IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF SH. VINOD YADAV, LD.

DISTRICT
JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT), NORTH-WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI
DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM.) NO. 520/ 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S D.R.J PETROCHEM, PVT. LTD. …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

M/S GOYAL CHEMICALS & ANR. …DEFENDANTS

INDEX

S. PARTICULARS PAGE
NO. NO.
1. WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE
DEFENDANT NO. 2 ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT.

2. STATEMENT OF TRUTH OF DEFENDANT NO. 2

ALONGWITH SUPPORTIVE AFFIDAVIT.

3. AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT NO.2

OF THE ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS OF
THE PLAINTIFF.

4. APPLICATION UNDER PROVISO TO ORDER VIII

RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
NO.2 ALONG WITH SUPPORTIVE AFFIDAVIT.
 5. LIST OF DOCUMENTS ALONGWITH DOCUMENTS
ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO. 2.

6. VAKALATNAMA ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.2.

DELHI
DATED: 04/03/2025 DEFENDANT NO.
2

THROUGH

RAJEEV BANSAL, MANSI BANSAL & VIBHOR BHATIA

(ADVOCATES)
FOR ACQUITY LAW ASSOCIATES
303, H-6, AGGARWAL TOWER,
NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE, DELHI – 110034
8377998979
 IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF SH. VINOD YADAV, LD. DISTRICT
JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT), NORTH-WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI
DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM.) NO. 520/ 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S D.R.J PETROCHEM, PVT. LTD. …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

M/S GOYAL CHEMICALS & ANR. …DEFENDANTS

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT NO. 2

ALONGWITH SUPPORTIVE AFFIDAVIT.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

At the very outset, all the contentions, submissions and facts stated in the
plaint are specifically and emphatically denied word by word unless the same
has been admitted by the answering defendant.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS & SUBMISSIONS

A. That the Plaintiff has not provided sufficient legal authorization for
its Authorized Representative (AR) to file and pursue this suit. As
per Order XXIX Rule 1 of the CPC and established legal principles,
an AR must have clear and specific authority to represent a
company or proprietorship in legal proceedings. Simply appointing
someone internally may not be enough unless it meets the legal
 standards required for court representation. Since this requirement
has not been properly fulfilled, the validity of the suit itself comes
into question.

B. That the Plaintiff has failed to provide legally admissible evidence

to establish the alleged outstanding amount. Mere submission of
books of accounts does not, by itself, create any legal liability
against the Defendants. Additionally, no duly acknowledged
statement of account, invoices or other conclusive proof has been
placed on record to substantiate the claim. In the absence of such
essential evidence, the Plaintiff has not demonstrated a valid and
enforceable claim, resulting in a lack of cause of action against the
Defendants.

C. That the Plaintiff has placed reliance on invoices to support its

claim. However, the mere existence of invoices, without any proof
of acceptance, acknowledgment, or corresponding delivery records,
does not automatically create a legal liability on the Defendants. In
the absence of clear evidence demonstrating that the goods were
delivered, received, and accepted by the Defendants, the claim
remains unsubstantiated. Therefore, the Plaintiff has failed to
establish a valid cause of action, and the maintainability of the suit
deserves careful consideration by this Hon’ble Court.
D. That it is respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble Court does not
have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. As per
the tax invoices relied upon by the Plaintiff, the goods were
delivered to the Defendant in Haryana. Since, no part of the cause
of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Court, the Plaintiff cannot invoke jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court
so as to illicitly allow the plaintiff to pick forum as per its whims.
The suit has been wrongly instituted before this Hon’ble Court and
is therefore liable to be dismissed on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction.

E. That the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any contractual

obligation or liability of Defendant No. 2. No legal agreement,
contract, or undertaking exists that makes Defendant No. 2
personally liable for any outstanding dues. The suit is bad in law on
this ground.

F. That it is respectfully submitted that the ledger relied upon by the

Plaintiff contains entries that are not backed by any independent,
verifiable evidence. Mere entries in a self-maintained ledger do not
create a legal obligation against the Defendant, especially in the
absence of proper acknowledgments or supporting documents. The
Plaintiff has not provided any conclusive proof to establish the
correctness of the alleged figures, raising doubts about the
maintainability of the claim.
G. That it is respectfully submitted that the present suit does not fulfill
the mandatory requirements prescribed under the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015. The suit does not comply with the procedural
mandates.

