Allowed¶56

Aman Verma v. Paramjeet Singh

Delhi HC2 Apr 2026RFA(COMM)/101/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Aman Verma v. Paramjeet Singh, RFA(COMM) 101/2023 (Delhi HC, 02.04.2026): recovery decree of Rs. 1,43,030/- in CS(COMM) 95/2022 set aside; High Court holds the original accounts register was produced and Jasvinder Singh @ Lucky signed receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 25.02.2021 (DW-1/4 / PW-1/D1), making the Commercial Court's finding unsustainable; appeal disposed of with judgment/decree dated 31.01.2023 set aside.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to set aside the impugned judgment granted in full: judgment/decree dated 31.01.2023 in CS (COMM) 95/2022 set aside; decree sheet to be prepared accordingly; appeal disposed of. ¶56

Aman Verma Vs Paramjeet Singh — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer to set aside the impugned judgment granted in full: judgment/decree dated 31.01.2023 in CS (COMM) 95/2022 set aside; decree sheet to be prepared accordingly; appeal disposed of.

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant a sum of Rs. 3,32,720/-, as prayed for in the plaint (OPP) [framed by the Commercial Court]. +3 more

¶31

Court's answer

The judgment/decree dated 31.01.2023 in CS (COMM) 95/2022 is set aside and the decree sheet is to be prepared accordingly.

¶56

Ratio / Principle

Contrary to the Commercial Court's finding, the original of the accounts register was produced and shown to the witness during the cross-examination of Paramjeet Singh.

¶47

Key takeaways

Exhibit DW-1/4 (PW-1/D1) shows that Jasvinder Singh @ Lucky signed in receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 25.02.2021; consequently, the Commercial Court's conclusion to the contrary cannot be accepted.ratio¶49
The conclusion drawn by the Commercial Court by decreeing the suit only to the extent of Rs. 1,43,030/- is not sustainable, as the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was also paid by the appellant to the respondent.ratio¶51
The appeal is disposed of.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Coram: V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.; oral decision of V. Kameswar Rao, J.), 02.04.2026, RFA(COMM) 101/2023 - Aman Verma (appellant/defendant) v. Paramjeet Singh (respondent/plaintiff). The appeal lay against the judgment dated 31.01.2023 of the learned District Judge-03 (Commercial Court), Dwarka Court in CS(COMM) 95/2022, which decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 3,32,720/- to the extent of Rs. 1,43,030/- (Rs. 3,23,030/- claimed outstanding less Rs. 1,80,000/- paid in cash through Sh. Dharamraj), while rejecting the defendant's plea that a further Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid through Jasvinder Singh @ Lucky for want of the original accounts register and supporting affidavit deposition. Held: (i) from the cross-examination of Paramjeet Singh, the original register page was in fact brought by the defendant and shown to the witness ('I have seen the page of the register brought by the defendant...Mark PW1/D1 (OSR)'); (ii) exhibit DW-1/4 (PW-1/D1) shows Jasvinder Singh @ Lucky signed in receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 25.02.2021; the Commercial Court's conclusion decreeing the suit only to the extent of Rs. 1,43,030/- is therefore not sustainable. The judgment/decree dated 31.01.2023 in CS (COMM) 95/2022 is set aside, the decree sheet to be prepared accordingly, and the appeal disposed of. The plaintiff/respondent, though served and earlier represented by Mr. Rajeev Katiyan, Advocate, made no appearance from 28.11.2024 onwards.

¶1

$~6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision : 02.04.2026

¶4

RFA(COMM) 101/2023 AMAN VERMA .....APPELLANT Through: Mr. Anil Devlal, Ms. Rita, Mr. Rakesh Tiwari and Ms. Neetu Badolia, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

PARAMJEET SINGH .....RESPONDENT Through: None

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶9

V. KAMESWAR RAO , J. (ORAL)

¶10

This present appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned District Judge-03 (Commercial Court), Dwarka Court dated 31.01.2023 in CS(COMM) 95/2022, whereby the Court has decreed the suit for recovery in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

¶11

The plaintiff/respondent had filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.3,32,720/- along with pendente lite and future interest. The plaintiff is a proprietor of GRD Electronics, a distributor of a number of companies manufacturing electronic goods. The defendant/respondent is also in the business of electronic goods, in the name of New Aman Electronics.

