$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 14th October 2025 + CS(COMM) 624/2023 & CCP(O) 110/2024, I.A. 5020/2024 CRITICALOG INDIA PRIVATE LTD .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Tishampati Sen, Ms. Riddhi Sancheti, Mr. Anurag Anand and Mr. Mukul, Advocates versus DELTA FREIGHT SYSTEM & ANR. .....Defendants Through: None % CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J: CS(COMM) 624/2023 I.A. No. 5020/2024 1. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit under Order XXXVII Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’] seeking recovery of principal amount of ?1,96,97,325/- along with interest amount of ?38,29,859/- calculated at the rate of 2% per month as on 21.08.20231, from both Defendant No. 1, a sole proprietorship firm engaged in consignment shipping and operating through the networks of logistics companies like the Plaintiff, as well as Defendant No. 2, being the proprietor of Defendant No. 1 who is responsible for its day-to-day operations, communications, and liabilities. The Plaintiff also claims interest at 2% per month for pendente lite and future interest, until realization. Factual Matrix 2. Facts stated in the plaint are as follows: - 2.1 In July 2022, the Defendants approached the Plaintiff, to utilize its logistics network for transporting sensitive consignments, which the Plaintiff accepted with the intent of a long-term business association. Commercial transactions began in the last week of July 2022, and although formal agreements dated 31.07.2022 and 01.09.2022 were sent by the Plaintiff, the Defendants delayed signing them. Nonetheless, the Plaintiff continued to provide services based on agreed terms communicated through WhatsApp, calls, and emails with its Delhi office. 2.2 Between July and October 2022, the Plaintiff transported around 130 MT of goods to Milan, Vancouver, and Toronto after price approvals from the Defendants and raised invoices for a total sum of ?3,33,97,325/-. Several invoices were raised on the Defendants for the services provided and were duly acknowledged by them. 2.3 The Defendants without any demur, made part-payment of ?1,35,50,500/- towards these invoices for services rendered between July and October 2022, but subsequently defaulted, leading to an outstanding balance of ?1.98 crores approximately. Despite repeated reminders, Defendant No. 2 kept delaying payments on various pretexts, leading the Plaintiff to halt services in October 2022. 2.4 Through emails dated 11.10.2022 and 17.10.2022, Defendant No. 2 expressly acknowledged the outstanding dues and promised to make payments, yet failed to do so, apart from a small sum of ?1,11,664/- against an invoice dated 20.09.2022. 2.5 Subsequently, the Defendants stopped responding to the Plaintiff’s communications and, surprisingly, issued a legal notice on 19.11.2022 containing false allegations while still admitting its liability. The Plaintiff replied to the said notice on 06.03.2023, refuting the allegations and demanding ?2,32,68,150/- (including interest). As on 21.08.2023, the Defendants remain liable for ?2,35,27,183/-; comprising of ?1,96,97,325/- as principal amount and ?38,29,859/- as interest calculated at the rate of 2% per month. 2.6 The cause of action arose on 20.10.2022 when the Defendants first defaulted and continues till date. Leave to defend filed by the Defendants 3. The Defendants, on 25.01.2024, filed an application, I.A. 5020/2024, under Order XXXVII Rule 3 and 5 CPC for grant of ‘leave to defend’. 4. The Defendants stated in their application that they were served with the summons on 16.01.2024 and filed the present application on 25.01.2024 as the suit involves several triable issues requiring adjudication. 4.1 It is stated that the present suit is not maintainable since there exists no written agreement or admitted liability amounting to a liquidated demand. It is stated that the claim is based merely on accounts and invoices, which require evidence and proof under Section 34 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and thus cannot fall within the ambit of a summary suit. It is stated that Defendants have paid a total amount of ?1,40,55,000/- to the Plaintiff through various transactions between September and December 2022, all of which were intentionally omitted by the Plaintiff in its accounts. 4.2 It is further stated that the Plaintiff fabricated its ledger, inflated rates, wrongly computed GST (applicable only after 01.10.2022), and raised exorbitant and false demands. It is stated that a legal notice dated 19.11.2022 was issued by the Defendants to the Plaintiff, admitting a liability of ?50,23,902/-, which the Plaintiff ignored while issuing a reply cum demand notice claiming ?2,08,40,672/-. 