Dismissed

Kawal Mahajan v. Unitech Fibres Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC4 Aug 2025RFA(COMM)/441/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of a suit recovering about Rs.50 lakh for Pet Flakes supplied to the respondent. The Division Bench upheld findings that the plaintiff accepted and later reversed the respondent's debit notes, never replied to emails claiming short and defective goods, and took GST credit from the disputed debit note. The appellate court found no case for interference and dismissed the app

What the court decided

AI extract

Kawal Mahajan Vs Unitech Fibres Pvt. Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$-30

¶2

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶3

Date of decision: 04^th August, 2025

¶4

+ RFA(COMM) 441/2025 & CM APPL. 47282/2025, CM APPL. 47283/2025, CM APPL. 47284/2025

¶5

KAWAL MAHAJAN .....Appellant Through: Mr. Nitesh Gupta and Mr. Ravi, Advs.

¶6

Versus

¶7

UNITECH FIBRES PVT LTD .....Respondent

¶8

Through: Nemo .

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶10

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶11

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.

¶12

This is an appeal under Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “ CPC ” ).

¶13

Appellant ( original plaintiff ), has questioned the judgment and decree dated 26^th April, 2025 delivered in CS (COMM.) No. 690/2022 , titled as “ Kawal Mahajan Vs. Unitech Fibres Pvt Limited ” (hereinafter

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Signed By:SURYAKANT YADAV Signing Da te:2 1.08.2025 RFA(COMM) 441/2025 18:39:57

¶16

Page 1 of 10

¶17

referred as “ impugned judgement and decree ”) . , whereby appellant/plaintiff was seeking recovery of Rs.50,92,143/- along with pendente lite and future interest @18% per annum came to be dismissed. 3. Facts necessary for deciding the present appeal are as under:

¶18

a. The appellant/plaintiff, a proprietary concern, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying thermoplastic rubber compound and Pet Flakes. According to him, the last transaction of sale between the appellant/plaintiff and respondent ( original defendant ) was on 23^rd August, 2019, against which a sum of Rs.9,000/- was paid by the respondent/defendant on 16^th October, 2021 in cash. An amount of Rs. 24,36,244/- remained outstanding against the respondent/defendant in terms of the various invoices.

¶19

b. Alleging that there is failure to pay the amounts due and receivable from the respondent/defendant, the appellant/plaintiff initiated aforesaid suit. The total amount sought to be recovered is Rs.50,92,143/-.

¶20

c. The aforesaid claim was resisted by the respondent/defendant through a written statement whereby objections were raised to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Issues of limitation and about malicious, false claim were also put forth.

¶21

d. In view of the written statement, replication was placed on record by the appellant/plaintiff denying the contentions raised and suit to be decreed.

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Signed By:SURYAKANT YADAV Signing Da te:2 1.08.2025 RFA(COMM) 441/2025 18:39:57

¶24

Page 2 of 10

¶25

e. Having regard to the rival contentions, the Commercial Court had framed the issues, which are as under:

¶26

“(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree in the amount of Rs.50,92,143/- as prayed for ….. OPP (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if so, at what rate and for what period …….OPP (iii) Relief.”

¶27

f. To prove the claim canvassed by the appellant/plaintiff, the appellant/plaintiff examined himself as PW1 . Respondent/defendant examined its Director/AR as DW-1 (evidences of PW1 and DW-1 referred above and also the documents are at Annexure A-5A and Annexure A-6A of the paper book).

¶28

g. After appreciating the evidence in the backdrop of the rival pleadings, the Commercial Court dismissed the claim vide impugned judgment and decree.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff urged that the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be quashed and set-aside as same is without appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record. It is urged that the goods which were received by the respondent/defendant, if were faulty or with certain shortfalls, it was incumbent on the part of the respondent/defendant to return the consignment.

¶30

It is claimed that the Commercial Court has committed an error in relying upon a unilateral debit note dated 5^th March, 2020 issued by the respondent/defendant. It is claimed that there is no evidence on record to

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Signed By:SURYAKANT YADAV Signing Da te:2 1.08.2025 RFA(COMM) 441/2025 18:39:57

¶33

Page 3 of 10

¶34

infer that the goods supplied by the appellant/plaintiff were defective or short. According to the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff in the absence of there being any forensic analysis of audit account/ report, the Commercial Court ought not to have believed the audit account/ report of the respondent/defendant.

¶35

It is also urged that even if the unilateral debit note dated 05^th March, 2020 of Rs.17,93,532 /- for the sake of argument is accepted, the undisputed balance amount of Rs.6,43,000/- should have been taken into account for decreeing the suit.

¶36

It is further claimed that the finding on the issue of Mr. Amit Mahajan being brother of the appellant/plaintiff is without any evidence. 8. As such, it is urged that the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 9. In light of the pleadings, the evidence of rival parties, and on the findings recorded in the impugned judgment and decree, we have heard the learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff at length in support of the aforesaid grounds.

