Puran Joshi vs Deccan Edibles Pvt Ltd - Appeal against Commercial Court judgment

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 6, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

Mr Puran Joshi (Prorietor Of Sj Cargo ... vs Deccan Edibles Pvt Ltd on 25 March, 2026

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on:.11.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 25.03.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 25.03.2026
+ RFA(COMM) 56/2024
MR PURAN JOSHI (Proprietor of S J Cargo Movers)
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Utkarsh Joshi and Mrs.
Anjali Menon, Advs.
versus
DECCAN EDIBLES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Nistha Gupta and Ms.
Sakshi Mehley, Advs.

                       CORAM:
                       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
                       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
                                          JUDGMENT ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

INTRODUCTION:

1.   The present Appeal, preferred under [Section 13](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/44411053/) of the
   

   Commercial Courts Act, 2015, challenges the judgment and order
   dated 09.12.2023 [hereinafter "Impugned Judgment"] passed by the
   Commercial Court, whereby the Commercial Court rejected the
   Appellant‟s suit for recovery under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code
   of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as „ CPC ‟].
   FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2.   In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case,
   

   the relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed.
   Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN RFA(COMM) 56/2024 Signing Date:25.03.2026 10:51:30 Page 1 of 10

1. The Appellant carries on business under the name and style of
             „M/s S J Cargo Movers‟ as its sole proprietor. The firm is a
             specialized logistics provider primarily engaged in inland road
             transportation. The case of the Appellant, as set out in the Plaint, is
             that the Respondent, a company specializing in the international
             export of agricultural perishables, approached the Appellant in the
             year 2018 for a specific commercial assignment. This assignment
             required the Appellant to manage the logistics of transporting grapes
             from various cold storage facilities and agricultural hubs within India
             to designated custom stations and ports for onward export to the
             Russian Federation.
   

2. The Appellant asserts that the nature of the goods required
             specialized refrigerated transport and a high degree of logistical
             coordination. Between 11.03.2020 and 09.05.2020, notwithstanding
             the immense logistical constraints imposed by the nationwide
             COVID-19 lockdown, the Appellant executed approximately 30
             different consignments. For these services, the Appellant raised 30
             specific invoices, totalling a principal amount of Rs.9,13,087/-. It is
             the Appellant‟s categorical stand that these invoices were raised
             directly against the Respondent and that the Respondent accepted the
             services,   and    the    accompanying      invoices    without     any
             contemporaneous objection regarding the quality of service or the
             billed amounts.
   

3. Crucially, the Appellant has pleaded a consistent "course of
             dealing" to establish a direct contractual nexus. The Plaint explicitly
             states that the Respondent had a history of making direct payments Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN RFA(COMM) 56/2024 Signing Date:25.03.2026 10:51:30 Page 2 of 10 into the bank account of „M/s S J Cargo Movers‟ for prior services.
             Following the non-payment of the 2020 invoices, the Appellant issued
             several reminders. In response to a final demand, the Respondent sent
             an email dated 28.07.2021. While the Respondent disputed the
             outstanding figures in this email, the Appellant contends that the
             communication serves as an admission of an active business
             relationship. After the pre-institution mediation resulted in a Non-
             Starter Report on 19.09.2022, the Appellant filed the suit seeking
             recovery of the principal sum along with 24% interest per annum,
             bringing the total claim to Rs. 15,78,580/.
   

4. On 07.11.2023, the Commercial Court, on its own motion and
             prior to the issuance of notice, identified thirteen "anomalies" in the
             Plaint. These included technical observations regarding the Statement
             of Truth, territorial jurisdiction, and the lack of a registration
             certificate under the Carriage by [Road Act, 2007](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/53171702/). However, the pivot
             of the rejection was the Commercial Court‟s observation that the
             export documentation (such as Mate‟s Receipts and ocean freight
             bills) featured a sister concern of the Appellant, M/s SPJ Cargo
             Private Limited. The Commercial Court surmised that since the
             "export cycle" involved the sister concern, the Appellant had no
             independent standing or "privity of contract" with the Respondent.
             The Appellant filed an application for permission to amend the plaint.
             However, the Commercial Court dismissed the said application for
             amendment and rejected the Plaint on 09.12.2023 holding that no
             cause of action was disclosed against the Respondent. The observation
             of the Commercial Court is extracted as under:
   

Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN

RFA(COMM) 56/2024 Signing Date:25.03.2026 10:51:30 Page 3 of 10 "16. This suit appears to be an endeavour on the part of plaintiff to
split the cause of action accrued in favour of a third party i.e. M/s SPJ
Cargo Private Ltd. by claiming it to be a sister concern so as to
apparently harass the Mumbai-based defendant Company by filing
multiple suits in Delhi."
7. Therefore, the Appellant has preferred the present Appealto set
aside the Impugned Judgement.

