RFA No. 242/2020 Page 1 of 18

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 11

th

February, 2026

Pronounced on: 03

rd

June 2026

+ RFA No. 242/2020, CM APPL. 25169/2020 & CM APPL.

28465/2020

1. M/S AMBER ELECTROTECH LTD.

F-3/3, Okhla Industrial Area,

Phase-I, New Delhi-110020.

Through its Authorised Representative

Mr. Sachin Madaan ….Appellant No.1

2. MR. AMARJEET SINGH

Director and Authorised Signatory

M/s Amber Electrotech Ltd.

F-3/3, Okhla Industrial Area,

Phase-I, New Delhi-110020. ….Appellant No.2

Through: Mr. Sheikh Imran Alam, Mr. Rahul

Kumar Jain and Mr. Arshad Jawed,

Advocates

versus

M/S DOLLAR SECURITY & SUPPORT SERVICES

RZ-376/21, First Floor,

Tughlaqabad Extensions, Kalkaji,

New Delhi

Presently at:

M-47, Ground Floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi

Through:

Sh. Raj Kumar Dagar, Authorised

Representative & General Manager

…Respondent

RFA No. 242/2020 Page 2 of 18

Through: Mr. Nagendra Kasana, Mr. Sachin

Bhati, Ms. Anjana Kasana and

Ms. Neeta Kasana, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) read

with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Rules, 1996, has been filed on

behalf of the Appellants against the Judgment dated 26.06.2020, whereby

the Suit of the Plaintiff/Respondent for Recovery of Rs.2,91,031/- along with

the pendente lite and future interest @12% p.a., has been decreed.

2. The Plaintiff/Respondent had filed a Civil Suit bearing CS DJ No.

207727/2016 for Recovery of Rs.4,02,808/- along with pendente lite and

future interest.

3. The facts in brief are that the Plaintiff, a sole-proprietorship concern,

was engaged in the business of providing security guards. On the request of

the Defendants for providing the security services, they entered into an

Agreement dated 30.10.2009 and the security guards were provided at the

various establishments of the Defendants.

4. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants failed to make payment

against certain Invoices and bills to the tune of Rs.3,91,031/-. A cheque of

Rs.2,09,267/- was given on behalf of the Defendants though, on

presentation, it was dishonoured for the reason ‘payment stopped by

drawer’.

RFA No. 242/2020 Page 3 of 18

5. On the request of the Defendants, Plaintiff returned the dishonoured

cheque on the assurance of the Defendants that he would make the payment.

However, despite repeated requests and service of Legal Notice dated

19.10.2013, the Defendants failed to make the payment. Hence, a Suit was

filed for Recovery of Rs.4,02,808/- along with the interest @12% p.a.

6. The Defendants in their Written Statement, took the preliminary

objection that the Plaintiff has concealed material facts. It was further

claimed that the Plaintiff had no locus standi to file the Suit or to claim the

amount.

7. It was stated in the plaint that M/s Dollar Security & Support Services

(Plaintiff) is the sole proprietorship concern of Mr. Deepak Dagar while the

Suit has been filed under the signatures of Mr. Raj Kumar Dagar by

asserting that he is the authorised representative of Plaintiff. However, no

Power of Attorney has been filed in favour of Mr. Raj Kumar Dagar. The

Suit is, therefore, not been signed and filed by authorised person and is

liable to be rejected.

8. It is further submitted that the Suit has been filed in the name of M/s

Dollar Security & Support Services, which is not a legal entity as per law. It

is a proprietorship firm; Suit in the name of the proprietorship firm is not

maintainable.

9. It is further submitted that there is no privity of contract between the

Plaintiff and the Defendant. As per the agreement dated 30.10.2009 annexed

with the plaint, it reflects that it was executed between the Plaintiff and the

Defendant for providing security services. Bare perusal of the Agreement

reflects that it has not been executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant

and it has neither been signed by the Plaintiff nor is he is a party to the same.

RFA No. 242/2020 Page 4 of 18

The Agreement is purportedly executed by one Shiva Associates and the

Plaintiff is neither a party nor signatory to the alleged Agreement.

10. Without prejudice to these preliminary objections, the Defendant in

his Written Statement stated that as per this alleged Agreement dated

30.10.2009, the security men provided by the Security Agency, were

required to ensure and take all steps and precaution to prevent theft,

pilferage and other criminal acts in the premises where the services were

being provided. However, it is contended that in gross violation of this

Clause, the Security Agency did not provide the agreed services and various

theft, pilferages took place at the sites and premises where the security

services were being provided.

