IN THE COURT OF MS.

NISHA SAXENA, HON'BLE DISTRIC T JUDGE, COMMER CIAL

COURTS, TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 406 OF 2021
{SUIT UNDER ORDER XXXVII OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908)

IN THE COURT OF: -

M/S H.S. CHEMICAL SUPPLIERS

... PLAINTIF F

VERSUS

M/S SCIENTIFIC KNITS PROCESSOR PVT. LTD.

... DEFENDANT
IND EX

S.No. Particula rs Page Nos. I

1. Application on behalf of the Defendant under Order VII

Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection
of the plaint filed by the Plaintiff along with an affidavit 1-1 1
in support.

THRO~ Gy ~
(RAKIH KUMAR) & (A~~EY A MISHRA)
A,DVOCATES FO·;~\E DEFENDANT
CREDENCE LAW
C-119, 1ST FLOOR, DEFENCE COLONY,
NEW DELHI-1 10024
M: +91-9910 169360
Email: anjaneya.credence@gmail.com
PLACE: NEW DELHI
DATE:2..o - IO - 2-\
I
IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHA SAXENA, HON'BLE DISTRICT JUDGE, COMMERCIAL
t
COURTS, TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 406 OF 2021
{SUIT UNDER ORDER XXXVII OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908}

IN THE COURT OF:-

M/S H.S. CHEMICAL SUPPLIERS

... PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

M/S SCIENTIFIC KNITS PROCESSOR PVT. LTD.

... DEFENDANT

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 OF THE

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 SEEKING REJECTION OF THE PLAINT FILED BY
THE PLAINTIFF.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Present Application is being preferred by the Defendant herein under Order

VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 inter-alia seeking rejection of the

plaint filed by the Plaintiff.

2. That the Plaintiff herein has filed the accompanying suit for recovery against the

Defendant under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which is not at

all maintainable.

3. That the Defendant herein submits that the Plaint filed by the Plaintiff needs to be

rejected, pursuant to the provisions of the Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 on the grounds mentioned herein below:

(a) Inasmuch as prima facie, the contents of the present suit itself fail to establish

any cause of action against the Defendant and in favor of the Plaintiff. Further,

the contents of the present suit, prima facie fails to establish that how the
 present suit under order VII is maintainable against the Defendant for the

recovery of the alleged amount as is claimed by the Plaintiff.

(b) Inasmuch as the present suit preferred by the Plaintiff herein is an utter abuse

of the process of law and based on false and unwarranted submission having no

relevance with the actual cause of action and hence the same is uncalled for.

The entire contents and contentions as contained in the present suit are

mischievously drafted, motivated and an act to create prejudice in the eyes of

the law for the Defendant herein.

(c) Inasmuch as in a commercial suit for recovery, it is necessitated that before

instituting the suit, a pre-litigation mediation is required to be followed except in

the case where an interim application is filed. This implies that mediation is a

pre-requisite step before the filing of a commercial suit. The present suit has

been filed by the plaintiff which is a Partnership Firm. Mr. Pawan Kr. Gupta

represents itself to be the partner of the said firm. It is apparent that Mr. Pawan

Kr. Gupta was not authorized to file the suit inasmuch as he did not have valid

authorization at the time of the pre-litigation mediation. Accordingly, the suit is

barred by sec 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which is being reproduced

herein as under:

"Secti on 12A of the Commercial Courts Act provides the parties

with an alternate mechanism to resolve disputes by negoti ab'ng in
the presence of a mediator. It is the responsibt'lity of the plaintiff
to initiate mediation before filt'ng a suit"

(d) Inasmuch as in addition to the preceding para, it is submitted that there are

discrepancies between the averment made in the plaint and the documents

placed on record by the Plaintiff, as per them three partnership deeds dated

01.04.1988, 01.04.1992 & 21.12.2020 were entered into between the partners
 of the Plnlnllfrs fh m . 7 I)~, rll~(riJµ, 111CIL•~ wlllcl, c<1st doubt upon the genuineness

of tlw l"lnlnt·lfl flrn , 1~, me11tl0ncd hl'reln IJl'low:

• The lntcsl deed of pni lnc1~-hip dnlccl 2 1. I ? .2020 gives reference to a deed
doted 0t.0·L 1988, however, 110 rcrcrcncc of " deed dated 01.01-.1992 was
mentioned In the sole.I lntcst' clct'CI.
• The PlnlnUIT hns on only µlocc on record tl1e Deed dated 21. 12.2020 and
01.04.1992, however, tile deed doted 01.04·. L988 has not been placed on
record.

• The authorization dated 03.01. 2021 gives reference to the deed dated
01.04.1992, however the same does not give reference to the deed dated
01.0,ugss and the latest deed dated 21.12.2020.

( e) Inasmuch as the reference of this Hon'ble may be drawn towards section 69(2)

of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 which states as follows:

".. (2) No suit to enforce a right aris1i1g from a contract shall be

instituted in any court by or on behalfof a firm against any third party
unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been
shown in the Register of Arms as partners in the firm. "

Upon perusal of the above provision, it is clear that a suit to enforce a right

arising out of a contract can only be instituted by the registered partnership firm,

meaning thereby an unregistered firm cannot institute such suit. As per the

plaint, the present suit is based upon a contract between the Plaintiff and

Defendant and not to claim rights under common law. It may be noted that the

Legal notice was Issued on 27.09.2020, the pre-litigation mediation was

instituted on 10.12.2020, however, the Plaintiff's firm got registered only on

01.01.2021. It is further submitted that law is clear that subsequent registration

would not entitle a partnership firm to continue with the suit. Therefore, the suit

instituted in furtherance to the pre-litigation mediation application dated

10.12.2020 ls liable to be dismissed.

 u,
Inasmu ch as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, various High Courts time and again

have held that "When a plaint is present ed in such manner, by a firm, wh ich is

incompe tent to do l!kewise, [it} cannot lead to proper and legal institutio n of the

suit. Therefore, when this section is with referenc e to [ the} very maintai nability

of the suit, a decree passed is not only void but also an imprope r exercise of

jurisdict ion amount ing to an illegality. It is well known that there cannot be

contrac ting out of the statutor y provisions and a decree passed in derogation of

the terms of section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act cannot be legally

sustained. A decree of this kin(1✓ can indee(1✓ be question ed at any stage. "

(g) Inasmu ch as the Plaintiff has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clea n

hands for the following reasons:

(i) The Plaintiff has miserably failed to give exact dates as to since when the

Plaintiff and Defendant are in the business; since when the Plaintiff is

maintaining the running accounts.

