Dismissed¶¶47

Gaurav Anand v. Kako Apparel India

Delhi HC23 Apr 2026RFA(COMM)/53/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RFA(COMM) 53/2026, Gaurav Anand v. Kako Apparel India, High Court of Delhi, decided 23.04.2026 (Prathiba M. Singh & Madhu Jain, JJ.) — regular commercial appeal against money-recovery decree in Commercial Case No. 100/2024 (claim Rs. 12,22,437/- with 18% interest); condonation of 64 days' delay refused as unexplained; decree rested on written-statement admission and partial decree under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC (Rs. 5,14,844.08/-) plus trial on balance (Rs. 7,07,592.92/-); appellate court in commercial suits need not re-appreciate evidence absent perversity or arbitrariness; ill-advised drafting of written statement not a ground for challenge; appeal dismissed, pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

The delay in filing of the appeal is not duly explained. ¶¶37

Gaurav Anand Vs Kako Apparel India — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal is duly explained and should be condoned. +1 more

¶¶3

Court's answer

The delay in filing of the appeal is not duly explained.

¶¶37

Ratio / Principle

The written statement admitted the supply; the continuous buyer-seller relationship was not disputed and the maintenance of the ledger was not doubted; after the partial decree, trial was conducted on the remaining amount and a decree passed.

¶¶38

Key takeaways

In commercial suits of this nature, the intention being expeditious disposal, the appellate court need not undertake a deep-dive into all the facts and evidence; if the trial court's view is based on the facts and evidence on record, it ought not to be interfered with, and re-appreciation of all facts and evidence, especially absent perversity or arbitrariness, is not required.ratio¶¶44
The Appellant's submission that it was ill-advised in the drafting of the written statement cannot be a ground for challenge.ratio¶¶45
Even on merits, no ground for interference with the impugned judgement is made out; the decree is not liable to be interfered with.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Prathiba M. Singh, J. authoring the oral judgment for the Bench with Madhu Jain, J.) dismissed RFA(COMM) 53/2026 challenging the judgement and decree dated 03.09.2025 of the ld. District Judge (Commercial Courts), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Commercial Case No. 100/2024. The Respondent/Plaintiff had sued for recovery of Rs. 12,22,437/- with interest @ 18% per annum; the Appellant/Defendant's written statement dated 09.01.2025 admitted Rs. 5,14,844.88/-, on which basis the suit was partly decreed on 24.05.2025 under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC for Rs. 5,14,844.08/-; the impugned judgement thereafter recorded that the plaintiff's claim remained for Rs. 7,07,592.92/- and rejected the defence of alleged payments of Rs. 5,05,600/- to the plaintiff's nominees and Rs. 1,80,000/- in cash for want of evidence, the Defendant having admitted in cross-examination receipt of the statement of account and his WhatsApp response agreeing to pay as per it. The High Court held (i) that the 64-day delay in filing the appeal was not duly explained, and (ii) that on merits no interference was warranted: in commercial suits, intended for expeditious disposal, the appellate court need not undertake a deep-dive into all facts and evidence, and where the trial court's view rests on the facts and evidence on record without perversity or arbitrariness, re-appreciation is not required; the plea that the appellant was ill-advised in drafting the written statement was held not to be a ground for challenge. Appeal dismissed; pending applications disposed of; the hearing fixed for 24.07.2026 cancelled.

¶1

$~107

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 23^rd April, 2026 Uploaded on: 29^th April, 2026

¶4

RFA(COMM) 53/2026 GAURAV ANAND .....Appellant Through: Mr. Mohit Bhardwaj and Mr. Manikaran Sharmam, Advs. versus KAKO APPAREL INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tarun Verma, Adv.

¶5

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

¶6

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

¶7

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶8

CM APPL. 26807/2026 in RFA(COMM) 53/2026

¶9

The present application has been filed during the pendency of the present appeal seeking, inter alia, stay of the impugned judgement and decree dated 3^rd September, 2025 passed by the ld. District Judge (Commercial Courts), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Commercial Case No. 100/2024 as also the execution proceedings thereto.

¶10

The present appeal was considered on 23rd January, 2026, on which date the Court had issued notice in CM APPL. 4768/2026 by which the Appellant has sought condonation of delay of 64 days in filing this appeal. The matter was then proceeding for consideration of the same and was next listed on 24th July, 2026.

¶11

Signature Not Verified

¶12

Signed By:RENUKA NEGI RFA(COMM) 53/2026 Signing Da te:2 9.04.2026 18:35:35

¶13

Page 1 of 5

¶14

In the meanwhile, the Appellant has preferred the present application.

