Anil Prajapati
b. Ms. Manoj Kumar Verma
c. Mr. Subhash Chandra Verma
Having Registered Address:
Flat no.91, Pkt-B2, Lok Nayak Puram,
Mundka near Ashram Delhi, 110041.
... Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 9,50,131/- (NINE LAKH FIFTY
THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED THIRTY ONE ONLY) ALONG
WITH INTEREST @ 18% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF
EACH INVOICE AND PENDENTELITE AND FUTURE
INTEREST @18% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE
SUIT, TILL ITS REALISATION.
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 1/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
Date of institution of Suit : 20.03.2023
Date of Assignment to this court : 21.03.2023
Date of hearing of final argument : 11.04.2026
Date of Judgment : 21.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, I shall conscientiously
adjudicate upon the Suit of plaintiff for Recovery of Rs.9,50,131/-
alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of each invoice
with pendentlite and future, from the date of filing of the suit till its
realization alongwith costs of the Suit.
2. As derived from the pleadings, the concise facts of the
plaint are being summarised hereunder:-
2.1 The Plaintiff Company is incorporated in India under the
Companies Act, 1956, with its registered offices at Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi, and Greater Noida, though its primary business
operations are conducted from Delhi. The present case is being
instituted through its duly authorised representative, Mr. Pankaj
Shah, authorised via Board Resolution, who is fully aware of the
facts and company records and is competent to sign, verify, and file
the plaint. The Plaintiff Company is engaged in the manufacturing,
export, and supply of televisions, washing machines, and other
consumer electronics, and holds a well-established reputation in the
market.
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 2/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
2.2 The Defendant is a company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 2013, having its registered office at Lok Nayak
Puram, Mundka, Delhi and is engaged in the distribution, trading,
and sale of electronic products.
2.3 In and around 2017, the Defendant, through its
Directors, approached the Plaintiff to purchase its products,
representing itself as a reputed company and assuring continuous
business with regular payments. It was agreed that transactions would
be conducted on a running and mutual account basis, with a credit
period of 60 days, after which interest at 18% per annum would
apply. The parties also agreed that debit notes, credit notes, sales
returns, payments, and interest would be duly adjusted during
account reconciliation.
2.4 Relying on the Defendant’s representations, the Plaintiff
supplied goods under multiple invoices to the Defendant’s
satisfaction. While the Defendant made partial payments, a sum of
Rs. 9,50,131/- remained outstanding. Despite repeated reminders
regarding the dues reflected in the running account maintained by the
Plaintiff, the Defendant failed to clear the balance amount.
2.5 As no payment was received, the Plaintiff, through its
employees and authorised representatives, repeatedly sought payment
from the Defendant. Despite continuous follow-ups and telephonic
communications, the Defendant evaded its obligations and without
any lawful justification, withheld the admitted dues.
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 3/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
2.6 The Defendant is liable to pay Rs. 9,50,131/- to the
Plaintiff as per the Statement of Account for the period 12.07.2017 to
01.04.2022 after making all adjustments towards payments made,
goods returned and credit notes raised. The Defendant is further
liable to pay interest @18% per annum from the date of invoices till
the filing of the suit, and thereafter, at the same rate, from the date of
filing of the suit till actual payment made by the defendant.
2.7 The cause of action is stated to have arisen on
11.08.2020 when the Plaintiff last supplied goods to the Defendant
and subsequently on each occasion when the Defendant made part
payments, failed to clear outstanding dues despite repeated demands,
emails and follow-ups by the Plaintiff. The cause of action is
continuing and subsisting. The suit is within limitation.
2.8 As the registered offices of both the Plaintiff and the
Defendant are in Delhi and all transactions and records are
maintained there, this Court has the requisite territorial jurisdiction to
entertain and try the present suit. Plaintiff Company has complied
with the mandatory pre-litigation mediation requirement under
Section 12 of the Commercial Courts Act.
2.9 It is prayed to pass a Decree for Rs. 9,50,131/- in favour
of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, along with interest @18%
per annum from the date of each invoice till filing of the suit and
further grant pendent-lite and future interest @18% per annum till
realization along with costs of the suit.
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 4/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
3. Upon issuance of Summons for settlement of Issues,
defendants deemed to be served through electronic modes on
10.07.2023 as well as through Summons on 15.07.2023. As neither
appeared nor Written Statement filed on behalf of defendant,
defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide orders dated 09.08.2023 and
the matter was proceeded for ex-parte plaintiff evidence.
4. During course of the proceedings, defendant appeared
through Counsel and filed application U/O IX Rule 7 CPC seeking
setting aside of ex-parte orders dated 09.08.2023. However, same
was dismissed in default vide orders dated 02.02.2024 as the
defendant failed to pursue the same, despite opportunity.
5. Vide orders dated 16.05.2024, application U/O XI Rule
1(5) CPC filed on behalf of plaintiff seeking permission to file
additional documents was allowed and additional documents were
taken on record.
6. Vide orders dated 04.07.2024, AR of the plaintiff Sh.
Pankaj Shah, was examined as PW1 and discharged. Vide separate
statement of AR of the plaintiff, ex-parte evidence stood closed.
7. Vide orders dated 20.2.2024, application U/S 151 CPC
filed on behalf of plaintiff seeking permission to re-open P.E for
calling/summoning essential witness from GST Department, was
allowed. Sh. Vinay Kumar Pandey, Inspector (GST), was duly
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 5/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
examined as PW2, cross-examined by ld. Counsel for defendant and
discharged, on 23.01.2025.
8. Vide orders dated 08.07.2025, application U/S 151 CPC
filed on behalf of defendant, seeking restoration of application U/O
IX Rule 7 CPC (DID on 02.02.2024) was dismissed being devoid of
any merits with following observations:-
“…Keeping in view that the suit was filed way back in the
year 2023, one of the witness of the plaintiff has already
been recorded in the presence of defendant on 23.01.2025,
in considered opinion the defendant had not assigned
cogent, convincing and acceptable reasons for recalling the
order dated 02.02.2024.
In view of the observation, application under Section 151
CPC stands dismissed being devoid of merits. However, as
observed in judgment (supra), defendant is granted
opportunity to argue the matter as the case is at the stage of
final arguments……”
9. Accordingly, defendant participated in the present Suit,
in term of the liberty granted vide orders of the Court dated
08.07.2025. Accordingly, as per law, defendant was allowed to
participate in the case, at the stage of final arguments. It is pertinent
to mention that defendant duly cross-examined one of the plaintiff
witness (PW2). Accordingly, for the purpose of determining the
scope of the defence, following issues have been framed for
adjudication by the Court : –
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of
Rs.9,50,131/- as prayed, or any other amount ? OPP.