11. Furthermore, in the night of 09.08.2013, theft took place at the store

of Defendant Company at Paryavaran Bhawan, for which they registered an

FIR on 10.08.2013. similarly, other thefts had taken place at other sites of

the Defendant Company where the security services were being provided.

12. The Defendants claimed that they suffered a huge and substantial loss

of lacs of rupees on account of pilferage and theft which occurred at various

sites on account of lack of proper security services rendered by the Security

Agency.

13. The Defendant further claimed that as per the Agreement, the

disputes, if any, were referable to Arbitration under Arbitration and

Conciliation Act. In view of the Arbitration Clause, the Suit was not

maintainable as per Section 8 Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

14. It is further submitted that the security guards provided by the

Security Agency had on various occasions, indulged in misbehaviour and

reported drunk on duty and were always found in gross neglect of their duty,

RFA No. 242/2020 Page 5 of 18

which resulted in theft at many sites of the defendant. In fact, the

involvement of these security guards in the thefts were also suspected.

Despite the thefts, the Security Agency failed to take any steps for corrective

action or to conduct an enquiry into the matter, which also reflects that

Security Agency grossly failed in providing the requisite services.

15. It is further asserted that as per the Agreement dated 30.10.2009, the

rate charges for the security guard was Rs.5,500/- p.m., whereas invoices

filed by the Plaintiff, had given the rate as Rs.8,000/-. The Suit is therefore,

not maintainable and liable to rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

16. On merits, all the averments made in the plaint, were denied and the

defences as stated above were reiterated.

17. The Plaintiff in the Replication reaffirmed the assertions as made in

the Plaint and denied the allegations made in the Written Statement.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff clarified that the name of the Firm changed from

Shiva Associates to M/s Dollar Security & Support Services, which was

well within the knowledge of the Defendants. Not only this, various

correspondence Letters exchanged between the parties, was in the name of

Plaintiff Firm. In fact, the Notice dated 15.10.2013 issued by the

Defendants/Appellants, was also in the name of the Plaintiff Firm. In view

of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the Plaintiff had merely changed its

name and Shiva Associates, with whom the initial Agreement was executed,

had been taken over by the Plaintiff, which was one and the same the same

entity.

18. From the pleadings, the Issues were framed on 30.09.2014, which

are as under:-

RFA No. 242/2020 Page 6 of 18

(i) Whether the Suit has been signed, verified and

institute by a duly competent person? OPD

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If

so, at what rate and for which period?

19. The Plaintiff examined PW-1, Mr. Raj Kumar Dagar, AR, who

deposed about the facts as narrated in the Plaint and also produced the

documents in support thereof.

20. PW-2, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Roy, was the Manager, Indian

Overseas Bank.

21. The Defendants examined DW-1, Mr. Sachin Madan, who deposed

in regard to the defence of the Defendants.

22. The learned District Judge on appreciation of the documents and

evidence, considered the Authority Letter, Ex.PW-1/1 and also the

testimony of PW-1, Mr. Raj Kumar Dagar and held that the Suit had been

instituted properly, through an Authorised Representative and the technical

objection taken by the Defendants that the Suit was not filed by a duly

authorised person, was held against the Defendants.

23. The learned District Judge, upon an appreciation of the pleadings and

evidence on record, further observed that although the Defendant had raised

a preliminary objection in the Written Statement contending that the suit was

not maintainable in view of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement

between the parties, the said objection was never pursued during the course

of the proceedings. The learned District Judge further noted that the

Defendant had actively participated in the trial without taking any effective

steps to seek reference of the disputes to arbitration. It was, thus, held that

RFA No. 242/2020 Page 7 of 18

the objection regarding the existence of an arbitration clause, was devoid of

merit and did not constitute a bar to the maintainability of the suit.

24. The learned District Judge, upon an appraisal of the evidence on

record, took note of the Invoices and Bills raised by the Plaintiff from time

to time, towards the providing of security guard services. Reliance was also

placed upon the testimony of the Plaintiff, who deposed that although the

initial rate agreed between the parties under the Agreement was Rs. 5,500/-

per security guard, the rates were revised periodically and the Defendants

had, in fact, made payments at such enhanced rates, without objection. On

the basis of the documentary and oral evidence, the learned District Judge

concluded that the Plaintiff had successfully established outstanding

dues amounting to Rs. 3,91,031/- for the period from June 2013 to

October 2013.