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent/Plaintiff had filed a commercial suit seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,22,437/- along with interest @ 18% per annum. In this suit, the written statement dated 9th January, 2025 was filed by the Appellant/Defendant, admitting a sum of Rs 5,14,844.88/-. The relevant portion of the written statement is set out below:

¶16

“6. That as per the statement of account bills issued by the plaintiff and adjust/deducting the payment made by the defendant to the plaintiff and his nominees as per his direction, the defendant is liable to pay dues amount of Rs.5,14,844.88 (Rupees Five Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Four and Eighty Eight Paisa Only ), vide statement of account with the defendant as Annexure D-1 and as such the plaintiff is liable to be prosecuted for committing forgery in the judicial proceeding.”

¶17

On the basis of this admission made in the written statement, the suit was partially decreed on 24^th May, 2025 for a sum of Rs. 5,14,844.08/-. The relevant extract of the said order is set out below:

¶18

“Arguments on the application (i.e. lA No. 2/2025) under Order XII Rule 6 read with section 151 CPC heard.

¶19

Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that the defendant has categorically admitted in his written statement that an amount of Rs.5,14,844.08 is outstanding and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for defendant has also conceded that the defendant has admitted the liability of Rs. 5,14,844.08 in para 6 of his written statement which is also appearing from copy of his ledger account as filed along with the written statement. In view of unequivocal and unambiguous admission made by

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Signed By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:2 9.04.2026 18:35:35

¶22

RFA(COMM) 53/2026

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

the defendant regarding his liability of Rs. 5,14,844.08, present suit is partly decreed for a sum of Rs. 5,14,844.08 in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.”

¶25

Subsequently, the impugned judgement has been passed on 3^rd September, 2025. The reasoning given by the ld. Trial Court in the impugned judgement is as under:

¶26

“ Issue no.2:-

¶27

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for a sum of Rs.12,22,437/-? OPP

¶28

16. Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. PW-1 in his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A deposed that he supplied material to the defendant as per orders placed by the the defendant through invoices Ex.PW1/4 (colly) and as per ledger account Ex.PW1/3, a sum of Rs.12,22,437/- is outstanding. It is relevant to note here that the defendant in his written statement has admitted his liability for a sum of Rs.5,14,844.08/- and the suit of plaintiff was partly decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for the admitted amount of Rs.5,14,844.08/- vide order dated 24.05.2025. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff remains for a sum of Rs. 7,07,592.92/-.

¶29

17. The defendant has taken a defence that he had made a payment of Rs.5,05,600/- to the nominees of the plaintiff and a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- in cash to the plaintiff on different dates as reflected in his statement of account as Ex.DW1/D-1. No evidence is led by the defendant to prove that he had made any payment on asking of plaintiff to a third party or made the payment of Rs.1,80,000/- in cash to the plaintiff. Not only this, DW-1 in his cross examination has admitted that he had received the statement of account forwarded by the plaintiff

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Signed By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:2 9.04.2026 18:35:35

¶32

RFA(COMM) 53/2026

¶33

Page 3 of 5

¶34

through whatsapp claiming the suit amount and that he said through whatsapp for making the payment as per statement of account forwarded by the plaintiff.”

¶35

A perusal of the above would show that, in effect, when the statement of account was sent by the Respondent/Plaintiff to the Appellant/Defendant, in the cross-examination, the Appellant/Defendant had accepted that he would make the payment. The relevant portion of the said cross-examination is extracted below:

¶36

“I have not paid the amount of Rs. 5,14,848/-, which is admitted amount and also partly decreed by this court, as I am facing financial crisis. It is correct that the invoices as raised by plaintiff are correct and admitted by me. It is correct that I had received the statement of account forwarded by the plaintiff through WhatsApp claiming the suit amount and I replied that I was out for collection. It is correct that I said through WhatsApp for making the payment of amount as per statement of account forwarded by the plaintiff. It is correct that plaintiff had not forwarded any ledger to me thereafter he forwarded the ledger showing the outstanding amount which is claimed in the plaint i.e. suit amount. I do not remember if I had made any payment.”

¶37

Under these circumstances, at the outset, this Court is of the opinion that the delay in filing of the appeal is not duly explained. Secondly even on merits, the decree is not liable to be interfered with.

¶38

A perusal of the written statement shows that the supply is admitted, the continuous buyer-seller relationship is not disputed and even the maintenance of ledger is not doubted. Some part of the outstanding amount was admitted as being due. After the partial decree was passed, for the

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Signed By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:2 9.04.2026 18:35:35

¶41

RFA(COMM) 53/2026

¶42

Page 4 of 5

¶43

remaining amount, the trial has been conducted and thereafter a decree has been passed.

¶44

In Commercial suits, of this nature, the intention being of expeditious disposal, the appellate court need not undertake a deep-dive into all the facts and evidence. If the view given by the trial court is on the basis of facts and evidence on record, the same ought not to be interfered with. Re-appreciation of all the facts and evidence especially if there is no perversity or arbitrariness would not be required.

¶45

At this stage, the ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant was ill-advised in the drafting of the written statement. However, this cannot be a ground for challenge.

¶46