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 6/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to any interest ? If Yes, at
what rate and for which period ? OPP
3. Relief.
10. Plaintiff in support of its case had got examined
Sh.Pankaj Shah, (GM-Finance and Compliance)/AR of the Plaintiff
company, as PW1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit
Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at Point A and Point B. By way of
affidavit of chief-examination, the plaintiff witness has deposed as
per the averments in the plaint and has relied upon documents, such
as, the Board Resolution dated 15.12.2021 as Ex. PW-1/1, 166
invoices starting from Invoice No. 308 dated 12.07.2017 as Ex.
PW-1/2 onwards, each invoice exhibited successively till the last
Invoice No. 1559 dated 11.08.2020 as Ex. PW-1/167; Statement for
the period of 01.04.2017 to 15.02.2023 as Ex. PW-1/168; Email
dated 25.01.2021 as Ex. PW-1/169; Details of the Defendant as
available on the MCA portal https://www.gst.gov.in as Ex. PW-1/170;
Affidavit under Order 11 Rule 6(3) of the Commercial Courts Act as
Ex. PW-1/171; Seven E-way bills dated 11.10.2018, 17.10.2018,
21.12.2018, 09.05.2019, 16.07.2019, 05.09.2019, 12.09.2019, and
18.09.2019 as Ex.PW1/172 to Ex.PW1/179, respectively.
11. AR of the plaintiff as PW1 was examined and
discharged and vide separate statement of AR of the plaintiff,
evidence stood closed.
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 7/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
12. It is pertinent to mention here that vide orders dated
20.2.2024, application U/S 151 CPC filed on behalf of plaintiff
seeking permission to re-open P.E for calling/summoning essential
witness from GST Department, was allowed.
13. Accordingly, plaintiff further got examined summoned
witness Sh. Vinay Kumar Pandey, Inspector (GST), Ward No.64,
Department of Trade and Taxes, Vayapar Bhawan, ITO, New Delhi
as PW2, who brought the summoned record and tendered following
document(s):
SL NO. DOCUMENT(S) EXHIBITED AS
1. Attested copies of GST R2B and GST R3B, B2B Ex.PW2/A (Colly,
invoice summary of M/s Viewtron India running from
Electronics Pvt Ltd. w.e.f. Jan.2019 to Jan.2020. page nos.1 to 33)
2. Certificate U/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW2/B
3. Authority letter in favour of PW2 Ex.PW2/C
14. PW2 deposed that the B2B invoice summary contains
billing details, GST R2B reflects inward supplies from registered
persons and GST R3B provides a summary of inward and outward
supplies. PW2 further deposed that from page 8 of Ex. PW2/A, it is
evident that Malhotra Electronics supplied goods to M/s Viewtron
India.
15. PW2 was duly cross-examined by ld. Counsel for
defendant, wherein he testified that Ex.PW2/C was prepared in his
presence. He further clarified that aforementioned GST details of M/s
Viewtron India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant), were for the period
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 8/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
from January-2020 to August-2020. The official witness PW2
admitted that documents produced by him vide Ex.PW2/A (Colly),
were only in respect to the tax paid by M/s Viewtron India
Electronics Pvt Ltd. (defendant) He deposed that it was a matter of
record, if any sale of goods were shown in the documents filed by
him, while testifying that his deposition was based as per record.
16. Defendant failed to put forward its defence to challenge
and rebut the evidence of the plaintiff. The defendant never filed its
Written Statement and therefore, there was no opportunity available
with the defendant to lead any D.E. Accordingly, the evidence on
record comprises of plaintiff witness Sh.Pankaj Shah, AR of the
plaintiff who has been examined as PW1 and not cross-examined by
the defendants, despite having the opportunity, and summoned
witness Sh. Vinay Kumar Pandey, Inspector (GST) as PW2, who has
been duly cross-examined by ld. Counsel for defendant. The trial in
the case concluded with testimonies of the plaintiff witnesses, as no
other witness(es) have been examined.
17. Arguments, as addressed by Sh. Sushant Singhal, ld.
Counsel for plaintiff, have been heard at length. The defendant did
not offer any assistance to the Court by way of arguments.
Nevertheless, the issues in the Suit are to be determined, as per law,
for which the entire record including the pleadings have been
perused. The applicable law has been duly considered. The entire
evidence, both oral and documentary, have been appreciated. Issue-
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 9/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
wise findings are as under:-
18. ISSUE NO.1
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Decree for recovery
for recovery Rs.9,50,131/- as prayed, or any other
amount ? OPP.
18.1 By way of the present suit, plaintiff as a private limited
company, has sought recovery of a sum of Rs.9,50,131/- against the
defendant, which is also a private limited company. The claim of the
plaintiff is based on the assertions that in the year 2017, plaintiff was
approached by the representatives of the defendant for supply of
goods, against orders placed by the defendant from time to time, with
the assurance of regular payments against the supplies made by the
plaintiff. As per the case of the plaintiff, it is engaged in
manufacturing and supply of electronic goods, such as televisions,
washing machines and other consumer electronics, which are the
goods in question stated to have been supplied by the plaintiff in
favour of the defendant against duly issued invoices, starting from
12.07.2017 with a last alleged supply having been made against the
invoice dated 11.08.2020. In support of its plaint, in all 166 invoices
have been filed, for the goods supplied by the plaintiff during the
period from 12.07.2017 to 11.08.2020.
18.2 It is case of the plaintiff that defendant made part
payments from time to time against the goods supplied by the
plaintiff and that the plaintiff was maintaining a regular runningCS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 10/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
account in respect of business dealings with the defendant. There was
an outstanding payment of Rs.9,50,131/- that remained outstanding
and recoverable from the defendant, which remained unpaid despite
repeated requests and demands issued by the plaintiff, as per the
statement of account maintained by the plaintiff, including all the
goods supplied and crediting the amounts received from the
defendant as part payments. The plaintiff has also claimed its
entitlement to an interest, which shall be dealt with in the later issue.
18.3 This suit has been filed before this Court on the basis of
commercial transactions between the parties, wherein the orders were
received by the plaintiff at its office in the West District and Bank
transfers were also in the bank of the plaintiff. It is further asserted
that the goods were sent from the registered office of the plaintiff
within the jurisdiction of this court. Hence, the present suit in this
Court. The plaintiff has reported compliance of the mandatory pre-
litigation mediation as envisaged U/S 12A of the Commercial Courts
Act. It may be therefore, relevant to first consider the issue of
limitation, before proceeding with the adjudication of the entitlement
of the plaintiff, if any, to the claimed outstanding against the
defendant.