¶12

Page 1 of 7

¶13

RFA(COMM) 101/2023

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:1 3.04.2026 19:23:28

¶16

We may narrate a brief factual background of the present case, as borne out from the appeal. The respondent had business relations with Mr. Dinesh Kumar, the father of appellant and proprietor of firm namely Aman Electronics. The respondent used to supply the electronic goods to Aman Electronics till 13.11.2020. On 17.12.2020 the father of appellant passed away and then with the suggestion and promise of help by the respondent, the appellant started a new firm and shop by name of New Aman Electronics at Main Ranhola Raod, Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. As per the earlier promise, the respondent started fresh supply of electronics goods to the new firm of the appellant from 04.02.2021 till 18.07.2021 and all the payments whereof were cleared by the appellant. In fact, the appellant had made a surplus payment of Rs.57,000/- to the respondent. It is stated that the respondent himself started the supply of goods to New Aman Electronics and the appellant had cleared all dues from time to time. It is stated that the respondent knowing well that the appellant is inexperienced, sent a legal notice to the appellant with a malafide intention to extort money.

¶17

It is the case of the appellant that the online transfer receipts, cash paid receipts on invoices, ledger and accounts register make it clear that there is nothing outstanding against the appellant, which fact was duly made clear by the appellant in his written statement. It is alleged by the appellant that the respondent failed to file invoices for the claimed amount of Rs.3,23,030/- and Rs.3,32,720/-, rather filed the invoices along with the suit from June 2021, which is after four months of the supply and which were not subject matter to the dispute. The appellant on the other hand, filed all the necessary invoices along with his written statement, conclusively

¶18

Page 2 of 7

¶19

RFA(COMM) 101/2023

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:1 3.04.2026 19:23:28

¶22

proving the receipts Rs.1,80,000/- vide invoice dated 04.02.2021 and Rs.2,00,000/- vide accounts register, totaling to Rs.3,80,000/- against the claimed amount.

¶23

It is stated that the invoice dated 04.02.2021 for Rs.1,80,000/- bears the signature of the driver of the respondent, which was accepted by the learned District Judge. However, the accounts register for the other amount of Rs.2,00,000/- bears the signature of Mr. Jasvinder Singh @ Lucky, showing acceptance of the amounts, was not accepted by the Commercial Court. It is the case of the appellant that Jasvinder Singh @ Lucky is the nephew of the respondent, and his signatures were affixed on most of the invoices issued by the respondent. Though, the respondent did not identify the signatures of Jasvinder Singh @ Lucky, during cross examination, he admitted that bills were generated by the said person and tax invoices of the respondent also bear his signatures.

¶24

Further, in another commercial case, filed by the respondent for recovery against the appellant, which though was dismissed by the Court on 29.04.2023, the respondent in cross examination had relied upon the signatures of his nephew Jasvinder Singh @ Lucky. 7. It is the case of the appellant that the Commercial Court failed to appreciate that the receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/- bears the signature of authorised signatory of the respondent and also that the respondent had not filed the invoices for which he is claiming recovery. It also failed to observe that even the receipt for Rs.1,80,000/- which was accepted bore the same signatures of Mr. Jasvinder Singh @ Lucky as authorised signatory.

¶25

Page 3 of 7

¶26

RFA(COMM) 101/2023

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:1 3.04.2026 19:23:28

¶29

It is stated that the above makes it clear that all the payments were duly cleared by the appellant and there was nothing due towards the respondent, but in fact it is the respondent, who is liable to pay Rs.57,000/back to the appellant.

¶30

He has prayed that the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2023 be set aside.

¶31

The following issues were framed by the Commercial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant a sum of Rs. 3,32,720/-, as prayed for in the plaint ? (OPP)

¶32

2. if the answer to the issue no. 1 is in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.