CONTENTIONS ON BEHLAF OF THE APPELLANT:

1. Learned counsel for the Appellant has assailed the Impugned Judgment primarily on the following grounds:

i. The Commercial Court has failed to take into consideration the
following paragraphs from the original plaint that prima facie
established a cause of action and provide that services were rendered
to the Respondent and that the Respondent has failed to make the
payments in a timely manner:

"6. It is submitted that the Director of the Defendant, Mr Nagesh
Lakshman Shetty, had approached the Plaintiff fortransportation of grapes
to Russia. The Plaintiff on request and demand of the Defendant, provided
the services of roadtransportation of the shipment to the Defendants,
against the delivery of which the Plaintiff raised several invoices.
Allinvoices were accepted by the Defendants without anydisputeor demur.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

1. It is submitted that the plaintiff has a Sister entity being (SPJ Cargo
   Private Limited) which provide freight forwarding services the Defendant
   have availed services from the Sister entity also. The Defendant had also
   availed the services of the Plaintiff for transportation of the grapes from
   the pickup point to the port of Departure to the destination port in Russia,
   Therefore, all emails sent to the Defendant by the Plaintiff to follow up
   and/or requesting to clear the outstanding amount, was for both the
   entities, i.e., SJ Cargo Movers, and its Sister entity, SPJ Cargo Pvt Ltd.

2. It is submitted that since raising the invoices, the Plaintiff had been
   constantly following up with the Defendant for clearing its outstanding
   dues through phone and emails. The Defendant had made commitments to
   make monthly payments to the Plaintiff for clearing their dues but had
   been failing to meet such promises made by them every month. A copy of Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN RFA(COMM) 56/2024 Signing Date:25.03.2026 10:51:30 Page 4 of 10 an email dated 16 March 2021 sent by the Plaintiff following
   up/reminding the Defendant No. 2 to make payment is annexed herewith
   and Document 5.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

1. The Plaintiff having received no payment from the defendantdespite having followed up/ reminded for payment every 15days for the past 2.5 years, had finally intimated theDefendant Company through an email dated 28 July 2021that the Plaintiff would be claiming interest on itsoutstanding dues. A copy of all email correspondencesbetween the parties pertaining payment of the outstandingamount is annexed herewith as Document 6." ii. Further, the annexed emails with the original plaint serve as an admission on the part of the Respondent that services have been rendered to him which the Commercial Court overlooked while rejecting the suit at the threshold.

iii. The Appellant has further clarified the roles of the Appellant
and the Sister Concern and the services each provided to the
Respondent, the Appellant‟s Role was limited to transportation of the
„grapes‟ from the Warehouse to Port and from the Port the Sister
Concern‟s Roles began which included Customs clearance and cargo
loading. The Commercial Court‟s assumption that the contract was
only with the sister concern is a factual error.

iv. The Appellant has further contended that the Commercial Court
has erred in their reasoning regarding „privity of contract‟, to hold that
it did not exist in the present case. The Appellant has placed reliance
on the judgement passed by this Court in Utair Aviation v. Jagson
Airlines Limited & Another1, wherein it has been provided that
privity can be created through express or implied conduct. The court
has to determine whether the party is a complete stranger to the 1 2012:DHC:2470 Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN RFA(COMM) 56/2024 Signing Date:25.03.2026 10:51:30 Page 5 of 10 contract or the plea is being used to defeat legitimate claims. The
Respondent in the present case had full knowledge and accepted the
benefit of the services provided by the Appellant for transportation of
„grapes‟ from the warehouse to the port.

CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

1. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the
             Appellant has relied on paragraphs from the amended plaint (not
             allowed by the Commercial Court) to aver that the cause of action was
             not disclosed in the original plaint.
   

2. Learned counsel further argued that the documents that are
   relied on by the Appellant to establish that services were rendered to
   the Respondent by the Appellant are not relevant to the present case as
   raising invoices cannot bind bipartite financial liability and the e-mails
   have been addressed by the Sister Concern which is a separate legal
   entity and not a party to the proceedings.

3. Learned counsel for the Respondent has further submitted that
   privity of contract did not exist in the present case due to there being
   no tripartite arrangement or any agreement amongst the Respondent,
   Appellant and the Sister Concern.

4. Further it was contended by the learned counsel for
   Respondent, the plea for TDS deposit and deduction which the
   Appellant has made a part of this present appeal to indicate
   transactions between the Respondent and Appellant was never part of Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN RFA(COMM) 56/2024 Signing Date:25.03.2026 10:51:30 Page 6 of 10 the plaint and hence cannot be relied upon especially when dealing
   with an application for rejection of plaint.