18.4 By way of the testimony of its witness PW1, who has
placed on record his authority vide Ex.PW1/1; 166 invoices issued by
the plaintiff against the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the
defendant, have been relied upon as Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/167. The
plaintiff witness has further placed on record the statement/ledger for
the period 01.04.2017 to 15.02.2023 vide Ex.PW1/168, which has
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 11/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
been perused to reflect the part payment made by the defendant by
way of bank transfer to the account of the plaintiff as on 31.01.2020
in the sum of Rs.5 Lakhs in the Axis Bank account of the plaintiff. It
may be further relevant to consider that though the plaintiff witness
through PW1 has placed on record the invoices dating back from the
year 2017, the present claim has been restricted w.e.f. January 2020
in respect of the invoices Ex.PW1/151 to Ex/PW1/167. During
course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has contended that
the plaintiff maintained a current, open and non-mutual account, in
respect of the transactions with the defendant and has sought
recovery for the alleged unpaid invoices w.e.f. January 2020
submitting that all the payments that were received from the
defendant, even after during the year 2020, are liable to be adjusted
against the previous overdues of the defendant. In support of its case,
plaintiff has placed heavy reliance upon the statement of account
Ex.PW1/168 to show that the last payment was received by the
plaintiff as on 31.01.2020.
18.5 It may be relevant to examine the Law of the land and
the statutory law of limitation that is applicable to the facts of the
present case. As per facts of present case, the claim of the plaintiff
being based on the invoices w.e.f. January 2020, the reckoning date
of limitation is to be considered in respect of the invoice bearing
no.6697 dated 03.01.2020 against which the supplies were made by
the plaintiff to the defendant, as claimed. It is further to be considered
that as per the ledger account relied upon by the plaintiff, the last part
payment from the defendant, is credited in the bank account of the
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 12/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
plaintiff as on 31.01.2020. It is an admitted case of the plaintiff itself
that the account that was maintained by the plaintiff in respect of the
business dealings with the defendant, which is not an acknowledged
statement of ledger. The applicable legal position for computation of
limitation is accordingly being considered
18.6 The Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to lay down
latest binding law on the aspect in ‘Tanishq Agencies & Anr. Vs. M/s
Ventura International Pvt. Ltd.’; RFA(COMM)665/2025 dated
27.02.2026, wherein it was considered that the ledger account relied
upon by the plaintiff in that case, stood unrebutted and was
determined as a current and open account. The Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi was further pleased to hold as under :-
“32. As to factors 1) and 4), both premised on the
existence of mutual obligations between the parties, we
are of the view that goods appear to have been supplied by
the respondent to the appellants, creating obligations of
repayment upon the appellants, and that no cross
obligation as created against the respondent. Reliance to
this extent is placed upon paragraphs 13 to 15 of this
Court’s decision in Bharath Skins Corporation v Taneja
Skins Company Pvt. Ltd.4:
“13. From the aforesaid observations, it can be
deduced that for the creation of an open, current
and mutual account, there must be an intention
between the parties, either express or implied,
which may be deducible from the course of
dealings to have mutual dealings, creating
reciprocal obligations, independent of each other.
A ‘demand’ in relation to a matter of account
means a ‘claim for money’ arising out of a
‘contractual business relationship’ between the
parties. Where the dealings between the parties
disclose a ‘single’ contractual relationship, there
will be demands only in favor of one party. For
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 13/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
instance, where the relationship between ‘A’ and
‘B’ is that of lender and borrower respectively,
‘A’ will have a ‘demand’ against ‘B’ in respect of
every item of loan advanced. But ‘B’ can have no
demand against ‘A’. Where the dealings between
the parties disclose ‘two’ contractual
relationships, there will arise demands in favor of
each side against the other. For instance, where
‘A’ advances money to ‘B’ from time to time as
loan, and ‘B’ engages ‘A’ as his agent for the sale
of goods sent by ‘B’, there are two contractual
relationships between the parties: one of lender
and borrower and the other, that of principal and
agent. ‘A’ as creditor may have several demands
against ‘B’ who as principal may have,
independently, several demands against ‘A’. The
real test, therefore, to see whether there have
been reciprocal demands in any particular case is
to see: Whether there is a ‘dual contractual
relationship’ between the parties.
14. Where ‘A’ sells goods to ‘B’ from time to
time and ‘B’ makes payments towards the price
from time to time there is only a ‘single’
contractual relationship, namely that of buyer
and seller, between the parties. ‘A’ has demands
against ‘B’ for items sold, but ‘B’ can have no
‘demands’ against ‘A’. Such case is not one of
reciprocal demands and thus Article 85 of the
Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act, 1908
corresponding to Article 1 of the Schedule to the
Limitation Act, 1963 will not apply to suits on
such accounts…
15. In view of the above discussion, since the
dealings between the parties disclose a single
contractual relationship i.e. of buyer and seller
between them, the account between them
cannot be termed as a ‘mutual’ account. As a
necessary corollary, Article 1 of the Schedule to
the Limitation Act, 1963 has no application in
the present case. (emphasis added)
33. Therefore, we arrive at the conclusion that Article 1 of
the limitation act would not apply to the present set ofCS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 14/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
facts. Though the ledger account is undoubtedly of open
and current nature, there is no indication of mutual
obligations upon parties.
34. This conceives the question of how limitation may be
computed in the present case, which also stands answered
in Bharath Skins (supra), wherein, it was observed that
there being no Article in the Schedule to the Limitation
Act dealing with suits for recovery of money due on
running and current but non-mutual accounts, the residual
article, Article 113, would stand attracted. Paragraphs 24
and 25 of the decision stand reproduced thus:
“24. There being no Article in the Schedule to
the Limitation Act, 1963 dealing with suits for
recovery of money due on running and current
but non-mutual accounts, in such circumstances,
the residual article viz. Article 113 applies to such
suits.
25. Under Article 113, the period for limitation
for filing a suit is three years and the same
begins to run when the right to sue would
accrue when claim was denied in response to the
legal notice dated 26.06.1985 on 13.07.1985 but
since Rs. 7,000/- was paid on 13.07.1985 and
24.07.1985 (Rs. 2,000/- on the former date and
Rs. 5,000/- on the latter date), limitation would
commence from 24.07.1985. The suit being filed
on 02.09.1985, governed for purposes of
limitation by Article 113 the suit would be within
limitation.”
35. Article 113 prescribes the computation of limitation
for filing a suit as three years beginning to run from when
the right to sue would accrue. In the present set of facts,
legal notice dated 09.01.2019 was not denied, and the fact
that this notice was sent years after the period during
which debts accrued, cannot be construed as having an
effect of extending the date from which limitation may be
computed.
36. Apropos this interpretation, reference is drawn to the
ledger account exhibited by the respondent, according to
which the last payment by the appellants appears to be a
sum of 1,67,480/-paid on 17.05.2016. Considering that
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 15/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
payments were not made stricto sensu per invoice, and that
sums were paid to discharge accruing obligations
represented by the balance due at the foot of the ledger
account, it is trite that limitation can be said to accrue from
the date of last payment, as this speaks to an acceptance of
obligation, and that the last payment on record would be
the last event of such acceptance.”