¶37

It is apparent from the record, particularly the pleadings, that the business transaction in question is in relation to the supply of the Pet Flakes by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent/defendant. The supply of the Pet Flakes is in fact not in dispute. The dispute arose in the matter of transaction of clearance of goods, material viz. Pet Flakes, which were imported by the appellant/plaintiff and cleared for and on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff by the respondent/defendant. It is the case of the

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Signed By:SURYAKANT YADAV Signing Da te:2 1.08.2025 RFA(COMM) 441/2025 18:39:57

¶40

Page 4 of 10

¶41

respondent/defendant that the material in question i.e. Pet Flakes were received in the city of Mumbai and not in Delhi as claimed.

¶42

It is claimed by respondent/defendant in the written statement that the appellant/plaintiff was in the business of supplying Pet Flakes material from foreign destination through sea route to the respondent/defendant in Mumbai, and the respondent/defendant would then receive the same on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff. The respondent/defendant, accordingly, used to make payments to the appellant/plaintiff for the materials received. The goods which were received were found to be short , defective and damaged, and accordingly, the appellant/plaintiff was informed through various e-mails and phone calls; the same with an intention to have adjustment of accounts.

¶43

It is established by the respondent/defendant from his evidence that he has served the unilateral debit note dated 05^th March, 2020 for an amount of Rs.17,93,532/- through an e-mail dated 06^th March, 2020. Subsequent thereto, there was no transaction by the appellant/plaintiff with the respondent/defendant. Said debit note was towards the full and final payment for the business transaction between the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant. The appellant-plaintiff thereafter has never approached the respondent/defendant claiming any outstanding payment. 13. The appellant/plaintiff claimed an outstanding amount of Rs.24,36,244/- towards the business transaction from 21^st April, 2018 to 06^th October, 2022. As per the statement of account maintained with him the said amount is claimed with an interest @ 24%.

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Signed By:SURYAKANT YADAV Signing Da te:2 1.08.2025 RFA(COMM) 441/2025 18:39:57

¶46

Page 5 of 10

¶47

In addition to above, the appellant/plaintiff has claimed an amount of Rs.26,55,899/-, with 24% interest towards unpaid amount from 01^st April, 2019 to 10^th November, 2022. Appellant/plaintiff has relied on number of days by which the delayed payment was made and interest @ 24% on such delayed payment.

¶48

As against the aforesaid claim, the respondent/defendant has deposed that the e-mail dated 31^st October, 2018, 01^st November, 2018, 12^th February, 2019, 16^th March, 2019, 04^th May, 2019 and 16^th May, 2019 in respect of short , defective and damaged goods were duly received by the appellant/plaintiff but not disputed. It is categorically stated by the respondent/defendant that there was no business transaction after 2019 with the appellant/plaintiff.

¶49

The respondent/defendant has categorically stated the he has never passed any payment in cash and all the amount were settled through account payments and as such, the claim that Rs.9,000/- was paid in cash on 06^th October, 2021 was subsequently denied. The fact remains that the e-mails written by the respondent/defendant viz. Ex. DW1/2, Ex. DW1/3 are not disputed. Though, the appellant/plaintiff has claimed that the emails were addressed to Mr. Amit Mahajan, who was an agent of the respondent/defendant; however, there is no specific plea raised by the appellant/plaintiff to this effect. The aforesaid two exhibits Ex. DW1/2 and Ex. DW1/3 speak of short supply in the consignment received and miscellaneous charges regarding detention, shipping line charges, Container Freight Station ( CFS ) charges etc., incurred by respondent/defendant for the appellant/plaintiff.

¶50

Signature Not Verified

¶51

Signed By:SURYAKANT YADAV Signing Da te:2 1.08.2025 RFA(COMM) 441/2025 18:39:57

¶52

Page 6 of 10

¶53

The said claim of the respondent/defendant which was received through e -mails was never contested at the relevant time by the appellant/plaintiff. Rather, the appellant/plaintiff has come out with a stand that the e-mails were sent to Mr. Amit Mahajan , who is the representative of the respondent/defendant and not to the appellant/plaintiff. The said fact was tested by the Commercial Court in the light of evidence and it is rightly so observed, upon analysis of evidence, by the Commercial Court, that Mr. Amit Mahajan has replied the e-mails by sending bill of entry of two commercial invoices to the respondent/defendant on 12^th February, 2019. Though, the appellant/plaintiff in his cross-examination has admitted to have received e-mail ( Ex. PW1/D1 ) which was though initially disputed, but the fact that the appellant/plaintiff has responded to the said e-mail , rightly speaks of the same having been received by the appellant/plaintiff.

¶54

Though, appropriate opportunity was given to the appellant/plaintiff to demonstrate as to the source of receipt of the e-mail , rightly so adverse inference was drawn by the Commercial Court against the appellant/plaintiff about receipt of the said e-mail Ex. PW1/D1 through Mr. Amit Mahajan, who happens to be his own man. 19. The credit note of Rs.70,000/- dated 19^th September, 2018, raised by the appellant/plaintiff was based on the rate difference. Also, credit note for Rs.16,000/- was issued on 08^th October, 2018, and credit note for Rs.35,000/- was issued on 23^rd October, 2018, because of the rate difference. The respondent/defendant also raised a verbal debit note on 03^rd October, 2018 and 27^th March, 2019. Thereafter, a credit note for

¶55

Signature Not Verified

¶56

Signed By:SURYAKANT YADAV Signing Da te:2 1.08.2025 18:39:57

¶57

RFA(COMM) 441/2025

¶58

Page 7 of 10

¶59

Rs.4,99,999/- was raised because of rate difference on 02^th April, 2019. Thereafter rate difference debit notes were issued by the appellant/plaintiff on 20^th June, 2019 for Rs.56,788/- and Rs. 61,419/- and Rs.62,304/-.