H. That the present suit is also deserves to be rejected under order 7

Rule 11 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 as the plaintiff
fails to disclose any cause of action that has ever arisen against the
answering defendant. It is submitted that in the entire plaint, the
plaintiff has not disclosed any event of the answering defendant,
which arises the liability of the answering defendants towards the
plaintiff.

I. That the present suit is based on wrong, false, concocted and

cooked up facts. The plaintiff by showing its true colours has tried
to mislead this Hon’ble Court for securing the favorable orders on
the basis of torn and twisted facts which are far away from truth,
thus, it is clear that the plaintiff has not approached this Hon’ble
Court with clean hands and has put the wrong facts and
information, hence, same is liable to be dismissed.

In the absence of these essential legal prerequisites, the present

suit is not maintainable as a commercial suit and is merely a tactic
of the plaintiff to extort hard-earned money of the answering
defendant by holding him to ransom with the illicit use of legal
machinery.
REPLY ON MERITS

1. That the contents of para no. 1 of the plaint under reply, as stated, are
denied being incorrect and misconceived. It is specifically denied that the
plaintiff, M/s D.R.J. Petrochem Pvt. Ltd., is duly registered or that it has
the authority to institute the present suit. It is most humbly submitted that
the defendant has no knowledge of the alleged registration and puts the
plaintiff to strict proof thereof. It is further denied that Mr. Deepak Raj
Jindal is duly authorized to represent the plaintiff in this suit, and the
alleged Special Power of Attorney and Board Resolution are also denied
for want of proof.

2. That the contents of para no. 2 of the plaint under reply are denied
downrightly being incorrect, vague and moonshined. It is specifically
denied that the directors of the plaintiff company have duly authorized
Mr. Deepak Raj Jindal to file the present suit or that he is competent to
sign, verify, file, lead evidence, depose, and pursue the present case. The
defendant has no knowledge of any such authorization and puts the
plaintiff to strict proof thereof. It is further denied that the plaintiff is
entitled to recover any alleged amount of ₹19,59,725/- or that any interest
@24% is payable by the defendant. The claim of the plaintiff is baseless
and unsustainable in law.

3. That the contents of para no. 3 of the plaint under reply are admitted to the
extent that Defendant No. 2, Shri Arun Goyal, is running, operating, and
 managing Defendant No. 1, M/s Goyal Chemicals. However, it is
specifically denied that Defendant No. 1 has been dealing with the
plaintiff for many years, as alleged. It is also denied that both defendants
are proper and necessary parties to the present suit. The plaintiff is to be
put under strict proof of the alleged dealings and transactions between the
parties.

4. That the contents of para no. 4 under reply, need no reply being matter of
record.

5. That the contents of para no. 5 of the plaint under reply are denied
vehemently, being incorrect and misconceived, except to the extent that
the plaintiff is engaged in the trade of chemicals. However, it is
specifically denied that the plaintiff has been carrying on its business for
decades. As per available records, the plaintiff company was incorporated
in the year 2017, and therefore, the claim of decades-long business
operations is false and misleading. The alleged goodwill, reputation, and
business ethics of the plaintiff are also denied for want of proof.

6. That the contents of para no. 6 of the plaint under reply are the matter of
record and require no specific denial. It is submitted that the plaintiff may
have been conducting its business transactions under the name and style
of M/s D.R.J. Petrochem Pvt. Ltd.; however, the same does not confer any
right upon the plaintiff to make false and baseless claims against the
defendants.
7. That the contents of para no. 7 of the plaint are denied for want of
knowledge. It is categorically denied that the plaintiff is registered with
the GST authorities vide GST registration no. 07AAGCD1167J1ZM. It is
submitted that he defendant has no personal knowledge of the plaintiff's
alleged GST registration. Mere annexation of documents does not
establish the correctness, validity, sanctity, or applicability of the
plaintiff’s claims in the present suit.