4.3 It has placed on record the ledger maintained by the Defendants reflecting the Plaintiff’s outstanding dues as Document No. J and has stated that it is ready and willing to pay a sum of ?50,23,902/- to the Plaintiff. As per the ledger, the Defendant acknowledged the total invoicing of ?3,33,97,325/-, however, after deducting the actual payments made to the Plaintiff, it sought to adjust ?1,18,18,423/- towards rates and GST difference, ?25 lakhs towards prospect loss and ?3,30,000/- as payment made to one Mr. Arvind Singh Chauhan. Submissions made by the Plaintiff 5. Mr. Tishampathi Sen, assisted by Ms. Riddhi Sancheti, learned counsels for the Plaintiff submitted that until the filing of the Defendants’ ‘leave to defend’ application, there was never any dispute raised by the Defendants regarding shipment rates, GST, or payment timelines. He submitted that the Defendants have failed to produce any document or correspondence raising such objections prior to filing this suit; on the contrary, through emails dated 11.10.2022 and 17.10.2022, the Defendants clearly acknowledged their liability and assured the Plaintiff of prompt payment. The relevant part of the emails dated 11.10.2022 and 17.10.2022, as also mentioned at paragraph nos. 12 and 13 of the plaint, reads as under: Email dated 11.10.2022 “Good to see your mail regarding concern of payment, We also in touch with customer for the same and trying reduce your OST asap, Rajat in regularly in touch with us following the same, Don’t worry will take care and not to let down…” Email dated 17.10.2022 “Dear Rajat ji As Discussed over phone will get some amount by today as confirmed by customer same will get RTGS to your accts, also will try to get release some more amount before weekend also appx 70-80 lacs will arrange this week…” 5.1 He submitted that the legal notice dated 19.11.2022 issued by the Defendants contains false and irrelevant allegations concerning alleged misconduct but does not dispute the quality of services or validity of invoices; significantly, in paragraph 7 of the said notice, the Defendants admitted their liability to make payment to the Plaintiff. 5.2 He stated that in their ‘leave to defend’ application, the Defendants did not deny availing the Plaintiff’s services but raised inconsequential objections that do not warrant trial. He stated that Defendants own ledger reveals: a. Acknowledgement of total liability of ?3,33,97,325/- account of invoicing towards the Plaintiff. b. Claimed payment by Defendants of ?1,40,55,000/-, of which ?3,30,000/- was paid to one Mr. Arvind Singh Chauhan, who has no connection with the Plaintiff. c. Unilateral adjustment of ?25,00,000/- towards alleged ‘prospective loss’. d. Further adjustment of ?1,18,18,423/- towards ‘rate and GST difference’. 5.3 He stated that the payment of ?3,30,000/- to Mr. Arvind Singh Chauhan cannot be treated as a valid payment to the Plaintiff, as there exists no nexus or communication to that effect; similarly, the purported adjustments of ?25,00,000/- for alleged ‘prospective loss’ and ?1,18,18,423/- towards ‘rate and GST difference’ are without any contractual or legal basis and were never raised prior to the filing of the ‘leave to defend’ application. 5.4 He further stated that there was no GST liability on international freight services until 30.09.2022, as per Notification No. 02/2018 – Central Tax (Rate), dated 25.01.2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, and its subsequent extensions, including Notification No. 07/2021 – Central Tax (Rate), dated 30.09.2021. 5.5 He stated that, therefore the Plaintiff has not raised any claim towards GST on the nineteen invoices raised by the Plaintiff on the Defendants between 20.09.2022 and 30.09.2022. He stated that GST was only levied on domestic shipments and/or on ancillary services and thus, only one invoice (No. CL2223UP0277 dated 31.10.2022). The said invoice was for a sum of ?19,66,914/- including GST of ?3,00,037.68/-, which was legitimately charged. 5.6 He stated that therefore the so-called ‘rate and GST differences’ are based on internal, self-serving documents created by the Defendants to mislead the Court. 5.7 He stated that even on the Defendants’ own showing, when the unlawfully adjusted amounts of ?1,18,18,423/-, ?25,00,000/- and ?3,30,000/- in the ledger are added back, the total outstanding liability approximately equals to the Plaintiff’s claim of ?1,96,72,325/-, as per Defendants’ own ledger. 5.8 He stated that the Defendants’ contention that the suit cannot be maintained under Order XXXVII CPC is legally untenable as it is well-settled that suits based on invoices are maintainable as summary suits. 