(emphasis added)
18.7 The binding ruling of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi is
squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the
operative trigger point for computation of limitation shall be the date
when the last payment was made by the defendant. As per binding
law, limitation can be said to be accrued from the date of last
payment being the last event of acceptance of outstanding
obligations, by the defendant. Therefore, if a period of three years is
computed from the date of last payment by the defendant as on
31.01.2020, the period of limitation was available to the plaintiff upto
31.01.2023. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has sought for exemption of a
period of 48 days, spent during the pre-litiation mediation
proceedings from 06.04.2022 to 23.05.2022. Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi was pleased to consider this aspect also, in the afore-cited
judgment in Tanishq Agencies (Supra) wherein it has been held as
under :-
“38. Notwithstanding this, the proviso to Section 12A of
the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 mandates exclusion of
the period spent in pre-institution mediation for the
purposes of limitation. The record indicates that the
respondent approached the District Legal Services
Authority, West District, Tis Hazari Courts on 21.02.2019,
and a non- starter report was issued on 08.04.2019.
Therefore, the intervening period from 21.02.2019 to
08.04.2019, being less than three months, ought to beCS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 16/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
excluded. Upon such exclusion, the suit instituted on
23.05.2019 falls within the prescribed period of
limitation.”
Therefore, applying the legal position in the present
case, the intervening period spent in pre-institution mediation for the
purpose of limitation, is to be excluded, being less than three months.
It has been considered that the limitation shall be reckoned w.e.f.
31.01.2023. The present suit has been e-filed on 17.03.2023, after
seeking exemption of a period of 45 days on account of time spent in
pre-institution Mediation. Accordingly, the present Suit falls within
the prescribed period of limitation, hence, within Limitation.
18.8 Now considering the issue on merits, Plaintiff in support
of its case had got examined Sh.Pankaj Shah, (GM-Finance and
Compliance)/AR of the Plaintiff company, as PW1, who tendered his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at
Point A and Point B. By way of affidavit of chief-examination, the
plaintiff witness has deposed as per the averments in the plaint and
has relied upon documents, detailed as under:-
S.No. DOCUMENT(S) EXHIBITED AS
1 The Board Resolution dated 15.12.2021 Ex. PW-1/1
2 Invoice No. 308 dated 12.07.2017 Ex. PW-1/2
3 Invoice No. 346 dated 14.07.2017 Ex. PW-1/3
4 Invoice No. 371 dated 15.07.2017 Ex. PW-1/4
5 Invoice No. 408 dated 17.07.2017 Ex. PW-1/5
6 Invoice No. 439 dated 18.07.2017 Ex. PW-1/6
7 Invoice No. 507 dated 21.07.2017 Ex. PW-1/7
8 Invoice No. 535 dated 22.07.2017 Ex. PW-1/8
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 17/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
9 Invoice No. 1244 dated 23.08.2017 Ex. PW-1/9
10 Invoice No. 1336 dated 28.08.2017 Ex. PW-1/10
11 Invoice No. 1578 dated 06.09.2017 Ex. PW-1/11
12 Invoice No. 1675 dated 09.09.2017 Ex. PW-1/12
13 Invoice No. 1823 dated 15.09.2017 Ex. PW-1/13
14 Invoice No. 1881 dated 18.09.2017 Ex. PW-1/14
15 Invoice No. 1974 dated 22.09.2017 Ex. PW-1/15
16 Invoice No. 2045 dated 23.09.2017 Ex. PW-1/16
17 Invoice No. 2080 dated 25.09.2017 Ex. PW-1/17
18 Invoice No. 2193 dated 28.09.2017 Ex. PW-1/18
19 Invoice No. 2258 dated 03.10.2017 Ex. PW-1/19
20 Invoice No. 2269 dated 03.10.2017 Ex. PW-1/20
21 Invoice No. 2298 dated 04.10.2017 Ex. PW-1/21
22 Invoice No. 2367 dated 06.10.2017 Ex. PW-1/22
23 Invoice No. 2369 dated 06.10.2017 Ex. PW-1/23
24 Invoice No. 2414 dated 07.10.2017 Ex. PW-1/24
25 Invoice No. 2512 dated 10.10.2017 Ex. PW-1/25
26 Invoice No. 2627 dated 12.10.2017 Ex. PW-1/26
27 Invoice No. 2660 dated 13.10.2017 Ex. PW-1/27
28 Invoice No. 2685 dated 14.10.2017 Ex. PW-1/28
29 Invoice No. 2686 dated 14.10.2017 Ex. PW-1/29
30 Invoice No. 2753 dated 17.10.2017 Ex. PW-1/30
31 Invoice No. 2781 dated 17.10.2017 Ex. PW-1/31
32 Invoice No. 3250 dated 09.11.2017 Ex. PW-1/32
33 Invoice No. 3278 dated 10.11.2017 Ex. PW-1/33
34 Invoice No. 3769 dated 07.12.2017 Ex. PW-1/34
35 Invoice No. 4058 dated 23.12.2017 Ex. PW-1/35
36 Invoice No. 4736 dated 25.01.2018 Ex. PW-1/36
37 Invoice No. 5283 dated 13.02.2018 Ex. PW-1/37
38 Invoice No. 5318 dated 12.07.2018 Ex. PW-1/38
39 Invoice No. 5393 dated 16.02.2018 Ex. PW-1/39
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 18/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
40 Invoice No. 5508 dated 20.02.2018 Ex. PW-1/40
41 Invoice No. 5594 dated 22.02.2018 Ex. PW-1/41
42 Invoice No. 5700 dated 27.02.2018 Ex. PW-1/42
43 Invoice No. 6204 dated 21.03.2018 Ex. PW-1/43
44 Invoice No. 6352 dated 28.03.2018 Ex. PW-1/44
45 Invoice No. 289 dated 20.04.2018 Ex. PW-1/45
46 Invoice No. 604 dated 03.05.2018 Ex. PW-1/46
47 Invoice No. 639 dated 04.05.2018 Ex. PW-1/47
48 Invoice No. 782 dated 10.05.2018 Ex. PW-1/48
49 Invoice No. 966 dated 19.05.2018 Ex. PW-1/49
50 Invoice No. 1035 dated 23.05.2018 Ex. PW-1/50
51 Invoice No. 1036 dated 23.05.2018 Ex. PW-1/51