25. The learned District Judge further considered the defence set up by

the Defendants that a theft had occurred at their premises on 09.08.2013, in

respect whereof an FIR was registered on 10.08.2013 at Police Station Lodhi

Colony. The Defendants claimed to have suffered a loss of Rs. 10,93,121/-

on account of the said theft and asserted that a Debit Note had been issued to

the Plaintiff. It was their case that the theft occurred due to the negligence

and misconduct of the security guards deployed by the Plaintiff, who were

allegedly found performing their duties in an intoxicated condition.

26. While examining this contention, the learned District Judge referred

to the Agreement dated 30.10.2009 and observed that the Agreement did not

contain any specific clause imposing liability upon the Plaintiff for any

theft, pilferage, or breach of duty occurring at the Defendants' premises.

Nevertheless, considering the circumstances surrounding the incident and

RFA No. 242/2020 Page 8 of 18

the alleged negligence on the part of the security personnel in the

discharge of their duties, the learned District Judge deemed it

appropriate to extend a limited benefit to the Defendants and accordingly

allowed a deduction of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Consequently, it was held that the

Plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2,91,031/- from the

Defendants.

27. It was further noted that because of this theft, the Plaintiff was also

not entitled to any interest, for the period prior to the institution of the

Suit. Consequently, the Suit was decreed for Rs.2,91,031/- along with the

pendente lite and future interest @12% p.a.

28. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Defendants/Appellants have

filed this Regular First Appeal.

29. The grounds of challenge contended by the Appellant, are that that

the Suit ought to have been instituted by Mr. Deepak Dagar, who is

admittedly the sole proprietor of the Plaintiff Firm. It is contended that

neither were the pleadings signed and verified by the said sole proprietor,

nor did he enter the witness box, to depose in support of the Plaintiff’s case.

Instead, the plaint was signed and verified by Mr. Raj Kumar Dagar, who,

according to the Appellant, lacked the requisite authority and competence to

institute the Suit on behalf of the Plaintiff Firm.

30. It is further submitted that a specific objection regarding the

maintainability of the suit on this ground, had been raised by the

Defendants as a preliminary objection in their Written Statement; however,

the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the same and had

erroneously proceeded with the suit.

RFA No. 242/2020 Page 9 of 18

31. The Appellant further contended that the Suit was instituted

through a Manager on the strength of an Authority Letter exhibited as Ex.

PW-1/1. However, a bare perusal of the said document revealed that it does

not bear any date and does not specifically authorize the institution of the

Suit or the conduct of legal proceedings, on behalf of the sole

proprietorship concern. Consequently, it is argued that the said Authority

Letter was of no legal consequence and could not confer valid authority

upon the person instituting the suit. It was, therefore, submitted that the suit

was not instituted by a duly authorized and competent person and was liable

to be dismissed on this ground alone.

32. Reliance is placed on State Bank of Travancore vs. M/s Kingston

Computers (P) Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 524, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

held that when a suit is filed by a person not duly authorized by the

Company, it cannot be entertained by the civil court.

33. It is further contended that the Plaintiff was neither a partnership firm

nor an HUF and there is a misdescription of the Plaintiff in the title of the

Suit, in terms of Order 7 Rule 1 read with Order 30 Rule 10 CPC for which,

reliance is placed on P.C. Advertising vs. The Municipal Corporation 1998

Supreme(Del) 282.

34. The Suit cannot be filed in the name of the Proprietorship Firm

without taking leave from the Court. No Application had been filed ever

by the Plaintiff, to rectify this defect and change the name from the

Proprietorship Firm to his own name, despite an objection taken in the

Written Statement. The sole Proprietorship Firm is not a legal entity and

the Suit should have been instituted by the Proprietor in his individual

RFA No. 242/2020 Page 10 of 18

name, as has been held in the Case of Swapn Construction vs. IDPL

Employees Cooperative Group 127 (2006) DLT 80.

35. It is further contended that the Agreement dated 30.10.2009, Ex. PW-

1/5, was executed between M/s Shiva Associates and the Defendants, and

not between the Plaintiff firm and the Defendants. It is submitted that the

Plaintiff was neither a party to nor a signatory of the said Agreement. The

Appellant further relies upon the cross-examination of PW-1, Mr. Raj

Kumar Dagar, recorded on 24.07.2019, wherein he admitted that no separate

or independent Agreement had ever been executed between M/s Dollar

Security Service, i.e., the Plaintiff, and the Defendants. In these

circumstances, it is argued that the Plaintiff could not have founded its claim

upon an Agreement to which it was neither a contracting party nor a

signatory.