5.9 He relied on the judgement passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s. Flint Group India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Good Morning India, Media Pvt. Ltd.2, wherein it was held that invoices constitute written contracts under Order XXXVII CPC. He further relied on order dated 20.12.2021 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Flick Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. Gravity Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.3, wherein the Court observed that even unsigned invoices can form a valid basis for a summary suit. He also relied on Hindustan Clean Energy Ltd. v. Pyramid Spaces Pvt. Ltd.4, passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, wherein a summary suit was decreed, and the leave to defend application was dismissed as not pressed. 6. It is stated that the Defendant’s emails dated 11.10.2022 and 17.10.2022, constitute a clear acknowledgment of the debt by the Defendants within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, demonstrating that the liability was never disputed during the course of dealings. 7. Further, in the legal notice dated 19.11.2022, the Defendants reiterated their acknowledgment of dues payable to the Plaintiff; paragraph 7 of the said legal notice explicitly admits the outstanding liability, which reads as under: “After deducting the financial loss caused by my company from the outstanding of your company, I am ready to pay you the remaining amount, then the above people got furious and started abusing my client.” 8. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff stated that the Defendants’ own emails, legal notice, and pleadings collectively establish clear, unconditional, and written acknowledgments of debt, and these documents leave no triable issue to warrant a full-fledged trial under Order XXXVII CPC. He stated that therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for the entire sum of ?2,35,27,183/-, along with further interest as claimed, in accordance with law. He stated that the rate of interest of 2% per month is specifically enlisted in the invoice at serial no. 3. Findings and Analysis 9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and perused the record. 10. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that, vide order dated 04.11.2024, this Court recorded the submissions of the Defendants, wherein they admitted their liability to the extent of amount of ?50,23,902/- towards the Plaintiff and undertook to make payment of the said amount within one (1) week. Subsequently, vide order dated 27.03.2025, in CCP(O) 110/2024 filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for failure to comply with the directions issued vide order dated 04.11.2024, this Court issued bailable warrants in the sum of ?25,000/- against Defendant No. 2 and further granted liberty to the Plaintiff to file an execution petition5 for recovery of the admitted amount of ?50,23,902/-, which has since been filed. However, till date the said admitted amount has not been paid by the Defendants. 11. Vide order dated 27.03.2025, this Court also recorded that there had been no appearance on behalf of the Defendants since 04.11.2024, and therefore, the Defendants were proceeded ex-parte. Till date, there has been no appearance on behalf of the Defendants; consequently, the application for ‘leave to defend’ is not pressed and can be dismissed on this ground alone. However, this Court deems it appropriate to deal with the averments of the Defendants in its application and decide the application on merits. 12. It is noted that the Plaintiff had filed detailed Written Submissions dated 14.05.2025, setting out the factual and legal position in the matter. In continuation thereof, and in compliance with the directions issued vide order dated 22.07.2025, Plaintiff filed additional Written Submissions to specifically highlight the admissions made by the Defendants, both in their correspondence, documents and pleadings, unequivocally acknowledging their liability to pay the outstanding dues. Additionally, Plaintiff handed over a brief note dated 03.09.2025 showing acknowledgment of invoice amounts in the ledger statement filed by the Defendants with their leave to defend. The Plaintiff on 03.09.2025 also filed its calculation for the claim of interest on the outstanding invoices. 13. The Plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of the outstanding principal amount of ?1,96,97,325/-. The Plaintiff has asserted that it raised invoices on the Defendants for the consignment shipping and operating services rendered between July 2022 and October 2022. The total value of the invoices was ?3,33,97,325/-. The Plaintiff states that it received a part payment of ?1,37,00,000/- towards initial invoices and therefore, submits that there is an outstanding principal amount of ?1,96,97,325/- for the remaining twenty invoices. The Plaintiff has placed on record the invoices raised on the Defendants as Document no. 8. The Plaintiff has also placed on record its statement of outstanding, showing the balance principal amount of ?1,96,97,325/-. The statement is as under: - 14. The Plaintiff contends that all the invoices have