52 Invoice No. 1050 dated 23.05.2018 Ex. PW-1/52
53 Invoice No. 1091 dated 26.05.2018 Ex. PW-1/53
54 Invoice No. 1103 dated 26.05.2018 Ex. PW-1/54
55 Invoice No. 1438 dated 07.06.2018 Ex. PW-1/55
56 Invoice No. 1529 dated 12.06.2018 Ex. PW-1/56
57 Invoice No. 1603 dated 15.06.2018 Ex. PW-1/57
58 Invoice No. 1790 dated 25.06.2018 Ex. PW-1/58
59 Invoice No. 1868 dated 27.06.2018 Ex. PW-1/59
60 Invoice No. 1919 dated 29.06.2018 Ex. PW-1/60
61 Invoice No. 2025 dated 04.10.2018 Ex. PW-1/61
62 Invoice No. 2200 dated 12.07.2018 Ex. PW-1/62
63 Invoice No. 2249 dated 16.07.2018 Ex. PW-1/63
64 Invoice No. 2419 dated 23.07.2018 Ex. PW-1/64
65 Invoice No. 2457 dated 24.07.2018 Ex. PW-1/65
66 Invoice No. 2458 dated 24.07.2018 Ex. PW-1/66
67 Invoice No. 2543 dated 30.07.2018 Ex. PW-1/67
68 Invoice No. 2609 dated 01.08.2018 Ex. PW-1/68
69 Invoice No. 2658 dated 02.08.2018 Ex. PW-1/69
70 Invoice No. 2681 dated 02.08.2018 Ex. PW-1/70
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 19/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
71 Invoice No. 2694 dated 03.08.2018 Ex. PW-1/71
72 Invoice No. 2968 dated 18.08.2018 Ex. PW-1/72
73 Invoice No. 3032 dated 21.08.2018 Ex. PW-1/73
74 Invoice No. 3142 dated 27.08.2018 Ex. PW-1/74
75 Invoice No. 3244 dated 31.08.2018 Ex. PW-1/75
76 Invoice No. 3544 dated 15.09.2018 Ex. PW-1/76
77 Invoice No. 3672 dated 21.09.2018 Ex. PW-1/77
78 Invoice No. 3808 dated 27.09.2018 Ex. PW-1/78
79 Invoice No. 3841 dated 29.09.2018 Ex. PW-1/79
80 Invoice No. 3847 dated 29.09.2018 Ex. PW-1/80
81 Invoice No. 3917 dated 03.10.2018 Ex. PW-1/81
82 Invoice No. 3988 dated 5.10.2018 Ex. PW-1/82
83 Invoice No. 4095 dated 10.10.2018 Ex. PW-1/83
84 Invoice No. 4132 dated 11.10.2018 Ex. PW-1/84
85 Invoice No. 4171 dated 13.10.2018 Ex. PW-1/85
86 Invoice No. 4223 dated 15.10.2018 Ex. PW-1/86
87 Invoice No. 4289 dated 17.10.2018 Ex. PW-1/87
88 Invoice No. 4348 dated 18.10.2018 Ex. PW-1/88
89 Invoice No. 4480 dated 24.10.2018 Ex. PW-1/89
90 Invoice No. 4557 dated 26.10.2018 Ex. PW-1/90
91 Invoice No. 4600 dated 27.10.2018 Ex. PW-1/91
92 Invoice No. 4865 dated 03.11.2018 Ex. PW-1/92
93 Invoice No. 5029 dated 13.10.2018 Ex. PW-1/93
94 Invoice No. 5321 dated 27.11.2018 Ex. PW-1/94
95 Invoice No. 5423 dated 01.12.2018 Ex. PW-1/95
96 Invoice No. 5837 dated 15.12.2018 Ex. PW-1/96
97 Invoice No. 5908 dated 18.12.2018 Ex. PW-1/97
98 Invoice No. 5994 dated 21.12.2018 Ex. PW-1/98
99 Invoice No. 6149 dated 02.01.2019 Ex. PW-1/99
100 Invoice No. 6624 dated 18.01.2019 Ex. PW-1/100
101 Invoice No. 6729 dated 22.01.2019 Ex. PW-1/101
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 20/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
102 Invoice No. 6955 dated 31.01.2019 Ex. PW-1/102
103 Invoice No. 7059 dated 04.02.2019 Ex. PW-1/103
104 Invoice No. 7374 dated 15.02.2019 Ex. PW-1/104
105 Invoice No. 7349 dated 16.02.2019 Ex. PW-1/105
106 Invoice No. 7515 dated 22.02.2019 Ex. PW-1/106
107 Invoice No. 7546 dated 23.02.2019 Ex. PW-1/107
108 Invoice No. 7739 dated 02.03.2019 Ex. PW-1/108
109 Invoice No. 7790 dated 05.03.2019 Ex. PW-1/109
110 Invoice No. 7840 dated 07.03.2019 Ex. PW-1/110
111 Invoice No. 8080 dated 16.03.2019 Ex. PW-1/111
112 Invoice No. 107 dated 05.04.2019 Ex. PW-1/112
113 Invoice No. 234 dated 12.04.2019 Ex. PW-1/113
114 Invoice No. 334 dated 16.04.2019 Ex. PW-1/114
115 Invoice No. 509 dated 23.04.2019 Ex. PW-1/115
116 Invoice No. 882 dated 09.05.2019 Ex. PW-1/116
117 Invoice No. 934 dated 11.05.2019 Ex. PW-1/117
118 Invoice No. 1018 dated 16.05.2019 Ex. PW-1/118
119 Invoice No. 1443 dated 05.06.2019 Ex. PW-1/119
120 Invoice No. 1829 dated 19.06.2019 Ex. PW-1/120
121 Invoice No. 2126 dated 01.07.2019 Ex. PW-1/121
122 Invoice No. 2266 dated 08.07.2019 Ex. PW-1/122
123 Invoice No. 2332 dated 11.07.2019 Ex. PW-1/123
124 Invoice No. 2432 dated 16.07.2019 Ex. PW-1/124
125 Invoice No. 2451 dated 17.07.2019 Ex. PW-1/125
1026 Invoice No. 2667 dated 27.07.2019 Ex. PW-1/126
127 Invoice No. 3021 dated 16.08.2019 Ex. PW-1/127
128 Invoice No. 3075 dated 19.08.2019 Ex. PW-1/128
129 Invoice No. 3117 dated 20.08.2019 Ex. PW-1/129
130 Invoice No. 3218 dated 23.08.2019 Ex. PW-1/130
131 Invoice No. 3354 dated 02.09.2019 Ex. PW-1/131
132 Invoice No. 3406 dated 05.09.2019 Ex. PW-1/132
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 21/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
133 Invoice No. 3573 dated 12.09.2019 Ex. PW-1/133
134 Invoice No. 3629 dated 14.09.2019 Ex. PW-1/134
135 Invoice No. 3686 dated 17.09.2019 Ex. PW-1/135
136 Invoice No. 3716 dated 19.09.2019 Ex. PW-1/136
137 Invoice No. 3990 dated 30.09.2019 Ex. PW-1/137
138 Invoice No. 4218 dated 07.10.2019 Ex. PW-1/138
139 Invoice No. 4398 dated 12.10.2019 Ex. PW-1/139
140 Invoice No. 4577 dated 17.10.2019 Ex. PW-1/140
141 Invoice No. 4722 dated 21.10.2019 Ex. PW-1/141
142 Invoice No. 4928 dated 24.10.2019 Ex. PW-1/142
143 Invoice No. 5326 dated 07.11.2019 Ex. PW-1/143
144 Invoice No. 5451 dated 13.11.2019 Ex. PW-1/144
145 Invoice No. 5451 dated 13.11.2019 Ex. PW-1/145
146 Invoice No. 5593 dated 18.11.2019 Ex. PW-1/146
147 Invoice No. 5903 dated 27.11.2019 Ex. PW-1/147
148 Invoice No. 6046 dated 01.12.2019 Ex. PW-1/148
149 Invoice No. 6337 dated 14.12.2019 Ex. PW-1/149
150 Invoice No. 6514 dated 24.12.2019 Ex. PW-1/150
151 Invoice No. 6697 dated 03.01.2020 Ex. PW-1/151
152 Invoice No. 6722 dated 04.01.2020 Ex. PW-1/152
153 Invoice No. 7152 dated 22.01.2020 Ex. PW-1/153
154 Invoice No. 7154 dated 22.01.2020 Ex. PW-1/154