8. That the contents of para no. 8 of the plaint under reply are denied being
incorrect and misleading, to the extent that they claim an outstanding
liability against the defendants. It is admitted that transactions took place
between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1, and the plaintiff had raised
invoices for the supply of chemicals. However, the details and amounts
mentioned by the plaintiff in tabular form are denied being exaggerated
and incorrect. The defendants have already made payments against all
valid transactions, and no outstanding balance exists as alleged. Mere
annexation of sale invoices and E-way bills does not establish the
authenticity of transactions, nor does it confirm any liability of the
defendants. It is specifically denied that non-rejection of invoices or E-
way bills on the GST portal implies their acceptance or an
acknowledgment of liability. The GST system is a mechanism for tax
compliance and does not create a binding financial obligation. Mere non-
objection on the GST portal does not establish that the amount claimed by
the plaintiff was due or payable by the defendants. It is also denied that
the alleged claim of input tax credit (ITC) by the defendants, if any,
 confirms the outstanding balance. The plaintiff is liable to be put under
strict proof regarding the alleged transactions, payments, and any claim of
outstanding amounts against the defendants.

9. That the contents of para no. 9 of the plaint under reply are denied
fervently being false, baseless, and misleading. The defendants have duly
made all payments for the transactions conducted with the plaintiff, and
there is no outstanding amount of Rs. 19,59,725/- (Nineteen Lakh Fifty-
Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-Five Rupees Only) as alleged.
The claim that the defendants stopped making payments after 31.03.2023
is incorrect and denied. The defendants have made entire due payments
and no legally enforceable debt remains. It is further denied that the
defendants are liable to pay any interest, let alone interest at the exorbitant
rate of 24% per annum. No agreement, contract, or understanding exists
between the parties that would entitle the plaintiff to claim such an
amount. The present claim is frivolous, without any legal standing, and is
liable to be rejected.

10.That the contents of para no. 10 of the plaint under are denied stringently
being concocted, misleading and untrue. It is specifically denied that the
defendant failed to make full payments for the goods supplied. The
defendants have duly made all payments as per the transactions, and no
outstanding balance remains. The plaintiff’s claim regarding non-payment
is baseless and not supported by any valid proof. The plaintiff is put to
strict proof of any alleged dues. It is further denied that the plaintiff is
 entitled to any interest at the rate of 24% per annum, as no agreement or
contractual obligation exists imposing such liability on the defendants.

11.That the contents of para no. 11 of the plaint under reply are denied
downrightly being false, fabricated, and moonshined. It is specifically
denied that an amount of Rs. 19,59,725/- (Nineteen Lakh Fifty-Nine
Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-Five Rupees Only) is outstanding or
due to the plaintiff. The defendants have made all due payments, and no
legally enforceable liability remains. The alleged accounts maintained by
the plaintiff are not admitted, and the plaintiff is to be put under strict
proof for the same. It is further denied that the plaintiff is entitled to
interest at the exorbitant rate of 24% per annum, as there exists no
agreement or contractual obligation imposing such liability on the
defendants.

12.That the contents of para no. 12 of the plaint under reply are denied
sternly being false, frivolous and concocted. It is specifically denied that
the goods supplied by the plaintiff were always to the satisfaction of the
defendants. In fact, there were multiple instances where the defendant
raised complaints regarding the quality and quantity of the goods
supplied. Despite these issues, the defendants remained cooperative and
engaged with the plaintiff in good faith. It is further denied that the mere
issuance of invoices and compliance with GST provisions establishes any
outstanding liability. It is most humbly reiterated that the defendants have
made all due payments.
13.That the contents of para no. 13 of the plaint under reply are denied
downrightly being fabricated, baseless, and misleading. It is specifically
denied that any principal outstanding amount or interest at the rate of 24%
per annum remains unpaid. The defendants have made all due payments
for the goods supplied and have never given any assurances regarding any
alleged outstanding amount. The claim that payments were delayed on
one pretext or another is denied in its entirety. Furthermore, it is
recapitulated that no agreement or contractual obligation exists that binds
the defendants to pay interest at the exorbitant rate of 24% per annum.