¶33

3. Relief?”

¶34

Insofar as the issue no. 1 is concerned, the Commercial Court held in paragraph 13.13 as under:-

¶35

“13.13 As per the plaintiff, the total amount outstanding against the defendant is Rs. 3,23,030/(Rupees three lac twenty three thousand and thirty only). However, the defendant has been able to show that he has paid Rs. 1,80,000/- (Rupees one lac and eighty thousand only), in cash to the plaintiff through his driver Sh. Dharamraj. In view of the aforesaid, it is considered that the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant, a sum of Rs. 1,43,030/- (Rupees one lac forty three thousand and thirty only). (Rs. 3,23,030/Rs. 1,80,000/- Rs. 1,43,000/-) Issue no. 1 is decided accordingly, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.”

¶36

The basis for the Commercial Court to hold that the respondent herein is entitled to the amount of Rs. 1,43,030/- is primarily by holding that the

¶37

Page 4 of 7

¶38

RFA(COMM) 101/2023

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:1 3.04.2026 19:23:28

¶41

respondent herein has received an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- and as such the respondent is entitled to balance amount of Rs. 1,43,030/-. The aforesaid finding of the Commercial Court is by holding that the statement of the defendant i.e. the appellant herein that all the payments were cleared by him against the supply of goods by the plaintiff and rather extra payment to the tune of Rs. 57,000/- was made to the plaintiff/respondent has not been proved. During his cross-examination, DW-1 has stated that he has obtained receipt of one Dharamraj for Rs. 1,80,000/- by which the Commercial Court inferred that the appellant/defendant did make the payment of Rs. 1,80,000/to the plaintiff through his driver Dharamraj. However, on the aspect on receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- by Jasvinder Singh @ Lucky is concerned, the defendant, who sought to rely upon the accounts register, the Commercial Court held that the defendant/appellant had neither produced the original accounts register nor deposed in his affidavit that the same bears the signatures of Jasvinder Singh@Lucky in token of receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/and as such, he has not been able to prove payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash to the plaintiff through his nephew Jasvinder Singh @ Lucky.

¶42

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is primarily that the conclusion drawn by the Commercial Court is perverse inasmuch as most of the invoices including the invoice dated 04.02.2021 bears the signatures of the nephew of the respondent Jasvinder@Lucky and the same is shown in the register, receiving Rs. 2,00,000/-. The counsel for the appellant has referred to document marked as DW-1/4 wherein according to the counsel for the appellant, it is clearly depicted that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was received by Jasvinder Singh @ Lucky on 25.02.2021.

¶43

Page 5 of 7

¶44

RFA(COMM) 101/2023

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:1 3.04.2026 19:23:28

¶47

This document has not been dealt with by the Commercial Court. The finding of the Commercial Court is primarily two fold that the appellant/defendant has not produced the original account register nor has it deposed in the affidavit exhibited DW/Ex-1. We are unable to accept such a finding of the Commercial Court for the reason that if the cross-examination of Paramjeet Singh/respondent herein is seen, it is clear that the original of the register was brought by the defendant/appellant and the same was shown to the witness as is clear from the following paragraph:-

¶48

“I have seen the page of the register brought by the defendant. It does not bear signature of Lucky against the figure of Rs.2 lacs, a copy of the said page of the register is Mark PW1/D1 (OSR).”

¶49

The above makes it clear that the original of the register was produced. If the said exhibit DW-1/4 (PW-1/D1) is seen against the account of Rs. 2,00,000/-, it becomes clear that Jasvinder Singh @ Lucky did sign in receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 25.02.2021. If that be so, the conclusion of the Commercial Court in this regard cannot be accepted.

¶50

There is no appearance for the plaintiff/respondent in these proceedings though the said respondent was served and was duly represented by Mr. Rajeev Katiyan, Advocate on 26.09.2023, 06.11.2023, 29.01.2024 and 09.07.2024 when the matter was adjourned for 28.11.2024. There was no appearance for the plaintiff/respondent on 28.11.2024 and in any of the hearings thereafter.

¶51

In view of the above, the conclusion drawn by the Commercial Court by decreeing the suit only to the extent of Rs.1,43,030/- is not sustainable as we find that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was also paid by the appellant to

¶52

Page 6 of 7

¶53

RFA(COMM) 101/2023

¶54

Signature Not Verified

¶55

Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:1 3.04.2026 19:23:28

¶56

the respondent. The judgment/decree dated 31.01.2023 in CS (COMM) 95/2022 is set aside. The decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

¶57

The appeal is disposed of.