been duly accepted by the Defendants and logged into their accounts. The Plaintiff has referred to the ledger produced by the Defendants on the record, as Document J. It is stated that there are twenty invoices which remains unpaid for the services rendered as well as separate bills raised towards courier charges. The Plaintiff in its brief note dated 03.09.2025 has precisely demonstrated as to how the voucher entries in Document J correspond to the value of the twenty invoices raised by the Plaintiff for the services rendered, which are the subject matter of the plaint. The relevant table in the brief note from column no. 1 to 6 are reproduced as under: Sr. No. Invoice no. @pg. no. (Suit Doc.) Date Amount (INR) Ledger Entry @date Voucher no. (Pg. @ Def. Doc with LTD) 1. BL2223UP0039 @pg. 67 20.09.2022 7,35,464/- 20.09.2022 223 2. BL2223UP0040 @pg. 77 20.09.2022 12,40,872/- 20.09.2022 221 3. BL2223UP0041 @pg. 85 20.09.2022 9,82,208/- 20.09.2022 219 4. BL2223UP0042 @pg. 93 20.09.2022 1,52,706/- 20.09.2022 215 5. BL2223UP0043 @pg. 100 20.09.2022 15,33,061/- 20.09.2022 229 6. BL2223UP0044 @pg. 112 20.09.2022 92,500/- 20.09.2022 227 7. BL2223UP0045 @pg. 120 20.09.2022 97,06,32/- 20.09.2022 235 8. BL2223UP0048 @pg.127 28.09.2022 4,36,295/- 28.09.2022 259 9. BL2223UP0049 @pg. 133 28.09.2022 12,31,187/- 28.09.2022 257 10. BL2223UP0050 @pg. 141 28.09.2022 10,52,834/- 28.09.2022 261 11. BL2223UP0051 @pg. 155 28.09.2022 20,26,698/- 28.09.2022 263 12. BL2223UP0052 @pg. 169 28.09.2022 1,52,660/- 28.09.2022 265 13. BL2223UP0053 @pg. 176 28.09.2022 12,99,606/- 28.09.2022 268 14. BL2223UP0054 @pg. 185 28.09.2022 12,78,354/- 29.09.2022 276 15. BL2223UP0055 @pg. 193 28.09.2022 1,04,226/- 28.09.2022 270 16. BL2223UP0056 @pg. 199 28.09.2022 14,18,682/- 28.09.2022 272 17. BL2223UP0059 @pg. 220 29.09.2022 8,71,332/- 29.09.2022 274 18. BL2223UP0060 @pg. 232 30.09.2022 18,31,536/- 30.09.2022 279 19. BL2223UP0062 @pg. 248 30.09.2022 4,24,850/- 30.09.2022 281 20. BL2223UP0277 @pg. 254 31.10.2022 19,66,914/- 17.10.2022 284 15. Document J, filed by the Defendants, is the ledger maintained by Defendants for the services received from the Plaintiff. Having perused the aforesaid table and the invoices filed on record, this Court finds merit in the submission of the Plaintiff that the Document J filed by the Defendants, acknowledges the said twenty invoices raised by the Plaintiff on the Defendants as the invoice value corresponds to the voucher entry in the ledger (Document J). Therefore, the invoices raised by the Plaintiff towards services rendered and the courier charges for a sum of ?1,96,97,325/- stands logged in the ledger filed by the Defendants. Thus, the booking of the claim of the Plaintiff with respect to outstanding principal amount of ?1,96,97,325/- is borne out from the Defendants’ documents. 16. Therefore, the Court has to now examine whether the unilateral debit notes issued by the Defendants in its ledger towards prospect loss, Rate and GST difference and payment to Mr. Arvind Singh Chauhan is justified. Debit Note No. 3 towards RATE and GST difference 17. The Defendants in their leave to defend has claimed an adjustment of ?48,28,079/-, filed as Document G, towards GST in these invoices by raising Debit Note No. 3. It is stated in the leave to defend that GST has been charged by the Plaintiff though none was payable until 30.09.2022; as GST became applicable only after 01.10.2022. The Plaintiff has stated that it did not raise any GST charge in its invoices for the freight services and therefore the alleged adjustment is misconceived. This Court has perused the invoices filed by the Plaintiff at Document No. 8 and finds that the Plaintiff submissions that no GST was charged on the nineteen outstanding invoices raised on the Defendants in September 2022 is correct. The GST was charged only on the 20th invoice raised on 31.10.2022, which is due and payable as per the applicable law. Therefore, the claim of adjustment of ?48,28,079/- by the Defendants towards GST from these nineteen invoices is without any rationale and is misconceived. The Plaintiff has relied upon the GST notification no. 02/2018 and 07/2021 to state that the supply of service of transportation of goods by air from a place in India to a place outside India was exempt till 30.09.2022 and therefore no GST was leviable during this period. The Defendants also admits this position. Thus, the unilateral claim for adjustment of ?48,28,079/- on account of GST by the Defendants is without any legal basis. 18. The said debit entry also refers to a ‘Rate’ difference. The Defendants have filed Document F to claim a rate difference of ?69,90,344/-. The Defendants have failed to substantiate its claim for rate difference by filing any contemporaneous documents. It has merely referred to an excel sheet for calculating this claim. No documents to support its calculation for the rate difference has been placed on record. The Plaintiff has averred that this unilateral adjustment raising a dispute on rates has been made by the Defendants for the first time in these proceedings. No protest was raised by the Defendants at contemporaneous time to the Rates charged by the Plaintiff. 19. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to take note of the e-mails issued by the Defendants acknowledging its liability and representing to the Plaintiff that the outstanding amount will be paid at the earliest. The relevant e-mails dated 11.10.2022 and 17.10.2022 read as under: - Email dated 11.10.2022 “Good to see your mail regarding concern of payment, We also in touch with customer for the same and trying reduce your OST asap, Rajat in regularly in touch with us following the same, Don’t worry will take care and not to let down…” Email dated 17.10.2022 “Dear Rajat ji As Discussed over phone will get some amount by today as confirmed by customer same will get RTGS to your accts, also will try to get release some more amount before weekend also appx 70-80 lacs will arrange this week…” 20. These e-mails belie the contention of the Defendants that there was any dispute with respect to the Rates or GST in the twenty invoices. In these facts, Defendants have been unable to satisfy this Court that its claim for rate difference is genuine. Therefore, Defendants’ unilateral adjustment of ?69,90,344/- is unsubstantiated and is not a triable issue. Debit Note No. 2 towards Prospect Loss 21. The Defendants has raised a unilateral debit note of ?25,00,000/- towards prospective loss of business of 250 Tonnes of Cargo. The averments are set out at paragraph no. 12(x) and (xi) of its leave to defend application. The Defendants have not placed on record any documents or details of actual loss of its business. The documents filed by Defendants fail to substantiate that loss of business if any was caused due to Plaintiff’s acts or omissions. The e-mails referred to above further demonstrate that the plea of loss of business is bogus. Therefore, the said unsubstantiated unilateral deduction leaves no triable issue to warrant a trial. Payment of ?3,30,000/- to Mr. Arvind Singh Chauhan 22. The Defendants has claimed adjustment of a payment of ?3,30,000/- made to Mr. Arvind Singh Chauhan. The details of the payment are filed as Document D and this payment has been adjusted in the ledger at Document J. It is stated that Mr. Arvind Singh Chauhan is the employee of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has disputed authorizing Defendants to make payments to Mr. Arvind Singh Chauhan and has therefore disputed this adjustment. The Defendants have not placed on record any documents showing any authorization issued by the Plaintiff permitting Defendants to make these payments to Mr. Chauhan. This Court finds merit in the submission of the Plaintiff that unilateral payments made by Defendants to a third-party cannot be adjusted towards the dues of the Plaintiff. Thus, Defendant is not entitled to this adjustment, and it does not raise any triable issue. The Maintainability of the suit under Order XXXVII CPC 23. The Defendants have admitted, as noted above, that all the invoices have been received and accepted by the Defendants and logged into their ledger and therefore, the liability of the Defendants under these invoices stands acknowledged. The judgements passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s. Flint Group India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Good Morning India, Media Pvt. Ltd. (supra), and Flick Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. Gravity Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (supra), unequivocally hold that a suit under Order XXXVII CPC can be maintained on the basis of invoices so long as the details of the services, price and purchaser are clearly stated in the invoice; and the invoice has been acted upon and accepted by the Defendants. The invoices raised by the Plaintiff in this case satisfy each of the conditions noted hereinabove and these invoices have been accepted and acted upon by the Defendants. Therefore, the present suit is maintainable under Order XXXVII CPC. Conclusion 24. This Court notes that the Defendants admitted their liability to the extent of ?50,23,902/- towards the Plaintiff, as recorded in the order dated 04.11.2024, and further undertook to make payment of the said amount within one (1) week. The admitted liability has however not been discharged till date despite the directions of this Court and despite issuance of bailable warrants against Defendant No. 2 in CCP(O) 110/2024 vide order dated 27.03.2025. The Defendants have also failed to appear thereafter and have been proceeded ex parte. 