(ii) The perusal of Para 7, as well as para 14 of the suit, states that the parties

were engaged in business from 01.04.2019 and they are maintain ing the

running account from 01.04.2019, whereas, the Plaintiff is claiming

recovery and has also placed invoices & ledger prior to the period

01.04.2019. The ledger account for the period commencing from

01.04.2019 would depict that on 01.04.2019 the opening balance was Rs.

16,87,770/- whereas as per the averment of the Plaintiff the Defendant

engaged the Plaintiff on 01.04.2019. There is no averme nt in the suit as to

how the Plaintiff is claiming the amount of Rs. 15,67,334/ -. Even if it

assuming that the Plaintiff is also claiming seeking recovery for the period
 5
prior to 01.04.2019, then how the Plaintiff has discriminated amongst the

invoices and why only 3-4 invoices qua the period prior to 01.04.2019 has

been placed on record.

(iii) That insofar as territorial jurisdiction is concerned the Plaintiff has

invo~ed the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court on the following basis:

i. The Plaintiff carries on its business within this territory of this

Hon'ble Court;
ii. The Plaintiff's head office is this territory of this Hon'ble Court;
iii. Orders and supply of goods used to place by Defendant to Plaintiff
at Plaintiff's Delhi head office;
iv. The Plaintiff maintains its bank account (in which the Defendant
used to make payment) within the territory of this Hon'ble Court;
v. Invoices states that all disputes are subject to Delhi Jurisdiction;

In response to the above, it is stated that to maintain a suit for recovery section

20 of CPC is required to look into which states either it is to be filed where

Defendant resides; carries on business; personally work for gain, or where the

cause of action arose.

In the present matter, the Defendant is a Company incorporated under the

provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and having its regd. office at House no. 492

Sector-21A, Faridabad, Haryana-121001 and none of the office of the

Defendant falls within the territory of this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that

for the supply of Chemicals/Soda the Defendant used to place orders

telephonically and not at the Plaintiff's Delhi office which was also confirmed

by the Plaintiff in para 4 of the suit. Even otherwise the Plaintiff has not placed

even an iota of the purchase order which ought to have been placed by the

Defendant at Plaintiff's Delhi office.

 6
Insofar as contention qua supplying the goods rrom Plaintiff's Deihl offlc<.: I(,

concerned, l11e same Is false and Is an arm twisting Lactic of the Plaintiff Jui;t

lo Invoke the territorial j urisdiction of Lhls Hon'ble Court. It Is submitted that

the entire meetings, discussion qua the recovery made in the suit arc only held

at the Plaintiff's Gurgaon offlce, no such meetings were held at Plaintiff'~ Delhi

offlce. The Invoices, e-way bills placed by the Plaintiff would depict that the

Plaintiff has supplied the goods from Its Gurgaon office to the Faridabad office

of the Defendant.

In order to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, the Plaintiff

is relying upon four forged invoices dated 20.07.2018, 20.08.2019, 21.09.2018

& 05.03.2019 wherein it is shown that the goods were supplied from Plaintiffs

Delhi office to Defendant's Faridabad office. The said invoices are forged and

fabricated for the following reasons:

► The said invoices are not supported with e-way bills or any other

delivery receipts.
► The said invoices does not have receiving of the Defendant Company.
► Even the ledger account placed by the Plaintiff does not have the entries
of these invoices.
Whereas perusal of the rest of the invoices placed by the Plaintiff would depict

the supply have been made from Plaintiffs Gurgaon office to the Defendant's

Faridabad office. Those invoices also have the receiving/acknowledgment by

the Defendant Company. Further, the entries of those invoices are also

mentioned in the ledger account of the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is clear that the

Plaintiff just to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court has mala fidely

forged and fabricated the said invoices. Against the said acts of the Plaintiff the

Defendant herein reserves its right to enforce the same before the appropriate

forum. Hence, this Hon'ble Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain or

 adjudicate upon parties' controversies and disputes within the court's

established law under Delhi, and this Hon'ble Court lacks initial jurisdiction to

try this suit, hence need be dismissed with cost.

Further insofar as invoking the territorial jurisdiction on the basis of jurisdiction

clause in the invoice is concerned, it is submitted that now the law is settled

that to invoke territorial jurisdiction the intentions of parties must be clear and

the cause of action must have been accrued within that place (mentioned in

the invoice), then only a suit can be instituted on the basis of a jurisdictional

clause.

Therefore, since the requirement of section 20 of CPC has not been satisfied,

the present suit is liable to be dismissed.

(h) Inasmuch as in the present matter, the Defendant is a Company incorporated

under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and having its regd. office at House

no. 492 Sector-21A, Faridabad, Haryana-121001 and none of the office of the

Defendant falls within the territory of this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that for

the supply of Chemicals/Soda the Defendant used to place orders telephonically

and not at the Plaintiff's Delhi office which was also confirmed by the Plaintiff in

para 4 of the suit. Even otherwise the Plaintiff has not placed even an iota of the

purchase order which ought to have been placed by the Defendant at Plaintiff's

Delhi office.

(i) Inasmuch as the contention qua supplying the goods from Plaintiff's Delhi office

is concerned, the same is false and is an arm twisting tactic of the Plaintiff just

to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that the

entire meetings, discussion qua the recovery made in the suit are only held at
 the Plaintiff's Gurgaon office, no such meetings were held at Plaintiff's Delhi

office. The invoices, e-way bills placed by the Plaintiff would depict that the

Plaintiff has supplied the goods from its Gurgaon office to the Faridabad office

of the Defendant.

It is submitted that the suit of the Plaintiff is based on an incorrect running

account ledger. There are several inherent contradictions in the plaint of the
Plaintiff which is also pointed out in the leave to defend. It is submitted that it is
a settled proposition of law that a running statement of account does not come
within the preview of order 37 of the C.P.C. The amount claimed by the Plaintiff
is not based upon any instrument, or a liquidated amount arising out of a written
contract. The Plaintiff is claiming the present suit on the basis of amount claim
at the foot of the its ledger. Therefore, the present suit of the Plaintiff has been
filed wrongly under the provisions of order 37 of the C.P.C and the same is liable
to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

4. That the ingredients for allowing the present application lies in favor of the Defendant

and against the Plaintiff.

5. That grave prejudice would be caused to the Defendants if the present application is

not allowed inasmuch as the Defendants have already suffered a lot due· to the

unlawful and illegal acts and omissions of the Plaintiff.

6. That the present application is bonafide and is being made in the interest of justice.

PRAYER:

In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is most respectfully prayed that this

Hon'ble court may be pleased to:

a) Allow the present application filed by the Defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and reject the suit filed by the Plaintiff, or/and;
 9
d) Pass such other or further orders as may be deemed just and proper by this

Hon'ble Court on the facts a·nd in the circumstances of the case and in the
For Scientific Knits Proc~
.,
ssor.~Pvt. lid.
interest of justice.