¶58

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶59

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶60

APRIL 02, 2026 /sr

¶61

Page 7 of 7

¶62

RFA(COMM) 101/2023

¶63

Signature Not Verified

¶64

Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:1 3.04.2026 19:23:28

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 31.01.2023 in CS(COMM) 95/2022 decreeing the suit for recovery in favour of the plaintiff (Paramjeet Singh) and against the defendant (Aman Verma).¶10
District Judge-03 (Commercial Court), Dwarka Court · 31.01.2023
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff/respondent filed suit CS(COMM) 95/2022 against the defendant for recovery of Rs.3,32,720/- with pendente lite and future interest.¶11
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff is proprietor of GRD Electronics, a distributor of electronic-goods manufacturers; defendant conducts electronic-goods business in the name of New Aman Electronics.¶11
Prior proceeding
Respondent supplied electronic goods to Aman Electronics (firm of appellant's father Dinesh Kumar) till 13.11.2020; after the father's death on 17.12.2020, appellant opened New Aman Electronics and respondent supplied goods thereto from 04.02.2021 to 18.07.2021.¶16
Prior proceeding
Appellant asserts all dues were cleared from time to time, that he made a surplus payment of Rs.57,000/-, and that the respondent sent a legal notice with malafide intention to extort money.¶16
Prior proceeding
Appellant filed invoices, receipts and accounts register with his written statement, asserting receipts of Rs.1,80,000/- (invoice dated 04.02.2021) and Rs.2,00,000/- (accounts register), totaling Rs.3,80,000/- against the claimed amount.¶22
Prior proceeding
Jasvinder Singh @ Lucky, stated to be the respondent's nephew, signed most invoices issued by the respondent; in cross-examination the respondent admitted bills were generated by him and the respondent's tax invoices bear his signatures.¶23
Prior proceeding
In another commercial recovery case filed by the respondent against the appellant, dismissed on 29.04.2023, the respondent had relied in cross-examination upon the signatures of his nephew Jasvinder Singh @ Lucky.¶24
Prior proceeding
Commercial Court framed three issues: entitlement to recover Rs. 3,32,720/-; entitlement to interest, rate and period; relief.¶31
Prior proceeding
On issue no. 1 (paragraph 13.13), the Commercial Court held the plaintiff entitled to recover Rs. 1,43,030/- (Rs. 3,23,030/- claimed outstanding less Rs. 1,80,000/- paid in cash through driver Sh. Dharamraj), deciding the issue in favour of the plaintiff.¶35
Prior proceeding
The Commercial Court rejected the claimed payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- through Jasvinder Singh @ Lucky, holding the appellant had neither produced the original accounts register nor deposed in his affidavit (DW/Ex-1) that it bore Lucky's signature.¶41
Prior proceeding
Cross-examination of the plaintiff at the trial: the witness saw the page of the register brought by the defendant, noting it did not bear Lucky's signature against Rs.2 lacs, and a copy was marked PW1/D1 (OSR).¶48
Prior proceeding
Respondent was served and represented by Mr. Rajeev Katiyan, Advocate on 26.09.2023, 06.11.2023, 29.01.2024 and 09.07.2024 (matter adjourned to 28.11.2024); there was no appearance on 28.11.2024 or at any hearing thereafter.¶50

Aman Verma v. Paramjeet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman Verma v. Paramjeet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R Krishnamurthy and Co. Vs Atindra Prasad Adhikari, Proprietor Skb Infratech

Feroz Khan and Ors. Vs Anil Jain

Anil Poddar Vs Md. Usman Director

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sh. Subodh Jaiswal

M/S Books and Books and Anr. Vs M/S Viva Books Pvt. Ltd.

Absolute Electrovision Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Avantika Enterprises & Anr.

Pasupati Sales and Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs G.B Equipment System Ltd.

Shri Rakesh, Proprietor Vs Shri Tushar Aggarwal and Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Ex Nb Sub Madan Pal Singh Tomar

Aryan Yadav Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Yamuna Enterprises Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Kapil Aggarwal Vs Satbir Saini & Anr.

Helios Lifestyle Limited Vs Idam Natural Wellness Private Ltd. & Ors.

M/S Karix Mobile Private Limited Vs National Informatics Centre Services Inc. & Ors.