Delhi District Court Shri Laxmi Narain vs M/S. Mayasheel Retail India Pvt. Ltd on 18 September, 2025 DLCT010013292025 IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)01 CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI CNR NO.: DLCT010013292025 CS (COMM.)/106/2025 IN THE MATTER OF: 1. Shri Laxmi Narain Proprietor of: M/s Neelam Brasseries Having office at: 6968, Ghas Mandi, Ahata Kidara Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi Through SPA Holder/ AR Sh. Mukul Gupta Mobile No.: 9968000571 email: [email protected] .... PLAINTIFF VERSUS 1. M/s Mayasheel Retail India Ltd. Through its Managing Director Sh. Atul Garg 5709, Gali No.6, Subhash Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar Delhi. Mobile Nos. 9811882398, 9899206688 email: [email protected] 2. Sh. Atul Garg Managing Director of M/s Mayasheel Retail India Ltd. 3. Ms. Mala Thapar Director of M/s Mayasheel Retail India Ltd. CS (COMM.)/106/2025 Page 1 of 36 4. Mr. Parthy Purani Director of M/s Mayasheel Retail India Ltd. 5. Mr. Sanjeev Aggarwal Director of M/s Mayasheel Retail India Ltd. 6. Ms. Neha Garg Director of M/s Mayasheel Retail India Ltd. 7. Dr. Sushil Kumar Karwa Director of M/s Mayasheel Retail India Ltd. 8. Mr. Sunil Kumar Karwa Director of M/s Mayasheel Retail India Ltd. 9. Mr. Kapil Karwa Director of M/s Mayasheel Retail India Ltd. All defendants having office address At: 5709, Gali No.6, Subhash Mohalla Gandhi Nagar, Delhi Also at: Plot No.88, Sector 35 Begumpur, Khatola Gurugram Haryana 122001 ...... DEFENDANTS [Note: Defendant nos. 2 to 9 were deleted from the array of defendants, vide order dated 25012025, passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court.] Date of Institution of Suit [efiling] : 18012025 Date of Reserving Judgment : 09092025 Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 18092025 CS (COMM.)/106/2025 Page 2 of 36 JUDGMENT 1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit for recovery of ₹23,63,195/ Paise along with interest and costs, filed by plaintiff against the defendants. 2. It may be noted that the suit was initially filed against as many as nine (9) defendants, out of which, the defendant no.1 is stated to be a company and the remaining defendants were stated to be its Managing Director and/or Directors. However, on an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC moved by plaintiff before issuance of summons of the suit to the defendants, the defendant nos. 2 to 9 were allowed to be deleted from arrays of the defendants and accordingly, Amended Memo of Parties filed by plaintiff, was taken on record. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 3. The case of the plaintiff, as culled out from the plaint, in brief, is as under: 3.1 The plaintiff, who is stated to be sole proprietor of proprietorship firm, is engaged in the business of trading and manufacturing of ladies undergarments i.e. bra, panty, etc. [hereinafter referred to as the 'said goods']. It is also stated that the plaintiff's firm is also registered in MSME since long time. 3.2 Defendant no.1 is stated to be registered with the Registrar of Companies at Delhi and erstwhile defendant nos. 2 to 9 were stated to be its Managing Director or Directors, who used to meet the plaintiff CS (COMM.)/106/2025 Page 3 of 36 for selecting the goods at the office of plaintiff and after selecting the goods, they used to place orders either personally or through emails. 3.3 It is further stated that the defendants had placed number of orders through online for supplying the said goods at their address from time to time and accordingly, the plaintiff had supplied the said goods to them against invoices/bills and to this effect, Tax Invoices were generated about the goods supplied to the defendant company and their eway bills, as per policy of GST Deptt. The business transactions between plaintiff and defendant