Q~fi~ Rh~;r
THROUGH
\~
(RAKESH KUMAR) &~JANEVA MISHRA)
ADVOCATES FOR THE DEFENDANT
CREDENCE LAW
C-119, 1ST FLOOR, DEFENCE COLONY,
NEW DELHI-110024
M: +91-9910169360
Email: anjaneya.credence@gmail.com
PLACE: NEW DELHI
DATE:b~to~?-f
 ID
IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHA SAXENA, HON'BLE DISTRICT JUDGE, COMMERCIAL
COURTS, TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 406 OF 2021
(SUIT UNDER ORDER XXXVII OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908}
IN THE COURT OF:-

M/S H.S. CHEMICAL SUPPLIERS

... PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
M/S SCIENTIFIC KNITS PROCESSOR PVT. LTD.
... DEFENDANT

AFFID AVIT

I, Yogender Deshwal, S/o Lt. Sh. Karan Singh, aged about 53 years, C/o Village Mohalla, Near
Sikri Village, Ballabgarh, Dist. Faridabad, Haryana, presently at New Delhi, authorized
representative of Scientific Knits Processor Pvt. Ltd., do hereby solemnly affirm and declare
as under:

1. That I am the Authorized Representative of the Applicant/Defendant Company in the

above matter duly authorized vide Board Resolution dated 27.02.2021 and am well

conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and hence, I am competent

to swear the present affidavit.

,.-:-,;::.·::::;-.:~-~:::; -~-
.,,\of '··'t:1. ,'·~>
_, r,,/''.>--2_:-··---.. J'?<it\.,l have gone through the accompanying Application which is drafted by the
II ~ / 1,, ,:., • '\ ... \ ;.,
/,. :if \~- ·;.·:·C'0~} I under my instructions and I say that the facts stated therein are true and

\;_/4~:_·. . ··.: ,/Jef~i jto the best of my knowledge and belief based on the information derived from
/ r:,>
\ ·,'--/,,. . ., .. .. ..

__ .:- JI{. records whilst the legal submissions made are believed to be true and correct on
··,:-: .-f:5Jiy__i.._,,-

the basis of legal advice received .

 f\

facts have been concealed

1. That no part of this affidavit is false and no material
therefrom. For Scientific Knits Pro,..;~. - ~ v,. Ltd.

~AUi3 Signa1:1ry
ro~E NT

VERIFICATION:

verify that the contents

I, YogendraDeshwal, the above-n~med deponent, do hereby
no part of it is false and nothing
of the above affidav it are true to my knowledge and
, .,. For Scientific Knits Proces sors Pvt. Ltd.
material has been concealed therefrom.
2O · r-rI
Ov ' In 21
r.
t. '.L· ·•

Verified at ~ this_ day of October, 2021.

•5'>'.)i'Bn :r,r·.r ·, wort1 ooion:; rm, r1:tec

•v8r tJ, n: i) •;.;;n~}d H; (11 ~:: ()f;cn,·~,:H"'...t

. _:
~ • :,·i.-;; r;~ ( .'t,
-', ( '.Tlit i ,.,.;j f• ) !::,..,;
.. . ' ,'' . \ \./
. ,.

•; ,u ·· ·. · ,\#•. . ·~,.$ l (}n 0 ;~., ~·,>.·t:)~,:~ t~zj/~i.A

2 0 OCl 20211
 lN THE COURT OF MS. NIS HA
SAXENA, HON'BLE DIS TR
ICT JUDGE, COMMERCIA
COURTS, TIS HA ZA RI CO L
URTS, NEW DE LH I
COMMERCIAL SU IT NO
(SUIT UNDER ORDER XXXV . _ _OF 20 21
II OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PR
IN THE COUR T OF :- OCEDURE, 19 08 )
M/S H.S . CHEMICAL SUPPLIER
S
.. .PL AIN TIF F
VERSUS
M/S SCIENTIFIC KN ITS PROCES
SOR PVT. LTD.
. .. DEFENDANT
IND EX
S.NO. PARTICULARS ---
PAGE NO.

1. APPLICATION ON BEHALF
OF DEFENDANT
UNDER ORDER 37 RULE 3 (5)
FOR GRANT OF
UNCONDITTONAL LEAVE TO
ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT IN
DEFEND THE SUIT 1~ \ l
SUPPORT .
2. APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF
THE DEFENDANT
UNDER ORDER 37 RULE 3
(7) ALONG WITH
SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIV
1908 SEEKING CONDONAT ION
APPLYING FOR LEAVE TO
IL PROCEDURE,
OF DELAY IN I Z-1 =}
DEFEND ALONG
WITH AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT.
3. AN NE XU RE -Al

COPY OF THE WHATSAPP SC

DATED 06.10.2021.
REENSHOT CHAT \t ·- I" \

THROUGH C\S \/
(RAKESH KU MA R) & (~
\ ;NEYA MIS HR A)
ADVOCATES FOR T~E DE
FENDANT
CREDENCE LAW
C-1 19 , 1S T FLOOR, DEFE
NCE COLONY,
NEW DE LH I- 11 00 24
M: + 91-99 10 16 93 60
Email: a nja ney a.c red e nce @g
PLACE: NE W DE LH I ma il.c om
DATE:I ~ - \0 - 2..)

\
l
 "\,
I
HE COURT OF MS. NISHA SAXENA, I-ION'BLE DISTRICT JUDGE, COMMERCIAL
COURTS, TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. _ _OF 2021
{SUIT UNDER ORDER XXXVII OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE1 1908)
IN THE COURT OF;-
M/S H.S. CHEMICAL SUPPLIERS ... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/S SCIENTIFIC KNITS PROCESSOR PVT. LTD. ... DEFENDANT

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT UNDER ORDER 37 RULE 3 {5) FOR

GRANT OF UNCONDITIONAL LEAVE TO DEFEND THE SUIT.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Plaintiff has filed the above-noted suit for recovery against the Defendant
under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the summons of judgment
in the above-noted suit was received by the Defendant through Speed post on
23.09.2021.

2. That the case file of the present matter got misplaced from the office of the
Defendant's counsel due to which the present application and affidavit could not
be filed within a statutory period of 10 days from receipt of the summons for
judgment. There is a delay of 18 days in filing of the present application and
affidavit for which an application under Order 37 Rule 3 (7) along with Section 151
of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is filed with the present application.

3. That the Defendant is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the

Companies Act, 1956. The Defendant Company vide its board resolution dated
27.02.2021 has authorized its Director, Mr. Yogendra Deshwal who is well aware
and conversant to the facts and circumstances of the present matter, to file,
contest, depose, oath, etc. of the present matter.

