Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 14th January, 2026
RANJEET SAINI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ujjwal Jha, Mr. Kartavya Batra &
Mr. Rohan Gupta, Advs. (8235256364)
Through: Mr. Devansh Dua, Adv. (9896181187)
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 96 and Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed challenging the impugned judgment dated 19th May, 2025 passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court-01) North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in CS(Comm.) No. 381/2020. Vide the impugned judgement the suit preferred by the Respondent/Plaintiff has been decreed in the following terms: “RELIEF:
20. In view of my finding given on the above said issues, plaintiff shall be entitled, against the defendant, to a decree for a sum of Rs.20,49,632/- which is the principal outstanding amount. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% on the amount of Rs. 20,49,632/- from 12.01.2018 till realization.
21. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to the cost of the suit.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent/Plaintiff had filed the subject suit seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.30,64,453/- along with interest. The Respondent/Plaintiff is a partnership firm engaged in dealing and stocking of products of M/s. Parag Milk Products. The Appellant/ Defendant had approached the Respondent for supply of the said products namely Goverdhan Ghee, Badam Milk etc. Supplies were stated to have been made on the basis of a running account which was maintained in the regular course of business. Timely payments were to be made to the Respondent. However, an outstanding of Rs.20,49,632/- was remaining, which amount was not paid by the Appellant. The Appellant is stated to have issued a cheque dated 30th April, 2018 in favour of the Plaintiff/ Respondent for the said amount and when the same was presented to the bank, a Bank Memo was issued stating that the “payment was stopped by drawer”.
4. The Respondent then filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and also filed the subject suit seeking the principal amount of Rs. 20,49,632/- and interest @ 18% from 12th January, 2018 to 12th October, 2020 i.e., Rs.10,14,821/-.
5. In the suit, the Appellant filed the written statement taking a plea that the bills were raised by the Respondent to the tune of Rs. 48,78,804/- but the goods were retained by the Appellant only to the tune of Rs.28,29,172/- and the remaining goods were returned. Thus, the amount of Rs.20,49,632/- is not liable to be paid by the Appellant.
6. In the subject suit, issues were framed on 25th July, 2022. The said issues are captured below: “(i) Whether the plaintiff had supplied goods worth of Rs.20,49,632/- to the defendant? OPP
(ii) Whether the cheque bearing no.000100 dated
30.04.2018 in the sum of Rs.20,49,632/- issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff was in fact issued as a blank security cheque only as contended by the defendant in the written statement? OPD
(iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree in the amount of Rs.30,64,453/- as prayed for? OPP
(iv) Whether plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
(v) Relief.”
7. Evidence was led by both parties. The Commercial Court came to the conclusion that the Appellant, who was cross-examined, had admitted his signatures on all the invoices exhibited, except at page No.35 of the Respondent’s documents, which was an invoice for a sum of Rs.11,29,930/-. The sum total of all the invoices was Rs.48,78,804/- and this amount was the same as reflected in Ex.PW1/5 i.e., the ledger of the Respondent. These invoices were exhibited as Ex.PW1/6 collectively. Further, the Appellant’s own ledger account also showed that a sum of Rs.20,49,632/- was payable to the Respondent. On the basis of the said documents and the admissions made in the cross-examination by the Appellant, the Court decreed the matter in favour of the Respondent.
8. An execution petition seeking execution of the decree is now stated to be pending.
9. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Commercial Court’s judgment is contrary to the evidence on record. It is his case that though invoices were raised for a sum of over Rs. 48 lakhs, goods of about Rs.20 lakh were not supplied. In fact, the Commercial Court, in his submission, has gone contrary to its own order dated 25th July, 2022. In the said order, while dismissing the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC the Commercial Court had observed as under: “Having regard to these contentions raised by the defendant in the written statement, it cannot be said that there is any admission on behalf of the defendant showing his liability towards the plaintiff company, much less any unequivocal and unambiguous admission. Defendant has very specifically denied any liability towards the plaintiff company saying that he has made full payment for the entire goods supplied to him by the plaintiff company and that the goods worth Rs.20.49,632/- wero never supplied by the plaintiff company to the defendant. Further, according to the defendant, statement of account filed by the plaintiff alongwith the plaint is false and fabricated for the reason that plaintiff had never supplied goods in the aforesaid amount of Rs.20,49,632/- to the defendant”
10. It is his further submission that it is an obligation of the Respondent to prove its own case independently of the Appellant’s admissions. The Appellant’s case in the written statement was that the goods for the value of about Rs. 20 lakhs had not been supplied. It is submitted for the Appellant that no positive evidence was led by the Respondent to show that the goods were in fact supplied. Ld. Counsel submits that even the GST returns and eway bills are not adequate to show delivery of goods. In this regard, reliance has been placed on a decision dated 8th October, 2025 of a coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA(COMM) 489/2025 titled Mohinder Kumar Gandhi v. Praveen Kumar, where a suit had been dismissed on the ground that the supply of goods was not established.