¶60

The appellant/plaintiff reversed the debit note of the respondent/defendant dated 03^rd October, 2018 for Rs.2,55,500/- on 04^th March, 2020 after more than 18 months of the receipt of the same and another debit note for Rs.64,850/- dated 27^th March, 2019 was reversed on 04^th March, 2020 i.e. after about a year.

¶61

The aforesaid conduct of the appellant/plaintiff of accepting the debit note and thereafter reversing the same after taking entries of the same in his account books, sufficiently speaks of the intention of the appellant/plaintiff. Rather, the transaction aforesaid speaks of the rate difference and intention of the appellant/plaintiff.

¶62

The debit note dated 05^th March, 2020 also sufficiently speaks of being enclosed with the ledger account, which was received by the appellant/plaintiff, as is admitted in the cross-examination. The said debit note was received along with the ledger account through Mr. Amit Mahajan , however, the said e-mail ( Ex. PW1/D1 ) was never replied by the appellant/plaintiff, which only invites the conclusion that the appellant/plaintiff had not objected to the ledger account submitted with the debit note.

¶63

The other debit note of Rs.17,93,533/- containing value of goods of Rs.15,19,943/- and IGST credit of Rs. 2,73,589/- sufficiently speaks of

¶64

Signature Not Verified

¶65

Signed By:SURYAKANT YADAV Signing Da te:2 1.08.2025 RFA(COMM) 441/2025 18:39:57

¶66

Page 8 of 10

¶67

the receipt of the said debit note, as the appellant/plaintiff has taken benefit of the said GST credit of Rs.2,73,589/- in his account.

¶68

Since 06^th March, 2020 the appellant/plaintiff remained idle, instead of approaching/pursuing his creditor, which speaks that the claim put forth by him is completely an afterthought. Perusal of the legal notice issued by the appellant-plaintiff to the defendant-respondent would reflect that the appellant/plaintiff has never mentioned about the reversal of debit note of the respondent/defendant dated 03^rd October, 2018, 27^th March, 2019, 05^th March, 2020 and 06^th March, 2020.

¶69

The ledger account of the appellant/plaintiff ( Ex. PW1/5 ) demonstrates that from 21^st April, 2018 till 06^th March, 2020, there was no payment in cash; however, it is only after one and half years from the debit note dated 05^th March, 2020, a meagre sum of Rs.9,000/- was shown to have been deposited in cash by the respondent/defendant, which fact is not established at all.

¶70

In the aforesaid backdrop, inference drawn by the Commercial Court while dismissing the claim of the appellant/plaintiff of manipulating the books of account by reversing the debit note entries is sufficiently established.

¶71

In the backdrop of aforesaid reasoning, which are based on the analysis of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the Commercial Court is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶72

That being so, no case for interference in appellate jurisdiction is made out as the appellant has failed to establish or discharge burden of

¶73

Signature Not Verified

¶74

Signed By:SURYAKANT YADAV Signing Da te:2 1.08.2025 RFA(COMM) 441/2025 18:39:57

¶75

Page 9 of 10

¶76

proving the liability of the respondent/defendant to pay the alleged amount.

¶77

The appeal stands dismissed.

¶78

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶79

A copy of this judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court

¶80

forthwith.

¶81

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE (JUDGE)

¶82

ANISH DAYAL

¶83

(JUDGE) AUGUST 04, 2025/ sky/tk

¶84

Signature Not Verified

¶85

Signed By:SURYAKANT YADAV Signing Da te:2 1.08.2025 RFA(COMM) 441/2025 18:39:57

¶86

Page 10 of 10

Kawal Mahajan v. Unitech Fibres Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kawal Mahajan v. Unitech Fibres Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhatia Enterprises through Its Partners Vs Moguire Foods Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Dhanraj Hiriyanna Kidiyoor

One Culture Private Limited Vs M/S Iqubx Private Limited

Deepak Kumar Khemka Vs Yogesh Kumar Jaiswal & Ors.

M/S Surya Roshni Limited Vs M/S Suriya Sunlite Led Pvt. Ltd.

Kanwar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs Hitesh Khurana

M/S Shirdi Industries Ltd. & Ors. Vs Manoj Vij

Kabir Sardar Vs Amit Jain

Anil Kumar Vs Devi Singh & Anr.

Savitri Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Panchi Devi & Ors. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ravi Shankar Shukla and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Narender Rana & Ors. Vs State & Ors.

Kapil and Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Col M P Wadwa and Ors. Vs the Registrar Co-Operative Societies and Ors.