4. That the Defendant is filing its affidavit for grant of leave to defend explaining the
reasons and circumstances necessitating a detailed trial into the instant case and
is filing the accompanying affidavit for grant of unconditional leave to defend. As
such, Defendant prays the leave of this Hon'ble Court to read the contents of the
said affidavit as part and parcel of the present application as the same are not
repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
 That the present application Is bona fide
and made in the interest of justi ce. It
is
subm itted that no prejudice would
be caused to the Plaintiff if the pres
ent
application is not allowed, however
grave prejudice would be caused to
the
Defendant in such an eventuality.

PRAYER

In view of facts and circumstances here

inabove, the Defendant above named
most
respectfully prays this Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to:

a) Allow the present application and Defe

ndant may kindly be granted unconditi
onal
leave to defend against the captioned
suit filed by the Plaintiff;

b) Pass such other or further orders

as may be deemed just and proper
by this
Hon'ble Court on the facts and iri the
circumstances of the ·case and in the
interest of justice.
For Scientific Knits ~t~~Pvt. , 'ci.

~ANT

THROUGH V' Auth orised Sign~:;':"

(RAKESH KUMAR) & (~~~:~~ MIS HRA )

ADVOCATES FO RT ~ DEFEND
ANT
CREDENCE LAW
C-1 19, 1ST FLOOR, DEFENCE COL
ONY,
NEW DEL HI-1 100 24
M: +91 -99 101 693 60
Email: anjaneya.credence@gm
ail.com
PLACE: NEW DELHI
DATE: lq-1 0-..2 ..\
 J
E COURT OF MS. NISHA SAXENA, HON'BLE DISTRICT JUDGE, COMMERCIAL
COURTS, TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. _ _OF 2021
{SUIT UNDER ORDER XXXVII OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDUR~ 1908)

IN THE COURT OF:-

M/S H.S. CHEMICAL SUPPLIERS

... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/S SCIENTIFIC KNITS PROCESSOR PVT. LTD.

. .. DEFENDANT
AFFIDAVIT ORDER 37 RULE 3 (5) FOR GRANT OF UNCONDm ONAL LEAVE TO
DEFEND THE SUIT

I, Yogender Deshwal, S/o Lt. Sh. Karan Singh, aged about 53 years, C/o Village Mohalla, Near
Sikri Village, Ballabgarh, Dist. Faridabad, Haryana, presently at New Delhi, authorized
representative of Scientific Knits Processor Pvt. Ltd., do hereby solemnly affirm and declare
as under:

1. I say that I am the Director/Authorized Representative of the Defendant Company duly

authorized vide Board Resolution dated 27.02.2021 to file, oath, contest, declare,
affirm, etc. the above application, affidavit on behalf of the Defendant Company in the
above-captioned matter and am well conversant with the facts and circumstances and
in such capacity am competent to swear the instant affidavit. The copy of board
resolution has already been filed on 03.03.2021.

2. I say that the Plaintiff has filed the above-noted suit for recovery against the Defendant
under Order 37 and the summons of judgment in the above-noted suit was received
by the Defendant on 23.09.2021. The cas_e;:1ll~_JJ1 t_he present matter got misplaced
. .. . ·-..
. .• • ;-;-:: :-
11 1
from the office of the Defendant's coyp[~:-~LM .to.·Y:V~i~h the present application and
·-·~,-> ,....------. :,::\
..1 "'' ' "'- ') :, ·I .· . ,' .
'~ffidavit could not be filed within a /stcitut?ry period · o,f )O days from receipt of the
.... :T.<.r '.;'. : :~ :· ·:. -.. -\~::;rnmons for judgment. There is a d~~y ~f_
l2L days-:ir-i ?l)ng)of the present application
,'. (_".. ~~? , r .<·:';~dd affidavit for -~hich an applicatio~ _.u~oe·r~~-rd.~(37)~_l:JI.~ 3 (7) al_ong with Section
· . •, . __ __. . : , >)51 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 1s fil~d__ w1t~ the.,Present affidavit.
~/:-\ ;! / ~- ✓\·::.'•~;._., . · -....:-...:. -_· - •

3. That the facts and circumstances stated hereina~er would establish that the instant
suit filed by the Plaintiff under Order 37 of the C.P.C. is not maintainable and covered
 within the ambit and scope of provision s of the si.1 lcl Order 37 of the C.P.C., ba:;lder;
there are several triable issues entitling the Defendant to unconditional lenve to clefencl
the suit.

4. That the Defendant is entitled to leave to defend bemuse of Lhe following grounclc;:

a) That at the outset it is submitted that the present suit preferred by Ll,e Plaintiff
herein is an utter abuse of the process of law and based on false and unwarranted
submission having no relevance with the actual cause of action and hence the
same is uncalled for. The entire contents and contentions as contained In the
present suit are mischievously drafted, motivated and an act to create prejudice In
the eyes of the law for the Defendant herein.

b) That in a commercial suit for recovery it is necessitated that before instituting tHe
suit, a pre-litigation mediation is required to be followed except the case where an
interim application is filed. This implies that the mediation Is a pre-requisite step
before filing of a commercial suit. The present suit has been filed by plaintiff which
is a Partnership Firm. Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta represents itself to be the partner
of the said firm . It is apparent that Mr. Pawan Kr. Gupta was not authorize d to Ale
the suit inasmuch as the he did not have the valid autorisation at the time of the
pre-litigation mediation. Accordingly the suit is barred by S.12A of the The
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which is reproduced hereinbelow for the ready
reference of this Hon'ble Court:

12A. Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement-(1) A suit, which does not contemplate
11

any urgent interim relief under this Act, shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts
the remedy of preinstitution mediation in accordance with such manner and procedure as
_ .. may be prescribed by rules made by the Central Government.
./:i-;6a·.J~~~ ........ 11

; , ( ! {i ~ ?.~l\~}nat in addition to the preceding para it is submitted that there are discrepancies
·:.>·>~-' _•, .::_
) '//between the averment made in the plaint and the documents placed on record by
'::_.·/
'.<,-·--,.: ·:;;.'',f the Plaintiff, as per them three partnership deeds dated 01.04.19 88, 01.04.1992 &
··--- :_," '.: ,' :. : r✓ _. ~- ;: _.,-'
---·..:.-.:.::--·· 21.12.2020 were entered into between the partners of the Plaintiff's firm. The
discrepancies which cast doubt upon the genuineness of the Plaintiff firm is
mentioned herein below:
 • The latest deed of partnership dated 21. 12.2020 gives
s
reference to a deed
dated 01.04.1988, however, no refere nce of a deed
dated 01.04.1992 was
menti oned in the said latest deed.

• The Plaint iff has only place on record the Deed

dated 21.12.2020 and
01.04.1992, however, the deed dated 01.04.1988 has
not been placed on
record .