11. It is his further submission that the Commercial Court has incorrectly come to the conclusion that the Appellant had admitted the liability in crossexamination which is again contrary to the order dated 25th July, 2022. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.
12. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Respondent has highlighted paragraph No. 4 of the written statement to argue that the submissions made by ld. Counsel for the Appellant/ Defendant is in fact contrary to its written statement. In paragraph No.4 of the reply on merits in the written statement, the Appellant admits that the entire goods were supplied but then some of the goods were taken back by one Mr. Bhaskar Sharma, Sales Officer at the insistence of the Respondent. However, this allegation was never proved by the Appellant. Further, reliance is placed upon the cross-examination of the Appellant, where the Appellant admits that the invoices were all countersigned by him. Reliance is also placed on the GST returns to argue that the Appellant had also availed of Input Tax Credit in respect of all the supplies made by the Plaintiff. Thus, the impugned judgment should not be interfered with as per the Respondent.
13. The Court has heard the parties and considered the matter.
14. A perusal of the Appellant’s evidence would show, as rightly observed by the Commercial Court, that the Appellant had admitted the receipt of all invoices except the invoice at page No.35 of the documents of the Respondent. The relevant portion of the cross-examination is set out below: “I am the Distributor of Parag Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd. It is correct that the plaintiff is the Super-stockist of Parag Milk Foods Pvt Ltd It is wrong to suggest that I deliberately and with dishonest, intention get issue Ex. DW 1/5 and ExDW1/8. It is wrong to suggest that the Ex DW1/5 and Ex DW1/8 are false and frivolous documents. It is correct that the ExDW1/9 does not pertains to me. It is wrong to suggest that the Ex. DW1/9 is a false documents. It is correct that Ex DW1/10 does not bear my signatures It is wrong to suggest that I never authorised any Advocate to issue Ex: DW1/10. My signatures are at point A on Ex.PW 1/6 (Colly at pages 33, 34, 36, 37, 39). Vol. My signatures are not on page no.35 of Ex.PW1/6. It is wrong to suggest that my volunteered statement is false. It is wrong to suggest that the initials at point A on page no.35 are of mine.”
15. Further in his cross-examination, the Appellant has also stated as under: “I have brought my GST Returns as per last cross examination for the months of January, February, March, November and December for the year 2017-18. It is correct that I took GST inputs of all the invoices raised by the plaintiff against me.”
16. A perusal of the above two extracts from the cross-examination of the Appellant would show that the Appellant admits his signatures at all the invoices except one. Moreover, once the Appellant availed of the Input Tax Credit on the GST inputs in respect of all the invoices, the Appellant cannot argue that on the one hand, it is entitled to Input Tax Credit on the ground of supply of goods having been made and on the other hand, for the same very invoices, argue that the goods have been returned.
17. Such contradictory pleas would not be permissible especially in a commercial case where the contract is for supply of goods, invoices are accepted, GST Input Tax Credit is availed of, and the Appellant admits during cross-examination that all the invoices except one bear his signatures.
18. In commercial litigation, the Commercial Courts Act in fact, permits not just judgment on admission but also summary adjudication in cases where there are admissions. In the present case, the Plaintiff’s stand is not merely oral but also supported and corroborated by documentary evidence including the GST returns of the Defendant as also the signatures of the Defendant which are visible on the invoices. To that extent, the Court is entitled to go beyond what was observed in the decision on the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. In fact, after the said application was disposed of, issues have been framed and the trial has been conducted in this matter. Thus, while disposing of the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, any observation that may have been made cannot bind at the final stage when there is clearly an admission in the records, documents showing liability as also crossexamination cannot be ignored at the time of final adjudication.
19. A heavier burden than what is necessary need not be placed upon the Plaintiff who has filed the invoices, ledger account and other relevant documents to prove its case. The invoices are also duly countersigned by the Appellant. A perusal of the invoices would show that the details of all the products which have been supplied are mentioned on the invoices. A copy of the cheque furnished by the Appellant to clear its dues against the outstanding amount, is also on record, which would show that that the cheque was issued for discharging its obligations. The bank vouchers showing that the funds were insufficient also establishes the clear position that the Appellant was well aware of its responsibility of clearing the dues. The ultimate test is the Appellant’s own ledger account which shows the pending outstanding amount of Rs.20,49,632/- payable to the Respondent.
20. Insofar as the decision in Mohinder Kumar Gandhi (supra) is concerned, in the said case, as recorded in paragraph no. 22.4, the Plaintiff had failed to produce any vouchers, Income Tax Return, balance sheets, account registers, etc. to support the transaction. While mere GST returns would not be sufficient to decree a suit, the GST returns coupled with other supporting documentation and oral evidence cannot be completely ignored. In fact, this Court is of the clear view that the impugned judgment of the Commercial Court does not deserve to be interfered with. The decree is accordingly upheld.
21. The Respondent/Plaintiff is free to execute the impugned judgment/ decree in accordance with law.
22. The appeal along with pending application is, accordingly, dismissed.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE MADHU JAIN JUDGE JANUARY 14, 2026 kk/msh