155 Invoice No. 7420 dated 03.02.2020 Ex. PW-1/155
156 Invoice No. 7421 dated 03.02.2020 Ex. PW-1/156
157 Invoice No. 8019 dated 26.02.2020 Ex. PW-1/157
158 Invoice No. 8200 dated 04.03.2020 Ex. PW-1/158
159 Invoice No. 8377 dated 16.03.2020 Ex. PW-1/159
160 Invoice No. 241 dated 08.06.2020 Ex. PW-1/160
161 Invoice No. 416 dated 17.06.2020 Ex. PW-1/161
162 Invoice No. 465 dated 19.06.2020 Ex. PW-1/162
163 Invoice No. 813 dated 08.07.2020 Ex. PW-1/163
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 22/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
164 Invoice No. 938 dated 15.07.2020 Ex. PW-1/164
165 Invoice No. 1138 dated 24.07.2020 Ex. PW-1/165
166 Invoice No. 1551 dated 11.08.2020 Ex. PW-1/166
167 Invoice No. 1559 dated 11.08.2020 Ex. PW-1/167
168 Statement for the period of 01.04.2017 to Ex. PW-1/168
15.02.2023.
169 Email dated 25.01.2021 Ex. PW-1/169
170 Details of the Defendant as available on Ex. PW-1/170
the MCA portal https://www.gst.gov.in
171 Affidavit under Order 11 Rule 6(3) of the Ex. PW-1/171
Commercial Courts Act
172 E-way bill dated 11.10.2018 Ex. PW-1/172
173 E-way bill dated 17.10.2018 Ex. PW-1/173
174 E-way bill dated 21.12.2018 Ex. PW-1/174
175 E-way bill dated 09.05.2019 Ex. PW-1/175
176 E-way bill dated 16.07.2019 Ex. PW-1/176
177 E-way bill dated 05.09.2019 Ex. PW-1/177
178 E-way bill dated 12.09.2019 Ex. PW-1/178
179 E-way bill dated 18.09.2019 Ex. PW-1/179
The entire testimony of PW1 remained unchallenged and
unrebutted.
18.9 Plaintiff further got examined summoned witness Sh.
Vinay Kumar Pandey, Inspector (GST), Ward No.64, Department of
Trade and Taxes, Vayapar Bhawan, ITO, New Delhi, as PW2, who
brought the summoned record and tendered the same, such as attested
copies of GST R2B and GST R3B, B2B invoice summary of M/s
Viewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. w.e.f. Jan.2019 to Jan.2020 as
Ex.PW2/A (Colly, running from page nos.1 to 33); Certificate U/S
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 23/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW2/B and Authority letter in his
favour as Ex.PW2/C. PW2 deposed that the B2B invoice summary
contains billing details, GST R2B reflects inward supplies from
registered persons and GST R3B provides a summary of inward and
outward supplies. PW2 further deposed that from page 8 of Ex.
PW2/A, it is evident that Malhotra Electronics supplied goods to M/s
Viewtron India.
18.10 Upon cross-examination of PW2 by ld. Counsel for
defendant, the official witness affirmed that his testimony was as per
official records and that he was duly authorised to testify and tender
the relevant GST records of the defendant, for the periods from
January-2020 to August-2020 vide Ex.PW2/A (Colly.). The witness
duly proved the documents vide the requisite certificate under the
erstwhile Certificate U/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW2/B.
PW2 duly testified that the entire GST return of the defendant
produced by the witness were pertaining to the defendant namely
M/s Viewtron India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., in respect of the tax paid.
He further deposed that the supply of goods in question, were duly
reflected in the records produced by him.
18.11 The Court is to examine the case of the plaintiff, who
has to duly discharge the onus to prove its entitlement against the
alleged supplies made vide invoices Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/167. The
law to prove the delivery of goods from the seller to the buyer is
governed by the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Under the Sale of Goods
Act, 1930, delivery of goods is essential for the transfer of property
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 24/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
from the seller to the buyer. Delivery is considered to occur when the
goods are voluntarily put into possession of the buyer or any person
authorized to receive them. The burden of proving delivery lies on
the party asserting it. Mere generation of invoices is not sufficient,
there must be corroborative evidence such as acknowledgment by the
buyer, transport receipts, e-way bills or other documentary proof of
actual dispatch and receipt of goods.
18.12 It is the statutory law of the land that invoices do not
prove delivery of the goods in terms of Section 31, 33 and 39 of
SoGA unless there is a physical endorsement of delivery thereon or
there is a separate document to show that the goods have been
actually delivered to defendant or at least delivered to a carrier of
goods, as provided under Section 23 (2) and Section 39 of SoGA.
The Law envisages the delivery of goods by any of the following
methods:-
i. Admission by defendant or defendant acknowledges the
delivery, orii. Endorsement of receipt by the defendant or his
authorised representative, oriii. Filing and proving Form 7 or Form 8 (Bilty) under
Carriage by Road Rules, 2011 to show that plaintiff delivered
the goods to the carrier and is entitled to benefit under Section
39 of SoGA, oriv. By proving on record that the GST claimed to have been
deposited by the plaintiff qua these 100 invoices, i.e. defendant
took input tax credit under Section 2 (63) of CGST Act, 2017CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 25/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
and plaintiff is entitled to presumption under Section 16 (2) of
CGST Act, 2017.