• The authorization dated 03.01.2021 gives reference

to the deed dated
01.04.1992, however the same does not give reference
to the deed dated
01.04.1988 and the latest deed dated 21.12.2020.

d) That reference of this Hon'ble may be drawn towar

ds section 69(2) of the Indian
Partnership Act, 1932 which states as follows:

"..(2) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract

shall be instit uted in any
court by or on beha lf of a firm against any third
party unless the firm is
registered and the persons suing are or have been
shown in the Register of
Firms as partners in the firm."

Upon perusal of the above provision, it is clear that a

suit to enforce a right arising
out of a contract can only be instituted by the registered
partnership firm, meaning
• thereby an unregistered firm cannot institute such
suit. As per the plaint, t he
present suit is based upon a contract between the Plain
tiff and Defendant and not
to claim rights under common law. It may be noted
that the Legal notice was
issued on 27.09.2020, the pre-litigation mediation was
instituted on 10.12.2020;
, :- .:::::, ~ ~~owever, the Plaintiff's firm got regist
ered only on 01.01.2021. It is furthe r
..,:"·:·\~-?·: ::-:~~ , -~-( ~ \~ itted_ that law is cl~ar tha: subsequ~nt
registration would not entitle a
· · · .. ~:~~ rsh1p firm to continue with the suit. There
fore, the suit instituted in
: __ : - · : . ,_ - ~ :,_
;~~?:~ranee to the pre-litigation mediation application
.j •
dated 10.12.2020 is liable to
·· .<be Oismissed .
. ·: - /:··
.. ·.: : ·r :~- . -;::•::-··
·· :·;-.-e) That the Hon'ble Supreme Court, various High Court
s time and again have held
that "When a plain t is presented in such manner, by
a firm, which is incompetent
to do likewise, [it] canno t lead to prope r and legal institu
tion of the suit. Therefore,
when this section is with reference to [the] very maint
ainab ility of the suit, a decree
passed is not only void but also an impro per exercise
ofJurisdiction amounting to
an illegality. It is well known that there cann ot be contr
acting out of the statu tory
 J'
provisions and a decree passed in derogation of tte ter,5 cl~r:,- ,::;-· . : ' _-,-· ::-t=
Indian Partnership Act cannot be legally sustamed. ,.t d2c~e s · :- ~ c-c ...,;:,
indeed, be questioned at any stage."

f) That the Plaintiff has not approached this Hon'ble Cou-t w1tr cI2~r -.:,_-~ '-;:-- :-::

following reasons:

• The Plaintiff has miserably failed to give exact dates as ~ ~--~

Plaintiff and Defendant are in the business; since wr...e,"' :-e
maintaining the running accounts.

• ::-2: :-~ :-<2-:'=S

The perusal of Para 7, as well as para 14 of the suit, si.a~s
were engaged in business from 01.04.2019 and they a:-e -·2·-:-2··-·-; :-::
1
running account from 01.04.2019, whereas, the Plaintiff is d2 - · - ; c-::-~'. 'i=:'"\

and has also placed invoices & ledger prior to the pedod O:.. .o.. :. .:::3. -~
ledger account for the period commencing from 01.04.2019 WC':.! ..:..::~::·.:::::--;::
on 01.04.2019 the opening balance was Rs. 16,87,770/ - who'"ec~ 2..s :-c :-::
averment of the Plaintiff the Defendant engaged the Ptcintirf o- 0:.. ..:...:..::.:i::: ?.
There is no averment in the suit as to how the Plaintiff is da[rr'1; ~~ 2-· ,: _ - :

of Rs. 15,67,334/-. Even if it assuming that the Plaintiff is also d c -n·-; ~~~;
1

recovery for the period prior to 01.04 .2019, then how th~ Ftc:;-ji'f -::.s
discriminated amongst the invoices and why only 3-4 invoices ~~2 ..: :: ~ -·;:,::

prior to 01.04.2019 has been placed on record .

• That insofar as territorial j urisdiction is concerned the Plaintiff hc.s imv\~ ~::
,.,~(°u ,~f~~jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court on the following basis:
,. :1/'_~, ';.,-- -~ ~c·,:.,'
/ :•,/ "· , . \ v.
?
/ ' :" ·i •iF._-i .. 0 1~:
·, ,:-~. ·J) The Plaintiff carries on its business within this territory or chis Ha.i1"~::
" '_. . • I . ' II

· · · \ :.; i [?
:: .-.:: \ '~'7\ -~ i! Court;
. •' ;.. \.·"•v \.. ; ,l ..1 \.-./ . ,·,r
;: ··>,. . '(. , _/ .;J·>; (ii) The Plaintiff's head office is this territory of this Hon~o!e Cour::;
. .~ :~ -{.~;i~i/:..1 (iii) Orders and supply of goods used to place by Def<=I1dant to p 2:n:iff 2:
Plaintiff's Delhi head office;
(iv) The Plaintiff maintains its bank account (in which the Defu1dai1~ Le$~ to
make payment) within the territory of this Hon'ble Court;
(v) Invoices states that all disputes are subject to Delhi Jurisdcti0n-
 1
In response to the above, it is stated that to maintain a suit for recovery section
20 of CPC is required to look into which states either it is to be filed where
Defendant resides; carries on business; personally work for gain, or where the
cause of action arose.

In the present matter, the Defendant is a Company incorporated under the

provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and having its regd. office at House no. 492
Sector-21A, Faridabad, Haryana-121001 and none of the offi ce of the
Defendant falls within the territory of this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that
for the supply of Chemicals/Soda the Defendant used to place orders
telephonically and not at the Plaintiff's Delhi office which was also confirmed
by the Plaintiff in para 4 of the suit. Even otherwise the Plaintiff has not placed
even an iota of the purchase order which ought to have been placed by the
Defendant at Plaintiff's Delhi office.

Insofar as contention qua supply~ng the goods from Plaintiff's Delhi office is
concerned, the same is false and is an arm twisting tactic of the Plaintiff just
to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that
the entire meetings, discussion qua the recovery made in the suit are only held
at the Plaintiff's Gurgaon office, no such meetings were held at Plaintiff's Delhi
office. The invoices, e-way bills placed by the Plaintiff would depict that the
Plaintiff has supplied the goods from its Gurgaon office to the Faridabad office
of the Defendant.

