Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 04th February 2026
JUDGMENT
1. M/S MAPELE ENGINEERS INDIA
2. MR.
BIDYUT CHATTOPADHYAY PARTNER, M/S MAPELE ENGINEERS INDIA BOTH AT: 306, 3rd FLOOR, PINNACLE TOWER, A42/6, SECTOR-62, NOIDA, U.P-201301.....APPELLANT Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Ankit Kumar, Mr. Aman Kumar, Advs.
VERSUS
M/S REGENT ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. SHOP NO.l, 1997, FIRST FLOOR, SONA BAZAR, BHAGIRATH PALACE, DELHI-110006.....RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Hajelay and Mr. Anant Kumar Hajelay, Advs. CORAM: HON’BLE MR.
JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON’BLE MR.
JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL)
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the original defendants under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”).
2. The learned Commercial Court, vide judgment dated 17th May, 2025, while appreciating the contentions of the respondent–plaintiff qua the scheme under the provisions of Order XIII-A of the CPC, decreed the suit.
3. The facts necessary for deciding the present appeal are, respondent–plaintiff who is engaged in the business of trading electrical goods, entered into a transaction with the present appellant-original defendant no. 1, a partnership firm, and defendant no. 2, its partner, based on the quotation dated 24th May, 2022.
4. The said quotation was in relation to supply of “OBO Bettermann’ Brand material for ‘Lightening Protection System’ for one of the plaintiff’s worksite, namely, Amrita Hospital at Faridabad.
5. Accordingly, a Letter of Intent for material worth Rs.5,00,000/was sent through e-mail on 1st June, 2022 by the appellants–original defendants to the respondent–plaintiff. Vide e-mail dated 2nd July, 2022, the appellants–original defendants instructed the respondent– plaintiff to supply the material in different lots/batches. Pursuant to the instructions of the appellants herein, the respondent–original plaintiff supplied the first lot of material against Invoice No. TI-2217 dated 15th July, 2022 at a cost of Rs.4,50,113/-, which amount was payable by 29th August, 2022, failing which interest at the rate of 18% per annum was agreed to be paid by the appellants–original defendants. The appellants–original defendants accordingly made payment of Rs.1,50,113/- till 29th August, 2022; however, failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/-.
6. Such default on the part of the appellants–original defendants in making payment of Rs.3,00,000/- prompted the respondent–plaintiff to issue a notice dated 1st June, 2024, demanding payment of the aforesaid amount along with interest.
7. The mediation taken recourse to, since failed, the suit came to be initiated for recovering a sum of Rs.4,26,101/-, which includes principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/-; Rs.1,15,101/- towards interest from 29th August, 2022 till 15th October, 2022 and Rs.11,000/- as fee for Legal Notice. Pendente lite interest was sought to be recovered @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
8. The suit was contested by the appellants–original defendants by filing a written statement, wherein the defence set up was that the material supplied by the respondent–plaintiff was not as per the agreed terms and suffered from quality issues. It was further contended that the supply of material was delayed by the respondent–plaintiff, which caused financial loss to the appellants–original defendants, and consequently.
9. On merits, it is urged that the claim of the respondent-plaintiff was denied in its entirety.
10. The respective parties including that of the plaintiff filed documents which are in the form of exchange of communication viz. communication dated 30th March, 2024 sent by the appellants to the respondent, wherein a request for grant of additional time for arrangement of payment was made. The defence that was set up by the appellants was based on three issues- (a) the material that was supplied was defective; (b) there was delay in supplying the material and (c) the requisite consideration towards the material supplied was paid.
11. Based on the aforesaid documents which are in the form of emails, the respondent-plaintiff initiated proceedings under Order XIII- A Rule 1 of the CPC for drawing summary judgment.
12. The said application was based on the dues being not disputed by the respondent to the extent of one claimed in the suit.