36. The Appellant has further contended that the learned Trial Court

failed to appreciate that materials worth several lakhs of rupees, stored in

the godown/warehouse of the Appellant and guarded by security personnel

deployed by the Plaintiff's associate concern, M/s Shiva Associates, were

repeatedly subjected to theft. Despite the occurrence of such incidents, the

security guards on duty were unable to provide any satisfactory explanation

regarding the thefts. According to the Appellant, each such incident was

duly brought to the notice of the Plaintiff's representative, Mr. Raj Kumar

Dagar, who was repeatedly requested to take appropriate action against the

erring security personnel and to ensure proper security arrangements.

37. It is further asserted that notwithstanding such complaints, a major

theft occurred during the intervening night of 09.08.2013 and 10.08.2013,

whereby material valued at Rs. 10,93,121/- was allegedly stolen from the

RFA No. 242/2020 Page 11 of 18

godown situated at the Indira Paryavaran Bhawan Site, Aliganj, Jor Bagh,

New Delhi. In respect of the said incident, FIR No. 25/2013 dated

10.08.2013 was registered at Police Station Lodhi Colony.

38. The Appellant has claimed that there was highly improbable that

without the nexus and aid of the guards and the Plaintiff’s associate Mr. Raj

Kumar Dagar, such huge quantity of material weighing approximately One

Ton, could have been stolen. A Debit Note was issued for Rs.10,93,121/- as

admitted by PW-1, Mr. Raj Kumar Dagar in his cross-examination. It is on

this account, that the Defendants had stopped the payment of cheque of

Rs.2,09,267/-.

39. The Appellant asserted that the learned District Judge has erroneously

decided the Issues in favour of the Plaintiff, contrary to law and facts of the

present case. The Suit has been filed only to harass the

Defendants/Appellants and to bring them to the negotiation table.

Furthermore, the Legal Notice dated 19.10.2013 was issued only to the

Defendant Company and not to the Appellant No. 2, Director of the

Company. Furthermore, the Director had neither signed the alleged

Agreement dated 30.10.2009 nor any other documents and there was no

privity of contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 2. There was

no cause of action disclosed against the Defendant No. 2, which aspect has

not been clarified in the Judgment.

40. An FDR of Rs.2,00,000/- had been deposited by the Defendants in the

learned Trial Court, in terms of the Order dated 12.04.2019, but the entire

Judgment is silent about the release/set-off of the amount so deposited.

41. Furthermore, it is contended that the entire evidence of the Plaintiff ,is

based and generated from electronic gadgets, which is not supported by the

RFA No. 242/2020 Page 12 of 18

Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The e-mails,

Ex.PW-1/7, therefore, cannot be taken into consideration.

42. Moreover, the e-mails were neither sent by the Plaintiff nor Shiva

Associates (the alleged sister concern of the Plaintiff); it was sent by Dagar

Security Services Pvt. Ltd., which is a third party, which has no concern

with the Agreement between the Shiva Associates and the Defendant

Company. These aspects have not been considered in the Judgment. A

prayer is, therefore, made that the impugned Judgment be set-aside and the

Suit of the Plaintiff be dismissed.

43. The Appellant in support of his assertions, had submitted the Written

Submissions wherein the similar contentions were raised.

44. The Respondent, in support of his case, also filed Written

Submissions reiterating the aforesaid contentions. It was specifically

contended that the sole proprietor, Sh. Deepak Dagar, who is the son of Sh.

Raj Kumar Dagar, had not signed a single document during the entire period

over which the Appellants availed the services of security guards from the

Respondent's firm. It was argued that had the Suit been instituted solely in

the name of Sh. Deepak Dagar, it would have been impossible to prove the

Agreement, bills/invoices, e-mail correspondence, legal notices and other

related documents, as all such acts and documents were executed, issued, or

dealt with by Sh. Raj Kumar Dagar in his capacity as Authorised

Representative and General Manager of M/s Dollar Security & Support

Services. Reliance was placed upon K.S. Exports Vs. M/s Ethiopian Airlines,

RFA No. 728/2002, vide judgement dated 24.11.2011.