,,.:;;;~~:.-:~:-::--- In order to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, the Plaintiff
~/ , \ \,_· Cl tf: ,'', ~

;/<~~-;--...<~:.-_, < s relying upon four forged invoices dated 20.07.2018, 20.08.2019, 21.09.2018
I . '· t,•~ - , ·.- ·. \
:~ ~j(.·•:~~:·-:_~·:t'{ ·, ·; }~i05..03.2019 wherein it i~ sho~n that the goods we.re _sup~lied from Plaintiff's
I "

'_.[-~\ ~ ~-- -:.".//_.9el~1 office to Defenda~ts Fandabad office. The said 1nvo1ces are forged and
':·. .·::>·-~~~v:'\ .',"./fabncated for the following reasons:
' :- ~~--~ ► The said invoices are not supported with e-way bills or any other
delivery receipts.
► The said invoices does not have receiving of the Defendant Company.
► Even the ledger account placed by the Plaintiff does not have the entries
of these invoices.
 i
Whereas perusal of the rest of the invoices placed by the Plaintiff would depict
the supply have been made from Plaintiff's Gurgaon office to the Defendant's
Faridabad office. Those invoices also have the receiving/acknowledgment by
the Defendant Company. Further, the entries of those invoices are also
mentioned in the ledger account of the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is clear that the
Plaintiff just to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court has mala fidely
forged and fabricated the said invoices. Against the said acts of the Plaintiff the
Defendant herein reserves its right to enforce the same before the appropriate
forum. Hence, this Hon'ble Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain or
adjudicate upon parties' controversies and disputes within the court's
established law under Delhi I and this Hon'ble Court lacks initial jurisdiction to
try this suit, hence need be dismissed with cost.

Further insofar as invoking the territorial jurisdiction on the basis of jurisdiction

clause in the invoice is concerned, it is submitted that now the law is settled
that to invoke territorial jurisdiction the intentions of parties must be clear and
the cause of action must have been accrued within that place (mentioned in
the invoice), then only a suit can be instituted on the basis of a jurisdictional
clause.

Therefore, since the requirement of section 20 of CPC has not been satisfied,
the present suit is liable to be dismissed .

.·· ..:..
...--..92- That the actual facts however are that the Defendant is a Company incorporated
-··-·:~---,::. :.:-,
_,.-;-;-< c-:
, / ,.... .,.
.\'!:_1..........if1y'.q~
'
r the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and is a Prominent & Leading Service
/fv;:: :~:,:.: ,_.~ ..)'r~1•,er of Export-Import Consultants, and Fabric situated in Faridabad. In the
;. ;·(
,\/(._ ,: _A,. f'.~i
. ~ \ ~· -· ·i~~G~008-09
r.,r ' ✓ =
,~ iJ
Mr. Kishan Dass Gupta by representing himself to be the
':.~ '.,;:}37 ,; ::.:, _,_.:.·-,'.. {~f partner of the Plaintiff firm has approached the Defendant Company at its
\;:-{~ ~ i Jabad office for sale and supply of chemical (caustic soda and soda)/soda (soda
·- -- ash) ("hereinalter referred to as "the said goods''). Mr. Kishan Dass Gupta always
represented that the head office of the Plaintiff firm is at Gurgaon Haryana. It was
represented by the Plaintiff that they were the most reliable Company for the
supply of superior quality of the said goods in a timely manner.

h) That believing upon the assurances, representations of the Plaintiff, the Defendant
Company since the year 2008 has been telephonically placing the purchase orders
 9
for supply of the said goods on dlfferenl·dlfferent dates. In furtherance to the
orders placed by the Defendant, the Plaintiff on different-different occasions has
delivered the said goods from Its Gurgaon orncc to the Defendant's Faridabad
office. It may be noted that upon receipt of the goods, the Invoices raised by the
Plaintiff have been duly acknowledged by the Defendant Company by giving
acknowledgment/ receiving over the same. The payments against the said Invoices
have been duly made to the Plaintiff either by way of cash or through a banking
channel. During this business transactions period, it was found that the goods
supplied by the Plaintiff were not as per the orders, on several occasions the
dispute of mismatching the ledger account entries was raised by the Defendant
subsequently which was mutually settled by the parties.

i) That in the month of March 2019 it was noticed by the Defendant that there are
certain discrepancies in the ledger account maintained by the parties. In its ledger
account, the Plaintiff has miserably debited several tax invoices in the name of the
Defendant Company; the Plaintiff has even failed to acknowledge several payments
made by the Defendant against the supply of the said goods. After noticing the
same the Defendant in the first week of April 2019 approached Mr. Kishan Dass
Gupta at their office situated at Khasra no. 4657/281 Dhanvapur Road, Near
Daultabad Flyover, Gurgaon. Afterwards the account has been settled by the
parties.

.---:::-::::-J) That the parties after settling the entire dispute have also decided to re-start their
; .>~/0. q .}~I~~b~siness transactions with each other w.e.f. April, 2019. It may be noted that after
/ ...- · ·:, . _''-; '\~ling the accounts, the Plaintiff from its Faridabad office started supplying the
( l i .;. :.: ·· ·:
, \• \ ,L, fv. ... ,
1
;::, l{~i~)goods to the Defendant w.e.f. 16.04.2019 for which invoices on different dates
'' I/(,: It
-~\:~-~ 0\:,i',. .,' ... -;:/~1~,re raised by the Plaintiff. The up to date payments towards the said invoices on
\~-~~-9-;i~/;; './2dffferent occasions have been released by the Defendant except a small
.._.:- ... ,
:::,,,,-,-..
outstanding amount.

k) That in the month of March 2020 the condition of various business sectors started
deteriorating as soon as the Covid-19 Catastrophe hit the entire world with its full
force. Considering the said circumstances, the Govt. of India on 22.03.2020
imposed a nationwide lockdown, due to which everything was closed. After
easement of the lockdown restrictions and functioning of the Defendant Company,
on 26.11.2020 personally assured the Plaintiff (through Whatsapp) that I shall
 \0
release the payment of the balance amount In the coming week. Accordingly, the
parties afte1· meeting with each other has seltled the accounts. It is submitted that
as on date no payment Is due to be payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. The
amount claimed by the Plaintiff is denied.

I) That now the Defendant was shocked to receive the summons of the present suit,
wherein the Plaintiff without appreciating various assurance and understanding
between the parties went on to file the present suit, which is nothing but a false,
frivolous, concocted and vexatious one. As per the account maintained by the
Defendant no amount (as claimed by the Plaintiff) is due towards the supply of
said goods. The Plaintiff had misappropriated the previously settled amount and
without acknowledging the same has filed the present suit. Therefore, the suit is
not liable to be maintained under Order 37 of CPC, and unconditional leave to
defend is required to be allowed.