13. The said claim, made by way of an application, was disputed by the present appellants–original defendants by filing a reply. It was contended therein that the following documents, pertaining to the exchange of communications between the parties, were either admitted or that the contents thereof were not admitted, viz.:
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sl.No. E-mail dated Sent by Admitted/Contents │ │ not mail not │ │ admitted. │ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1. Mail dated ------------ Admitted │ │ 12.05.2022 │ │ 2. Mail dated Respondent to Mail received but │ │ 24.05.2022 Appellant contents denied │ │ 3. Mail dated Appellant to Admitted │ │ 01.06.2022 Respondent │ │ 4. Mail dated Appellant to Admitted │ │ 02.07.2022 Respondent │ │ Signature Not Verified │ │ Signed By:ALKA │ │ BOBAL RFA (COMM) 470/2025 Page 4 of 16 │ │ 5. Mail dated Appellant to Contents of mail not │ │ 30.03.2024 Respondent admitted. │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
31. A plaint, which is required to contain pleadings, shall contain the particulars as provided under Order VII Rule 1.
32. Order VIII of the CPC deals with written statements. Rule 3A thereof was incorporated and brought into effect from 23rd October 2015, which reads as under: “[3A. Denial by the defendant in suits before the Commercial Division of the High Court or the Commercial Court.— (1) Denial shall be in the manner provided in sub-rules (2), (3), (4) and (5) of this Rule. (2) The defendant in his written statement shall state which of the allegations in the particulars of plaint he denies, which allegations he is unable to admit or deny, but which he requires the plaintiff to prove, and which allegations he admits. (3) Where the defendant denies an allegation of fact in a plaint, he must state his reasons for doing so and if he intends to put forward a different version of events from that given by the plaintiff, he must state his own version. (4) If the defendant disputes the jurisdiction of the Court he must state the reasons for doing so, and if he is able, give his own statement as to which Court ought to have jurisdiction. (5) If the defendant disputes the plaintiff’s valuation of the suit, he must state his reasons for doing so, and if he is able, give his own statement of the value of the suit.]”
33. The aforesaid Rule provides that the denial of a claim by the defendant in a suit before the Commercial Court should be in accordance therewith. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3A contemplates the denial to be in the manner provided under sub-rules (2), (3), (4), and (5) of this Rule.
34. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3A provides that the defendant, in the written statement, is required to state which of the allegations in the particulars of the plaint he denies and which he is unable to deny or admit. He is equally required to state which of the allegations he wants the plaintiff to prove and which allegations he admits.
35. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3A provides for the conduct of the defendant in cases where he denies the allegations of fact in the plaint. In such circumstances, he is required to state his reasons for doing so and he is equally required to state his different version, if any, of the events from that pleaded by the plaintiff. He is required to mention his own version.
36. Order XI prescribes the procedure for disclosure, discovery, and inspection of documents in suits before the Commercial Division of the High Court or a learned Commercial Court.
37. Rule 4 thereunder provides for admission or denial of documents. Rule 4 reads thus:-
38. A perusal of sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of Order XI further makes it clear that the said Rule specifically casts a duty upon the parties, like the defendant, to set out reasons for denying the documents on any of the grounds mentioned therein.
39. If we consider the case of the appellants-defendants, we must have regard to the nature of the pleadings in the written statement of the appellants.
40. In the written statement of the appellants, paragraph 3 of the preliminary submissions and paragraphs 5, 8, and 10 of the para-wise reply read as under:
41. From the aforesaid pleadings, if evaluated in the light of the provisions of Order VIII referred to above, particularly Rule 3A, it can be easily inferred that the written statement of the defendant lacks the very basic pleadings mandated under Rule 3A of Order VIII.
42. Not only the denial in the written statement is not in accordance with sub-rules (2), (3), (4), and (5) of the said Rule, but such denial is also non-specific, vague, and general in nature.
43. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3A, the defendant, in his written statement, has failed to mention as to which of the allegations in the particulars of the plaint he denies, which allegations he is unable to admit or deny, which allegations he requires the plaintiff to prove, and which allegations he admits.
44. Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3A, the appellants were required to state, in respect of the allegations generally denied by them, their reasons for doing so and his version of events as different from that of given by the plaintiff.
45. A perusal of the written statement would reveal that a vague statement is made by the appellants about material, that the same were not supplied as per agreed terms as it had quality issues and same was supplied at a delayed stage, which has resulted in financial loss.
46. As mandated under sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 3A of Order VIII, the appellants/original defendants have not stated which allegations of fact in the plaint they deny and their reasons for denying so, or their version of events, if any, different from that of the plaintiff.
47. A similar stand appears to be taken even in the reply preferred by the appellants to the application for summary judgment. In the said reply, appellants appear to have relied on contents of written statement by referring to the same.