18.13 It shall now be relevant to consider all tax invoices
relied upon by the plaintiff. It is a well-settled position of law that as
per Section-101 of the erstwhile Indian Evidence Act, 1872
(Section-104 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023) the initial
burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and it shifts to the defendant only
when the plaintiff has clearly proved its assertions.
18.14 In the present case, the same guiding parameter shall
apply to the plaintiff, who is required to discharge the burden to
prove its entitlement on the basis of the alleged delivery of electronic
goods against tax invoices Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/167. The plaintiff
witness PW1 has duly tendered on record all the tax invoices and
there is no cross-examination of PW1 to bring forth any challenge to
the testimony of the plaintiff in respect of these invoices.
18.15 As regards the outstanding claimed by way of the
exhibited invoices in its favour and against the defendant, Court has
examined running ledger account Ex.PW1/168 relied upon by the
plaintiff which starts from the date 12.07.2017. Although, the
plaintiff through its witness PW1 has tendered all the invoices
reflected in its ledger account Ex.PW1/168, it has chosen to summon
its official witness PW2, only in respect of the invoices
w.e.f.03.01.2020 i.e. for the year 2020-2021. PW2 has duly tendered
the GSTR returns pertaining to the defendant against the suppliesCS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 26/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
made by defendant, vide Ex.PW2/A(Colly). The Court has duly
appreciated the GST returns and in particular, GST B2B invoice
summary containing the billing details, GST R2B reflecting inward
supplies from registered person and GST R3B providing the
summary of inward and outward supplies, which forms part of
Ex.PW2/A (Colly.). Despite cross-examination, there is no breach to
the testimony of PW2 who has duly relied upon the official records
pertaining to the tax paid by the defendant namely M/s Viewtron
India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. for the period January 2019 to January
2020.
18.16 On due appreciation of the material on record in light of
the evidence led and the legal position, while the plaintiff has
tendered its invoices vide Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/167, it has failed to
establish its entitlement to recover the outstanding balance for any
any outstanding dues for the period 12.07.2017 to 24.12.2019,
reflected vide its ledger Ex.PW1/168, for want of corroboration to
show the proof of supply of goods against all the invoices contained
vide Ex.PW1/168. It is also considered that as per law of the land, the
plaintiff ought to corroborate the entries of its ledger Ex.PW1/168 by
supporting evidence by virtue of Section 34 of The Indian Evidence
Act. The text of the provision is reproduced hereunder:-
“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
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 27/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge
any person with liability.”
Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (Section 28
of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), lays down the rule
regarding the evidentiary value of entries in books of account,
including those maintained in electronic form, which are regularly
kept in the ordinary course of business. The provision declares such
entries to be relevant whenever they relate to a matter into which the
Court must inquire, but it simultaneously imposes a safeguard by
clarifying that these entries, standing alone, are not sufficient to fix
liability upon any person. The rationale is that books of account are
generally maintained by one party and thus may be self-serving;
therefore, corroboration by independent evidence such as oral
testimony, receipts, invoices, or other supporting documents, is
necessary to establish liability.
18.17 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Manohar Lal Sharma v.
Union of India‘, (2017) 11 SCC 731 examined whether certain
materials, like loose sheets, diaries, computer printouts, pen drives,
and hard disks containing alleged financial transactions, could be
relied upon as evidence under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The Court reaffirmed the rule from ‘ V.C. Shukla”, that loose papers
and irregular records are inadmissible, only regular account books are
relevant and even those require corroboration before fixing liability.
The relevant para from the judgment is reproduced herein below:-
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTACS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 28/35
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
“278. With respect to the kind of materials which have been
placed on record, this Court in V.C. Shukla case [CBI v.
V.C. Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 410 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 761] has
dealt with the matter though at the stage of discharge when
investigation had been completed but same is relevant for
the purpose of decision of this case also. This Court has
considered the entries in Jain Hawala diaries, notebooks
and file containing loose sheets of papers not in the form of
“books of accounts” and has held that such entries in loose
papers/sheets are irrelevant and not admissible under
Section 34 of the Evidence Act, and that only where the
entries are made in the books of accounts regularly kept,
depending on the nature of occupation, that those are
admissible.
279. It has further been laid down in V.C. Shukla [CBI v.
V.C. Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 410 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 761] as to
the value of 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.
280. This Court has further laid down in V.C. Shukla [CBI
v. V.C. Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 410 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 761]
that meaning of account book would be spiral
notebook/pad but not loose sheets. The following extract
being relevant is quoted hereinbelow:
“Para 17 -From a plain reading of the section it is
manifest that to make an entry relevant thereunder it
must be shown that it has been made in a book, that
book is a book of account and that book of account
has been regularly kept in the course of business.
From the above section it is also manifest that even if
the above requirements are fulfilled and the entry
becomes admissible as relevant evidence, still, the
statement made therein shall not alone be sufficient
evidence to charge any person with liability. It is thus
seen that while the first part of the section speaks of
the relevancy of the entry as evidence, the second partCS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 29/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
speaks, in a negative way, of its evidentiary value for
charging a person with a liability”
18.18 Now it may be relevant to appreciate the entries proved
vide Ex.PW1/168 by way of unacknowledged invoices tendered by
the witness to examine, if the plaintiff has discharged onus to prove
that the goods were delivered from the seller to the buyer, as
governed by Sales of Goods Act 1930. As per the legal position
examined herein-above, the mere invoices per se shall not prove the
delivery of goods, as per law. Therefore, the mere tendering of the
invoices by the plaintiff to support its ledger Ex.PW1/168, is not
suffice as the documents of the plaintiff are unilateral and
unacknowledged.
18.19 As per Law, the ledger of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/168
coupled with its invoices Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/167, can only be
proved by way of necessary corroboration by proving the supply of
goods against all the invoices, allegedly issued against the defendant.
There is no corroborative evidence placed on record by the plaintiff
in support of ledger entries, prior to the period of issuance of invoices
Ex.PW1/151 dated 03.01.2020. There is nothing on record to show
any acknowledgment of delivery by the defendant against any of the
invoices tendered and relied upon by the plaintiff or in respect of
statement of ledger Ex.PW1/168. Therefore, as per the law herein-
above considered, the claim of the plaintiff shall be restricted to the
proof on record in respect of the GST returns of the defendant qua
the invoices reflected in the ledger Ex.PW1/168. The testimony of
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 30/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
PW2 duly proved that defendant took ‘Input Tax Credit’ for the
period 2020-2021 against the supplies made by the plaintiff and each
of the invoice Ex.1/151 dated 03.01.2020 to Ex.PW1/167 dated
11.08.2020. Each of the invoices that have been entered in the ledger
Ex.PW1/168 and tendered on record through invoices as
Ex.PW1/151 to Ex.PW1/167, are duly recorded in the GST returns
tendered by the witness PW2. The plaintiff has thus proved on record
that GST has been deposited by the plaintiff qua invoices
Ex.PW1/151 to Ex.PW1/167 and further that the defendant took
‘Input Tax Credit’ for the supplies against these invoices, under
Section 2(63) of CGST Act, 2017. The plaintiff is, thus, entitled to
the presumptions under Section 16 (2) of CGST Act, 2017. Having
considered all the tax invoices, proved by the plaintiff vide
Ex.PW1/151 to Ex.PW1/167, the burden shifted on the defendant to
show rebut if any supplies made by the plaintiff were returned by the
defendant, after having taken ‘Input Tax Credit’ for the supplies, duly
proved by the plaintiff. Defendant has not led any evidence in this
regard.