5. That the suit is as is framed and filed need be rejected U/0.7 R.11 C.P.C.

6. That the suit being vexations, hence Defendant is entitled to special cost as envisaged
under Section 35A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

7. It is submitted that the suit of the Plaintiff is based on an incorrect running account
ledger. There are several inherent contradictions in the plaint of the Plaintiff for which
the Defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend. It is submitted that it is a
settled proposition of law that a running statement of account does not come within
the preview of order 37 of the C.P .C. The amount claimed by the Plaintiff is not based
, : ·. .'.·<:~i ~~~,upon
,, . ...........'--1 ~ ,\
any instrument, or a liquidated amount arising out of a written contract.
,:· ·,/ · .. .·\:~. :-r erefore, the present suit of the Plaintiff has been filed wrongly under the provisions
:;. i: 1_ • ; ~ • ·· ~.') f n .order 37 of the C.P.C and the Defendant is entitled to be granted unconditional
\ . \ · ~ \ ..~ .\ _s·t#ave to defend on this short ground alone .
. -· ✓ ', ~, ·, ./,,.,,. /I
. [.JI,.,:'-- # :..-· ... \ , -~ii

· · · 0e\ ...·· · .,::,

~---:__:~ $-~'
8. That the contents of the present affidavit are correct and true to my knowledge and
on the basis of the documents available.
 Tllot no part of this affidavit Is fulsc and no mntc
\l
rlal facts have been concealed
therefrom.

10. Tl1at In view of the above I submit and pray

to the Hon'blc Court to grant
uncondltlonul leave to defend the suit of the Plaintiff In
order to expose the misdeeds
and falsiti es of the case of the Plaintiff.
I nr :.;c,1011tif11. V,,1, .• l'1ric :~ 1_,,1.

DEPONENT
Aulhorise~ Slgn;w ,r"

VERIFICATION:

I, YogendraDeshwal, the above-named deponent, do hereb

y verify that the contents
of the above affidavit are true to my knowledge and
no part of it is f~lse and nothing

For Scicnl1tic l<11lts Procc:;sors rvt I t•J.

~th ons ej Signa1 ,,~

DEMlNENT

,olelrn111y !>.,.Urt\ Daio1 fl me , 11,_.

•1

\var & l'I <1ViJ1n erJ t.P tlie (iepo nur,

-\ dmltltKl to OOd)rro~ .

2 0 oc.,.
' 20lfi
 E COURT OF MS. NISHA SAXENA, HON'BLE DISTRICT JUDGE, COMMERCIAL
COURTS, TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 406 OF 2021
(SUIT UNDER ORDER XXXVII OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDUR~ 1908}

IN THE COURT OF:-

M/5 H.S. CHEMICAL SUPPLIERS

... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/5 SCIENTIFIC KNITS PROCESSOR PVT. LTD.
... DEFENDANT
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT UNDER ORDER 37 RULE 3 (7)
ALONG WITH SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 SEEKING
CONDONATION OF DELAY IN APPLYING FOR LEAVE TO DEFEND.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff before this Hon'ble Court under

Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the Defendant herein. The

present application is being filed by the Defendant seeking condonation of delay in

filing of the leave to defend.

2. That the notice in the present suit was issued by this Hon'ble Court on 04.02.2021

which was received by the Defendant on 24.02.2021. In compliance with the same,

the Defendant entered its appearance on 03.03.2021.

3. That subsequent to which the matter was called on 02nd of September, 2021 wherein

the application filed by the Plaintiff for issuance of a summons for the judgment was

allowed and they were directed to serve the same upon the Defendant. The said

application was received by the counsel for the Defendant on 23.09.2021.

4. That as per the provisions of Order 37 of the CPC, the Defendant is required to apply

for leave to defend the matter within a period of 10 days from the receipt of the
 1,ummons
\3
for the Judgments (I ·c· 03rd of October, 2021) . However, th ere ·Is deIay ·in
~

nllng of the said nppllcatlon and nfnclnvl t clL1c to the sufAclent cause as mentioned in

t11e present appllcntlon.

S. Thilt It Is submllt cd that when the sold application was received, the renovation work

was going on In the ofAce of Defendant's counsel due to which the file of the present

matter somehow got misplaced. Thereafter, altempts were made on the part of the

counsel for the Defendant to search the flle of the present matter, however, the

counsel for the Defendant could not find out the same.

6. That thereafter, the counsel for the Defendant contacted the counsel for the Plaintiff

(through call and Whatsapp) to ask for the copies of the complete set of the Plaint

filed by the Plaintiff along with other supporting documents, however after consistent

follow-ups the same was finally received on 6th of October, 2021. Copy of the

whatsapp screenshot chat dated 06.10.2021 is attached herewith as "Annexure-A1".

7. That as soon as the file of the present case became available to the Counsel of the

Defendant, the Counsel take the instructions and readily without any further delay

prepared the leave to defend which was finalized and sent for signing purpose on

13.10.2021. However, at that time the AR/Director of the Defendant Company namely,

Mr. Yogendra Deshwal was not in town and was only returned on 18.10.2021. After

that, the signed copy of the affidavit and applications have been received by the

counsel on 19.10.2021.

8. That on 19.10.2021 & 20.10.2021 there was court holiday on account of the birthday

of Prophet and Valmiki Jayanti. The counsel somehow got the said affidavit and

application attested on 20.10.2021 and is filing the same before this Hon'ble Court.
 111
'111 p1 1J111,i r 111 11 1 11/ 1,if/1 11
r11at without prej udice to the r1hove, II l!i r;11bmill Mrl 111,1111 111
1
in the matter of Cogniznnco for Extons/011 of 1/111/tflllr,11, Mu,rnl/,111110111

Application No. 665 of 2021 /11 SMW(C) No. SJ nf 2020, /111/rl.

"8. n1erefore, we dispose of the M./1, No.665 of 20! / w!t/1 t!JfJ /ol/(Jw/t11J 1/!1111 11, ,,,,,

I. In computing the period of llmllnllon fo1 rtll)I !:ttll, ,111pHr1/, r11111//r r1l/r ,11 1,1
proceeding, the period from 15. 03.2020 Ill/ 02. /fJ.?(}? / ,,11r1II ,/r111tl mr/111/J:jf/
1

1g
Consequently, the balance period of llmltflt/011 remr1l11l1 11r1 r, 011 I 1
1, /JI 111: I, 1r
any, shall become available with effect from OJ. /0.20l l.

1 11IIr,I1
10. That due to the aforesaid reason, the Defendant could noLRle r1pprnIll lrll H r111plI
11II I,
and affidavit on time. The exclusion of limitation was revol<ed frnm ll 1. IO
rl IIIti
however, at that time the counsel for the Defendant does not llr111e I '11, f'll t:J ,111

same was only received on ,the late evening of 06.10.2 1. TllereforP., rl!i rt 111r111 £-:1 11r

rt y It 1
abundant precaution the present application Is being Alecl for condonlncJ I llfJ rld

filing the application and affidavit for leave to defend of Hl days If wr. r.nI111I
t,1111 ,

03.10.2021.

