Quashed

M/S Shree Metals Represented through Its Authorized Partner Mr Rahul Baid v. Mr Akhil Gupta Proprietor M/S Paul Electrical

Delhi HC23 Dec 2025RFA(COMM)/212/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of a commercial recovery suit for failure to prove invoices and delivery of goods. Since originals could not be traced during the pandemic but were now available, the High Court set aside the decree, permitted filing of original documents before the trial court, and remanded for fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment dated 26.11.2021 set aside; appellant permitted to file original documents before Commercial Court by 25.01.2026 on deposit of Rs.10,000 costs; suit remanded for adjudication.

M/S Shree Metals Represented through Its… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~23

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- RFA(COMM) 212/2025

¶4

M/S SHREE METALS REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS

¶5

AUTHORIZED PARTNER MR RAHUL BAID .....APPELLANT Through: Ms. Puja Jakhar, Advocate; Mr. Harshit Prakash, Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

MR AKHIL GUPTA PROPRIETOR M/S PAUL ELECTRICAL .....RESPONDENT

¶8

Through: None.

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

¶10

O R D E R % 23.12.2025

¶11

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶12

This is an appeal challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 26th November, 2021 passed by the ld. District Judge Commercial Court-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS(COMM) NO. 5234/2021 whereby the suit filed by the Plaintiff has been dismissed on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving the fact that the goods were delivered by it to the Defendant.

¶13

The ground on which the suit has been dismissed is that the original documents, i.e., the invoices, the ledger, etc., were not properly proved and are only marked documents. The finding of the Commercial Court is as under:

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

RFA(COMM) 212/2025

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/12/2025 at 12:55:25

¶18

“15. Although counsel for plaintiff has contended that defendant has made part payment of Rs. 3,00,000/which itself proved that goods were received by the defendant, the contention of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff is liable to be rejected for the relevant documents i.e. bank statement as well as ledger account statement do not stand proved in accordance with law by the plaintiff. Even otherwise, plaintiff cannot be absolved of onus of proving the fact that goods, it claims were supplied to defendant vide invoices Mark A to Mark C, were actually delivered by it to defendant.

¶19

16. Since plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus of proving the fact that goods were delivered by it to the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the present suit and hence the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Plaintiff is left to bear cost of the suit.”

¶20

Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the present suit was filed during the COVID-19 pandemic period, and hence, at the time of the filing of the suit the original invoices could not be traced and filed. However, the original invoices and some other documents have now been traced by the Plaintiff/Appellant and scanned copies of the same are also been filed on record in the present appeal.

¶21

Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, therefore, submits that an opportunity may be given to the Appellant to prove the documents by filing the original documents before the Commercial Court itself.

¶22

In view thereof, this Court is of the opinion, that since the suit has been dismissed merely for non-filing of original documents, the Plaintiff/Appellant deserves to be given an opportunity to file the original invoices.

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

RFA(COMM) 212/2025

¶25

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/12/2025 at 12:55:25

¶26

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- as costs with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. The bank details of the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee are as under:

¶27

Name:Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee

¶28

Bank:UCO Bank, Delhi High Court.

¶29

A/c No.:15530110008386

¶30

IFSC Code: UCBA0001553

¶31

The Appellant is permitted to file the original documents which it wishes to file by 25^th January, 2026 before the Commercial Court.

¶32

List before the Commercial Court on 10^th February, 2026.

¶33

The Commercial Court shall entertain the documents and also examine PW-1, if so required and thereafter, adjudicate the suit in accordance with law. The impugned judgement dated 26th November, 2021 is set aside.

¶34

Needless to add, all rights and remedies are left open.

¶35

Copy of this order be communicated to the District Judge, Commercial Court-03, Central, Tis Hazari for information by the Registry.

¶36

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

¶37

SHAIL JAIN, J.

¶38

DECEMBER 23, 2025/ pd/ck

¶39

Page 3 of 3

¶40

RFA(COMM) 212/2025

¶41

This is a digitally signed order.

¶42

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/12/2025 at 12:55:25

M/S Shree Metals Represented through Its Authorized Partner Mr Rahul Baid v. Mr Akhil Gupta Proprietor M/S Paul Electrical

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shree Metals Represented through Its Authorized Partner Mr Rahul Baid v. Mr Akhil Gupta Proprietor M/S Paul Electrical

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Kirit Bhadiadra Vs Wings Pharmaceuticals Private Limited

Naresh Sharma & Anr. Vs Prv Industries & Anr.

Westend Green Farms Society Vs Manu

Westend Green Farms Society Vs Pratyush Kanth

Canara Bank Vs Sh. Vikas Kumar Singh

D D Pradhan and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vandana Kapuria

Oxilite Techno Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs M/S Jis Head Light Glass

M S Taruna Textiles Vs Welcome Saree Creation Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Chetak Bearing Co. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Group (5B)

Aryansh Alloys through Its Proprietor Vs Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax & Ors.

M/S Army Welfare Housing Organisation Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Param Infrawell Private Limited Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

M/S a v Metals Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Principal Commissioner Cgst and Anr.

M/S Anomsoft Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs Acc Imports New Delhi & Anr.