RFA No. 242/2020 Page 13 of 18

Submissions heard and the record perused.

45. The main ground of the Appellant, to challenge the Judgment is that

the Suit has not been instituted by a duly authorised person. It is asserted

that the Agreement, Ex.PW-1/1 was admittedly executed between Shiva

Associates and the Defendants/Appellants. However, the Suit has been filed

for and on behalf of the Dollar Security and Support Services, with which

the Appellant Company had no concern and there is no privity of contract

between the Plaintiff and the Respondent.

46. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the testimony of PW-1, Mr.

Raj Kumar Dagar, who has explained in his testimony that initially, the

Plaintiff was working in the name of Shiva Associates, the sole

proprietorship concern of Mr. Deepak Dagar, son of Mr. Raj Kumar Dagar.

Thereafter, this sole proprietorship business was taken over by the Plaintiff’s

sole Proprietorship Firm and it is Mr. Raj Kumar Dagar, who has been

running the affairs of the Firm.

47. Thus, the testimony of the Plaintiff reveals that while the contractual

relationship initially subsisted between M/s Shiva Associates and the

Appellant, the business of M/s Shiva Associates was subsequently

succeeded to and carried on by the Plaintiff sole proprietorship firm, which

continued the commercial relationship between the parties, thereafter.

48. In this context, it would be relevant to refer to the Registration of

Declaration under Indian Registration Act, 1908 wherein it is clearly

reflected that the sole-Proprietorship Firm in the name of Shiva Associates,

was registered, of which Mr. Deepak Dagar, son of Mr. Raj Kumar Dagar

was the sole-proprietor. The Agreement inter se the parties, was signed on

30.10.2009, which explains that the Agreement was in the name of Shiva

RFA No. 242/2020 Page 14 of 18

Associates. Pertinently, it has been signed not by Mr. Deepak Dagar, but by

Mr. Raj Kumar Dager.

49. Furthermore, as per the testimony of PW-1, Mr. Raj Kumar Dagar,

the Plaintiff Firm was incorporated on 01.10.2011 of which, Mr. Raj Kumar

Dagar was the sole proprietor. This explains that the Agreement dated

30.10.2009 was entered with Shiva Associates though, signed by Mr. Raj

Kumar Dagar but in October, 2011, its business was taken over by the

Plaintiff’s Firm of which, Mr. Raj Kumar Dagar was the Authorised

Representative. There is no challenge to the business being taken over by the

Plaintiff from Shiva Associates and therefore, the initial Agreement

though, with Shiva Associates, the business and the Agreement got

transposed to the Plaintiff Firm.

50. Insofar as the contention regarding the lack of authority of Mr. Raj

Kumar Dagar to institute the present suit is concerned, it is pertinent to note

that the original Agreement dated 30.10.2009 executed on behalf of M/s

Shiva Associates was admittedly signed by Mr. Raj Kumar Dagar himself,

who has also instituted and pursued the present proceedings. Furthermore,

the Authority Letter, exhibited as Ex. PW-1/1, was executed by Mr.

Deepak Dagar in favour of Mr. Raj Kumar Dagar, describing him as the

General Manager and authorizing him to act on behalf of the proprietorship

concern. The relevant contents of the said Authority Letter are reproduced

hereinbelow :-

“TO WHOMSOEVER CONCERNED -

This is to certify that Mr. Raj Kumar Dagar, General Manager

of our organization is hereby authorized to sign all statutory

RFA No. 242/2020 Page 15 of 18

and legal documents and also represent the company in all

matters on behalf of M/s Dollar Security & Support Services.”

51. The Authority Letter had been issued by Mr. Deepak Dagar, the

Proprietor of the Plaintiff Firm. From this Authority Letter, it again

emerges that Mr. Deepak Dagar, who was the Proprietor of the Plaintiff

Firm, had authorised Mr. Raj Kumar Dagar, to represent the sole-

proprietorship firm in all the matters relating to it. The Letter may not have

been worded happily, but the fact remains that Mr. Raj Kumar Dagar, has

been authorised to do all the acts for and on behalf of the Proprietorship

Firm.

52. Moreover, the business having been taken over by Plaintiff,

proprietorship concern of which R.K. Daggar is the sole proprietor, does not

need any authority firm Sh. Deepak Daggar, to institute the Suit.