18.20 In view of the afore-discussed facts and circumstances
of the present case, the plaintiff has been able to duly prove the
entries against the invoices Ex.PW1/151 to Ex.PW1/167 vide its
ledger Ex.PW1/168, against the supplies duly proved from the
plaintiff to the defendant. Accordingly, the statement of
account/ledger Ex.PW1/168, w.e.f. 03.01.2020 is duly proved by the
plaintiff as the testament of the business transactions between the
plaintiff and the defendant for the period considered as the claimed
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 31/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
period of recovery in the present suit w.e.f. first invoice dated
03.01.2020 (Ex.PW1/151). It is further appreciated that as per entries
vide Ex.PW1/168, the entries against all the proved invoices
Ex.PW1/151 to Ex.PW1/167 are duly incorporated alongwith the
credit entries in favour of the defendant, against payments received
from the defendant from time to time. The defendant has not been
able to show any other payment made in favour of the plaintiff,
except those entered vide Ex.PW1/168, being considered
w.e.f.03.01.2020. The Court is constrained to ignore the payment
received from the defendant prior to 03.01.2020, as reflected vide
Ex.PW1/168. as the defendant itself has failed to bring forth any
reliable and believable counter statement of account.
18.21 After considering all the relevant entries against the
invoices Ex.PW1/151 to Ex.PW1/167 entered in ledger account vide
Ex.PW1/168 w.e.f. 03.01.2020, it is duly proved in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant that there was a total outstanding
dues to the tune of Rs.21,05,806/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakh Five
Hundred Eight Hundred Six Only) (Total of Invoices Ex.PW1/151 to
Ex.PW1/167), payable by the defendant. However, as per the
plaintiff’s case itself, defendant was making part payments from time
to time and after accounting for all the payments made by the
defendant from 03.01.2020 (1st proved invoice Ex.PW1/151) to
11.08.2020 (Last proved invoice vide Ex.PW/167), which is the
requisite proved period of supplies as per Ex.PW1/168, the total
credit in favour of the plaintiff against part payments by defendant, is
for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only). As the
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 32/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
plaintiff has failed to prove the ledger account Ex.PW1/168 or the
invoices Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/150 for want of proof of supplies
made to the defendant, the part payments received by plaintiff to the
tune of Rs.15,00,000/- during the proved ledger account period
w.e.f.03.01.2020, are liable to be accounted for and adjusted against
the outstanding dues for the supplies proved by the plaintiff upon the
defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff has duly proved its entitlement to
recover as per invoices Ex.PW1/151 to Ex.PW1/167 to the tune of
Rs.21,05,806/-. The plaintiff is further liable to adjust the payments
of total amount of Rs.15,00,000/- received in the accounts of the
plaintiff, as on 30.01.2020 and 31.01.2020. As per Ex.PW1/168,
proved for the period w.e.f.03.01.2020, the payments made by the
defendant have been duly taken into account against the proved
outstanding dues, recoverable from the defendant. Accordingly,
plaintiff has been successful in establishing and successfully proving
its entitlement to recover a sum of Rs.6,05,806/- (Rs.21,05,806/-
minus Rs.15,00,000/-) in its favour and against the defendant.
Issue No.1 is disposed of accordingly.
19. ISSUE NO.2
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to any interest ? If Yes, at
what rate and for which period ? OPP
19.1. The Suit of the plaintiff has been decreed for a sum of
Rs.6,05,806/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant., by
way of adjudication herein-above vide issue no.1. The plaintiff has
claimed interest @ 18% per annum from the date of each invoices till
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 33/35
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
filing of the suit and further pendentelite and future interest @ 18 %
per annum till realization, on the amount due, asserting that such rate
is reasonable considering the commercial nature of the transaction.
However, no written agreement, invoice, or contract stipulating the
rate of 18% interest has been produced on record.
19.2. In the absence of any express agreement or documentary
proof specifying the contractual rate of interest, the Court is guided
by Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers
the Court to award reasonable interest on the principal sum adjudged,
having regard to the circumstances of the case.
19.3. Considering that the transaction in question pertains to a
commercial dealing, but no contractual rate is proved, the Court
deems it just and equitable to award interest at the rate of 8% per
annum on the recoverable amount of Rs.Rs.6,05,806/-. The plaintiff
has claimed grant of interest on expiration of 60 days from date of
each respective invoice. However, PW1 has tendered e-mail dated
01.03.2023 issued from the plaintiff to the defendant, placed on
record vide Ex.PW1/169, which is duly supported by the requisite
Certificate for electronic evidence, U/O 11 Rule 6(3) of Commercial
Courts Act, being inclusive of the requisites U/S 63 BSA. By way of
Ex.PW1/169, plaintiff itself has not raised any demand for payment
of interest, till the date of issuance of the reminder for recovery of
overdues. In the facts and circumstances, it shall be reasonable to
allow the recovery of interest on expiration of a period of 60 days
from the date of issuance of the email dated 01.03.2023 Ex.PW1/169
i.e. w.e.f.01.05.2023.
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 34/35
PREETI Digitally signed
AGRAWAL by PREETI
AGRAWAL
GUPTA GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026
19.4. Accordingly, the issue is decided in favour of the
plaintiff, with the findings that the plaintiff is entitled to recover an
interest @8% per annum on the decretal amount, w.e.f. 01.05.2023,
till filing of the suit. Plaintiff is also allowed recover an interest at
the same rate from date of filing of the suit, till realisation of the
decretal amount.
Issue no.2 is accordingly, decided in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants.
20. ISSUE NO.3
3. Relief.
Keeping in view the above findings, suit of the plaintiff
is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, for a
sum of Rs.6,05,806/- alongwith interest @8% per annum,
w.e.f.01.05.2023, till the date of its realisation.
Plaintiff is further entitled for recovery of costs of the
suit for a composite sum of Rs.33,000/-.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room, after due completion.
Announced in the open Court today
on this 21st day of April, 2026 PREETI Digitally signed
AGRAWAL by PREETI
AGRAWAL
GUPTA GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
21.04.2026
CS (Comm.) No.273/2023 M/s Malhotra Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Vewtron India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 35/35
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
07.03.2026