11I
11. That the aforesaid delay in filing the appropriate affidavit for leave to I l1G f.lcjft:11rlr1

on the part of the Defendant Is neither Intention al nor deliberate but c/ LII_; Iri 11 If: 1r~
nh'111

as mentioned hereinabove.
1n1li--
12. That the present application Is being filed with all bonaflde motives and h IJ1il11(Jr1

in the interest of justice.

PRAYER

I ,h I lun'I1l1 •
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, It Is most humbly prr1 ye;d II1,11 1
Court may graciously be pleased to:

(a) Condon the delay of 18 days In Ollng the approprla~ al/lclavll (1Jr l1i.-J1✓1J In 11,d, , 11,I 111I

the part of the Defendant; and/or

 II
Pass such other or further orders as may be deemed just and proper by this

Hon'ble Court on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the
interest of justice.
ror Scient1·r,1c KllllS Pro~'- so . Pvt L' d.

DEF NDANT

THROUGH G~ / Authorise9 SignatJ;"/

(RAKESH KUMAR) & (A~~t;;;YA MISHRA)

ADVOCATES FOR 'HE DEFENDANT
fREDENCE LAW
. C-119, 1ST FLOOR, DEFENCE COLONY,
NEW DELHl-110024
M: +91-9910169360
Email: anjaneya.credence@gmail.com
PLACE: NEW DELHI
DATE: \ q - I 6 -11
 16'
t1E COURT OF MS. NISHA SAXENA, HON'BLE DISTRICT JUDGE, COMMERCIAL
COURTS, TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 406 OF 2021
(SUIT UNDER ORDER XXXVII OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908)

-
IN THE COURT OF:-
M/5 H.S. CHEMICAL SUPPLIERS
... PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
M/S SCIENTIFIC KNITS PROCESSOR PVT. LTD.
. .. DEFENDANT

AFFI DAVI T

Mohalla, Near
I, Yogender Deshwal, S/o Lt. Sh. Karan Singh, aged about 53 years, C/o Village
authorized
Sikri Village, Ballabgarh, Dist. Faridabad, Haryana, presently at New Delhi,
and declare
representative of Scientific Knits Processor Pvt. Ltd., do hereby solemnly affirm
as under:

y in the
1. That I am the Authorized Representative of the Applicant/Defendant Compan
am well
above matter duly authorized vide Board Resolution dated 27.02.2021 and
ent
conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and hence, I am compet

to swear the present affidavit.

by the
2. That I have gone through the accompanying Application which is drafted
and
Counsel under my instructions and I say that the facts stated therein are true
from
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief based on the information derived
on
the records whilst the legal sub_missions.m~de are believed to be true and correct

the basis of legal advice rr:~~,': .,'r\·,

/.~;<. ~
1_·~ { ' • : · _,' -=-\,.

(A~J
1/ .' ; !,t.', I c· !

<:-•_):t;ry . .. _:. -·
 11-
'fljat no part of this affidavit is false and no material facts have been concealed
ttierefrorn.
.ZJJlJl..
For Sc , , '"- Kn·' ~ .~ P·,t ~\~.

DEPO.NENTn-·· r,
• J:honsefS1g a

VERIFICATION:

I, YogendraDeshwal, the above-named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents

of the above affidavit are true to my knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing

material has been concealed therefrom. · 2 a· OCT 202u

\ / For Scientific Knits Processors Pvt. Ltd
Verified at t <51/4 ~ n this_ day of October, 2021. ~ .
·~ed S1gnat:iry
EPONENT
.- <~~~(~~
:j ,&~/?f:\
<ti/~teJ:I
 ,,,
~ .,.
i• ,,,
'1 ..
,:.,'
,,. r
,,,
,.
I•
I I ,.
I
I'~
':
'"
I
I I
I •;
'
I' ,,
\ 'I
I I ,,
I 'I
,..I
,,.
"
''

,.
,..
(l ' I, ?.,.
,,,''!. r.: ''
I•
,. t' I,,
·, I I (11
. J "., ,,
1 l •J /
Ill
( \
1:
....\
(

U:-1
u ~j:
I

(1
~
,,,·
ti~ "'
r•
"
~-
(i

Iv

"' "'
'-" t..j- (j
; If•
d
"'" .,.
t,
1: ( I II• ' (l
'
,.. ~J
'"r~ ..... -,
("'1 ( I
?.' ~
I
~ I~
r,
'l
I g; I'
lu
~I :,
lO
,,.
,.., ,r..
~
1, ,
.'
:. \
'I
v •,
II,
..
,r,.
I'' a.

UI
""7

''
\r.,
..,
'"'...! 11,
.0
•L
(..
,,,r:
ft,;
-;
....
"'
r)
Ill
'cCi
I ,)
I LJ
'
(J
.
w c
::,
0.,

"" '< :;
1/ 1

...0... ,u...
UI

,r.
( ()
....
:,·
r, l (t
w
:.J

'..-..
V
 ,_,..__~
---n,,, TI--------- ---~ -- -' " ~ -- .... ~-~~ .. ~......,,-:-... ,....__...._ - • .._..-- r.-- -.- : - ~ ... .,
- L J • . . . : - ~~
.- =
'- ·-
-:"-' c-:,\.ill ,\•~t- ~a. \ct-.., J-15 C J-, E~ llCAL
D i ~ p
the
,J,s ; - st :2!e 10/ 5t 202i scus::ed w ith yo u., requ e st rou to '<1ncly share
\Ve have
.:c l"· ole- , e ;;-::,: or su1;: 111 th -:: m arter as o ur o ffice fil e go t m is placed.
1-=ave to
_:.. s: recd t h e s um mons for judgme n t ar.d now .·,e h av e t, to fil: the
c-, d efend.
share th e
7 n -::,r-::,fore . consid e r:r. g ,h -::, above situa tion i request you to kir.cly
copy with us en ;•,hats.:i :;p or m 3il at a:-:_1a r,eya.cre c -2nce ·£l)-;,m2; J.c0:1
or \·t 'i: can l
2:so co llect th e same from you r ofc.
Than!c:i ng yc •J in a nticipat ion.
·- . · . ,~.:.n ~.;~ - :; ;..o / tl'"' ,~S ·C~ -r i; :;rto?-;;ar-= if'gco~- m.;~ ,t:--c ..; : o .:f2:2 1
r ,,,..,... : i -: .5 C-.E~.-' !CA L vs SC li:N Tl r !C ·( ;•j T.
~-'5 C
Okay
,.. t:cr..vor::ed
~ HS C HEMICA L.pdf
~-,
~
1.).1.!6 - )J " ' .
Than'<yo u s ·r
\',k rn S11
....
/':-:\ JJ,
~) ~ fypt~ • messagl:"
-.;,('
~..._ ·- .~~ ~--- ~