53. Furthermore, as already noticed, the original Agreement dated

30.10.2009, though executed in the name of M/s Shiva Associates, was

signed by Mr. Raj Kumar Dagar. It is also evident from the record that all

communications, correspondence, and dealings on behalf of the Appellant

Company were conducted with Mr. Raj Kumar Dagar. These circumstances

clearly demonstrate that he was actively managing and dealing with the

affairs of the proprietorship concern and was fully conversant with its

business operations, transactions, and functioning.

54. The said facts lend further credence to the conclusion that Mr. Raj

Kumar Dagar was duly authorized and competent to institute and pursue the

present proceedings on behalf of the Plaintiff proprietorship concern, being

the sole proprietor.

RFA No. 242/2020 Page 16 of 18

55. Therefore, the learned District Judge has rightly referred to the

aforesaid documents to conclude that the Plaintiff is the successor of

Shiva Associates and there existed privity of contract between the parties.

56. A preliminary objection had also been taken that the Agreement dated

30.10.2009, contained an arbitration Clause and therefore, the Civil Court

had no jurisdiction. However, it has been rightly answered by the learned

District Judge that as per Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996, the objection to submitting to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, in

terms of the Arbitration Clause, has to be taken in the first instance.

However, here was the case where the Written Statement was duly filed by

the Appellant and thereafter, participated in the entire trial. Therefore, it is

clearly evident that despite there being an Arbitration Clause, the Appellant

had participated and submitted to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. This

objection was also rightly dismissed by the learned District Judge.

57. What next needs to be considered is whether the Suit of the Plaintiff

has been rightly decreed, in favour of the Appellant. The Plaintiff in his

Plaint and also in the evidence, had given details of the outstanding Invoices

from June 2013 till September 2013, wherein there was an outstanding

amount of Rs.3,91,031/-.

58. In the corresponding paragraph of the Written Statement, the

Defendants disputed the outstanding liability against the Invoices, on the

ground that that the Suit was not instituted by a duly authorized person and

that the defendant was entitled to recover damages and losses on account of

theft, from the security agency.

59. From the Written Statement, it, therefore, emerges that there was no

challenge to the outstanding amount as per the Invoices, but only technical

RFA No. 242/2020 Page 17 of 18

grounds were being taken, which have already been addressed and it is held

that there was a privity of contract, as well as, the Suit had been rightly

instituted through Mr. Raj Kumar Dagar.

60. It is also pertinent to mention that these Invoices, Ex.PW-1/6

(colly.24 invoices) had been duly proved by PW-1 in his testimony. There

was essentially no cross-examination on these invoices thereby reflecting

that the authenticity of the same, was not questioned. Likewise, DW-1 in its

testimony, did not dispute the Invoices, but merely denied its liability to pay

the outstanding amount on account of the theft of their articles from the

godown being guarded by the Security Guards of the Plaintiff, in respect of

which a Debit Note of Rs.10,93,121/-, had been raised by the Defendants.

61. The Plaintiff had not only proved the outstanding amount of

Rs.3,91,031/-, but the outstanding payment had also not been disputed by

the Defendants.

62. The Defendants had denied its liability to pay this amount solely on

the ground that on account of theft from the godown due to the negligence of

the Security Guards, due to which he suffered loss of Rs.10,93,121/-. A

Debit Note was raised and the Defendants claimed that they were in fact,

entitled to recover this amount from the Plaintiff Company.

63. Though the learned District Judge rightly noted that there was no

Clause in regard to the responsibility/liability of the Plaintiff in case of theft,

but in all its benevolence, a benefit of Rs.1,00,000/- has been given to the

Appellant despite there being no proof of the actual losses. While the

learned District Judge himself noted that there was no proof and yet in all

his fairness, has given the benefit of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is also pertinent to

observe that though, the liability of the Plaintiff in respect of this alleged

RFA No. 242/2020 Page 18 of 18

theft, had not been established, further benefit has been granted to the

Appellant, as pre-institution interest on the claimed amount, has also been

denied to the Plaintiff.

64. This denial of Rs.1,00,000/- and of pre-institution interest, has

however, not been challenged by the Plaintiff.

65. The Suit of the Plaintiff has, therefore, been rightly decreed for

Rs.2,09,267/-, along with the pendente lite and future interest @12% p.a., in

favour of the Plaintiff. There is no infirmity in the impugned Judgement.

The Appeal is hereby, dismissed.

66. Pending Applications are also disposed of, accordingly.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

JUDGE

JUNE 3, 2026/RS