5. Finally, learned counsel has also urged this Court to consider
   material suppression on part of the Appellant in the present Appeal.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

1. The primary question before this Court is whether the
   Commercial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by rejecting the plaint suo
   moto on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action by the
   Appellant in the original plaint.

2. The primary error in the Impugned Judgment lies in the
   Commercial Court's failure to adhere to the fundamental principles
   governing Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. As established by the
   Supreme Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali2, the
   Court must restrict its scrutiny to the four corners of the Plaint and the
   documents filed therewith, which must be taken to be true in their
   entirety. A "cause of action" is a bundle of facts which, if proved,
   would entitle the plaintiff to relief. By pleading a direct solicitation of
   services, successful delivery of cargo, and the issuance of thirty direct
   invoices received without protest, the Appellant has undeniably met
   the threshold of disclosing a prima facie cause of action. The Court‟s
   duty at this stage is limited to finding a "right to sue" on the face of
   the record, not to evaluate the probability of the plaintiff‟s eventual
   success or the potential strength of a defence.

2 (2020) 10 SCC 367 Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN RFA(COMM) 56/2024 Signing Date:25.03.2026 10:51:30 Page 7 of 10

1. The Commercial Court‟s conclusion regarding the "lack of
   privity of contract" is a premature adjudication of a mixed question of
   fact and law. The Appellant categorically pleaded that the Respondent
   had a historical course of dealing, evidenced by prior direct payments
   into the bank account of 'M/s S J Cargo Movers'. Under the law of
   contract, as interpreted in Utair Aviation (supra), privity is not
   confined to a single formal document but can be inferred from the
   "conduct of parties" and "implied contracts." If the Respondent
   accepted road transportation services from the Appellant and had
   historically paid for them directly, a contractual nexus is prima facie
   established. The Commercial Court could not have dismissed this
   nexus at the admission stage simply because a different entity (the
   Sister concern) managed the ocean freight portion of the export chain,
   as modern logistics frequently involves segmented contracts among
   affiliated entities.

2. This Court finds that the Commercial Court erroneously
   embarked upon a "mini-trial" by analysing the "export cycle" in a
   vacuum and comparing Mate‟s Receipts and ocean freight documents
   against the Appellant‟s invoices to conclude the Appellant was an
   interloper. This inference is fundamentally flawed; whether the
   Appellant acted as a principal or an agent is a matter of evidence that
   requires a trial. Furthermore, the observation that the Appellant was
   "splitting the cause of action" belonging to M/s SPJ Cargo Private
   Limited is equally untenable. Order II Rule 2 of the CPC is a defence
   intended to prevent a plaintiff from instituting a suittwice for the same
   cause of action; it is not a tool for the Court to decide that a different Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN RFA(COMM) 56/2024 Signing Date:25.03.2026 10:51:30 Page 8 of 10 party should have sued instead. If the Respondent believed it owed
   money to the sister concern and not the Appellant, it was for the
   Respondent to raise such a plea in its Written Statement rather than for
   the Court to take on the mantle of the defence.

3. The thirteen "anomalies" cited by the Commercial Court are
   largely procedural or technical in nature and do not go to the root of
   the cause of action. As held in Salem Advocate Bar Association v.
   Union of India3, procedural laws are "handmaids of justice" and
   should not be used as tripwires to defeat substantive claims. Defects
   such as the lack of registration under the Carriage by Road Act, 2007,
   or errors in the Statement of Truth, are either curable by amendment
   or represent statutory defences that must be tested during trial. The
   summary rejection of a plaint for such defects, especially when the
   Appellant had moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the
   CPC to rectify them, constitutes a grave procedural irregularity that
   denies the Plaintiff a fair opportunity to present their case.

4. Finally, the Commercial Court‟s reliance on the Respondent's
   email dated 28.07.2021 as a ground for rejection is a misapplication of
   the law. While the Respondent disputed the invoices in that email, the
   Appellant utilized this communication to demonstrate the existence of
   a business relationship and a response to a demand for payment. The
   Trial Court treated the Respondent's denial as gospel truth to negate
   the cause of action, despite the settled position that a "disputed
   question of fact" cannot be the basis for rejecting a plaint.

3 (2005) 6 SCC 344 Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN RFA(COMM) 56/2024 Signing Date:25.03.2026 10:51:30 Page 9 of 10 CONCLUSION:

1. In view of the above, the present Appeal is allowed. The
   Impugned order which constitutes a deemed decree dated 09.12.2023
   is hereby set aside. The suit is restored to its original number.

2. The parties, through their respective counsel, are directed to
   appear before the Commercial Court on 07.04.2026.

3. The present Appeal stands disposed of.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

MARCH 25, 2026
jai/kb Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN RFA(COMM) 56/2024 Signing Date:25.03.2026 10:51:30 Page 10 of 10