25. As noted above, the Defendants have failed to substantiate any of the unilateral adjustments claimed by the Defendants towards GST, rate difference, prospective loss or payments to third party through any contemporaneous records, contracts or authorizations. 26. In such circumstances, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. v. Hubtown Ltd.6 wherein it was held that, where the Defendants raises no substantial defence and fails to disclose any genuine triable issue, or where the defence is frivolous, vexatious or illusory, leave to defend the suit is to be refused and the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment forthwith. Further, the judgment records that, even if any triable issue were to arise, leave to defend cannot be granted unless the Defendants’ deposits in Court the amount admittedly due. 27. Applying the said principle to the present case, the admitted amount of ?50,23,902/- remains unpaid, and no material has been placed on record to justify the unilateral adjustments claimed by the Defendants towards GST, rate difference, prospective loss, or payments to third party. The unilateral debit notes raised by the Defendants are unsupported by evidence and contrary to their own ledger and correspondence, which unequivocally acknowledge the Plaintiff’s invoices and liability. The e-mails dated 11.10.2022 and 17.10.2022 further reinforce this admission and negate any alleged dispute as to rates, GST, or liability. 28. In view of the settled position of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court in IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. v. Hubtown Ltd (supra), the Court finds that the Defendants have failed to raise any bona fide or substantial defence that warrants trial. The defences set up are mere afterthoughts, devoid of merit, and intended to delay payment. Accordingly, the Defendants are not entitled to leave to defend, and the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment under Order XXXVII CPC for the outstanding principal sum of ?1,96,97,325/-, along with interest as claimed. 29. In view of the above, the leave to defend application is dismissed and the captioned suit is decreed for the principal sum of ?1,96,97,325/-. 30. The Plaintiff has claimed interest for the pre-suit period up to 21.08.2023 (i.e. the date upto filing of the suit) at the rate of 2% per month and has quantified the interest amount at Rs. 38,29,859/- for this period. The Plaintiff has relied upon the term of the invoice which records this rate of interest. The suit was instituted on 24.08.2023 and the Plaintiff has prayed for pendente lite and future interest. 31. Keeping in view that this is a commercial transaction between the parties, the Plaintiff is held entitled to pre-suit interest of ?38,29,859/- for the period ending on 21.08.2023. The decretal amount shall be the sum total of the principal amount of ?1,96,97,325/- and pre-suit interest of ?38,29,859/-, which is ?2,35,27,184/-. The Plaintiff is held entitled to interest at 12% per annum on the decretal amount, for pendente lite period from 21.08.2023 until the passing of this decree. Defendants are granted two (2) months’ time to make the aforesaid payment failing which it shall be liable to make payment of interest at 15% per annum, on the decretal amount, from the date of the judgment until realisation. 32. The order dated 04.11.2024 directing the Defendants to pay a sum of ?50,23,902/- shall stand merged with this decree. 33. Suit is decreed in the above terms. Registry of this Court is directed to draw a decree sheet accordingly. Costs to the extent of the Court fee and legal expenses incurred are granted to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is accordingly directed to file its bill of costs within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of the judgment. As and when the same is filed, the matter will be listed before the Taxing Officer for computation of costs. 34. The Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this judgment to the Defendants through email for compliance of the decree. 35. Accordingly, the suit and all pending applications stand disposed of. 36. All future dates stand cancelled. CCP(O) 110/2024 37. With respect to CCP(O)110/2024, it is directed that since the suit itself has now been decreed for the entire sum including ?50,23,902/-, the Plaintiff is directed to seek its remedy by way of execution, and the present contempt petition is disposed of. 38. All future dates stand cancelled. MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J OCTOBER 14, 2025/hp/AM 1 The date upto filing of the suit. 2 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7894, at paragraph nos. 6 to 8. 3 CM(M) 1185/2021, at paragraph nos. 9, 10, and 12. 4 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12778, at paragraph no. 11. 5 Ex. P. 47/2025 6 (2017) 1 SCC 568, at paragraph nos. 17.5 and 17.6. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ CS(COMM) 624/2023 Page 19 of 19