48. It is borne out from the record that before the issues were framed, the respective parties had completed their pleadings. As regards the documentary evidence, the case of the respondent–plaintiff is based on communications in the form of e-mails, the orders issued which led to the supply of material by the plaintiff and the acknowledgment.
49. The said reply is carefully perused in the light of the respective pleading in the plaint, written statement and an application moved under Rule 4(1) of Order XIII-A by the respondent-plaintiff. Not only the reply to the summary judgment does not discloses the material fact but also the appellants have failed to furnish the reasons as to why the relief sought by the plaintiff should not be granted.
50. But for denying entire claim and conveniently disputing the contents of mail dated 30th March, 2024, there is no reason set out by the appellants based on either pleadings or documentary evidence to infer that the suit is required to be decided only after recording the evidence i.e., complete trial.
51. We have already hereinbefore referred to Rule 4 of Order 11.
52. As far as the e-mails are concerned, from the chart of documents reproduced in paragraph 13, which is in response to the mandate under Order XI Rule 4 regarding admission and denial of documents, we have already noticed that existence of document is not disputed, however, what is disputed is contents therein.
53. It was expected of the appellants not only to explain such denial but also to put forth their case in the written statement so also in the reply to the application for summary judgment. It is worth to mention here that, it is upon oral assessment of the pleadings of the rival parties, it is for the Court to dispense with the proof of the document.
54. The appellants have failed to conduct themselves in accordance with the provisions of Order VIII Rule 3A as well as Order XI Rule 4. In such an eventuality, the Commercial Court cannot be inferred to have conducted itself contrary to the aforesaid provisions in the matter of decreeing the suit.
55. In the aforesaid background, what is required to be appreciated is a summary judgment can be delivered, in case, it is noticed that the appellants–defendants have no real prospect of successfully defending the claim put forth by the plaintiff–respondent.
56. The fact remains that the only explanation coming forward during the course of hearing of present appeal from the appellants is the aforesaid mail or the mail dated 30th March, 2024 was in relation to some different transactions.
57. When confronted the appellants are unable to demonstrate from the record as to which other transaction the appellants had with the defendant.
58. Apart from above, the appellants at no point of time has contested the claim or raised an objection or protest qua the quality or delayed supplies allegedly made by the respondent.
59. In such an eventuality, the learned Commercial Court, in our opinion, was justified in proceedings against the appellants to infer that the appellants-defendants have no real prospect of successfully defending the claim. Such opinion has been formed by the learned Commercial Court, having regard to the replies submitted by the appellants under sub-Rule (3) of Rule 4 of Order XIII-A.
60. These Two e-mails are to be appreciated in the facts of the case viz. the e-mails dated 30th March, 2024 and 2nd July, 2022.
61. The aforesaid e-mails categorically disclose that the appellants acknowledged the receipt of the material and their liability to make payment to the plaintiff. The only defence raised by the appellants of the aforesaid two e-mails is that the first e-mail dated 2nd July, 2022 is admitted, including its contents, whereas the contents of the e-mail dated 30th March, 2024 are not admitted, however, receipt of said mail was not disputed.
62. If we consider both these mails, there is a reason to believe that the appellants cannot, in real terms, dispute the contents of the said email, having accepted that such e-mail was issued and is in the possession of both the parties to the suit. The contents of these mails can be inferred to be establishing the case of the plaintiff, if are read and appreciated in the light of other documents and rival pleadings.
63. Though the appellants-defendants in the reply to the application for summary judgment have pleaded that the contents of the material can be proved through recording of evidence, however, if the pleadings of the plaintiff, the pleadings in the written statement, the contents of the emails referred above and that of plea raised in the application for summary judgment and reply thereto, sufficiently establishes and as rightly so inferred by the learned Commercial Court, that the appellants-defendants had no prospect of successfully defending the claim.
64. In such an eventuality, we see no reason to cause interference in appellate jurisdiction, as no infirmity could be noticed with the judgment under challenge delivered by the Commercial Court. Rather we are satisfied that the judgment delivered by the Commercial Court is in tune with the provisions of the Order XIII-A of the CPC.
65. That being so, the appeal sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
66. Pending application also stands disposed of.
67. Copy of the Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE (JUDGE)
AJAY DIGPAUL (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 4, 2026/ay/sky/sk