14.That the contents of para no. 14 of the plaint under reply are denied
categorically being untrue, false and frivolous. It is specifically denied
that plaintiff in his due course of business is maintaining books of
accounts. It is also downrightly denied that Plaintiff is maintaining a
running account of M/s D.R.J. Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. in the books of
account a sum of Rs.19,59,725/- (Nineteen Lakh Fifty-Nine Thousand
Seven Hundred twenty five Rupees Only) is still payable by the
Defendants to the Plaintiff towards the principal amount against the sale
of goods. It is most humbly submitted that the plaintiff’s books of
accounts do not establish any liability on the defendants. Mere
maintenance of books of accounts does not create any legal obligation on
the defendants to make payments that are not legally payable and due.
The alleged outstanding amount of Rs. 19,59,725/- (Nineteen Lakh Fifty-
Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-Five Rupees Only) is
categorically denied. It is restated that the defendants have made all due
payments.
15.That the contents of para no. 15 of the plaint under reply are denied
stringently being false, frivolous, and moonshined. It is specifically
denied that the defendants have any liability towards the plaintiff for an
alleged outstanding amount of Rs. 19,59,725/- (Nineteen Lakh Fifty-Nine
Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-Five Rupees Only). The mere issuance
of invoices by the plaintiff does not establish any liability on the
defendants, as invoices are unilateral documents prepared by the seller
and do not constitute conclusive proof of any outstanding dues. It is
further denied that the defendants have ever accepted or acknowledged
any liability arising out of the invoices. The defendants have made all the
due payments, and at no point did they admit any balance as outstanding
and also neither there is any acceptance of the defendant on the invoices
placed on record, nor has the plaintiff, relied on any document that
fortifies the acceptance on the part of defendant.

16.That the contents of para no. 16 of the plaint under reply are denied
categorically, being false, baseless, and deceptive. It is specifically denied
that any amount of Rs. 19,59,725/- (Nineteen Lakh Fifty-Nine Thousand
Seven Hundred Twenty-Five Rupees Only) is outstanding towards the
plaintiff. The claim for interest at the rate of 24% per annum is also
denied, as no such liability arises against the defendants. It is most
humbly submitted that mere mentioning of interest in the invoices, that
are unilaterally issued by the plaintiff does not create any enforceable
obligation upon the defendants.
17.That the contents of para no. 17 of the plaint under reply are denied
vehemently being false, fabricated and moonshined. It is specifically
denied that the plaintiff ever made any legitimate requests for the alleged
outstanding payment or that any such amount of Rs. 19,59,725/-
(Nineteen Lakh Fifty-Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-Five
Rupees Only) is due towards the plaintiff. The defendants have already
made all due payments, and no amount remains outstanding. Any alleged
oral or telephonic requests made by the plaintiff are baseless and
unsubstantiated. The present suit is nothing but an attempt to unjustly
extort an amount that is not at all payable by the defendants.

18.That the contents of para no. 18 of the plaint under reply are denied
stringently being untue, baseless, and incorrect. It is specifically denied
that the plaintiff made any legitimate attempts to contact the defendants
regarding any alleged outstanding amount. It is further denied that the
defendants have any liability towards the plaintiff for Rs. 19,59,725/-
(Nineteen Lakh Fifty-Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-Five
Rupees Only) or any interest thereon. It is reiterated that the defendants
have made all genuinely due payments, and no amount remains due. The
claim for recovery and interest is entirely frivolous and without any legal
or factual basis, which makes it entirely vexatious and bogus.

19.That the contents of para no. 19 of the plaint under reply are denied
downrightly being false, fabricated and incorrect. It is denied that any
legal notice dated 22.01.2024 was duly served upon the defendants. It is
most humbly submitted that mere assertion of sending a notice does not
 establish its actual receipt or the correctness of the claims made therein. It
is further denied that the defendants failed to respond or make any
payment, as no amount was due or payable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is
to be put under strict proof regarding the alleged service of notice, and the
claims made therein are baseless and denied in their entirety.

20.That the contents of para no. 20 of the plaint under reply are denied
sternly being false, untrue and incorrect. It is denied that the Plaintiff filed
any valid application for Pre-Institution Mediation before the Rohini
District Legal Services Authority on 15.03.2024, as alleged. It is
submitted that mere filing of such an application does not establish the
correctness of the claims made by the Plaintiff. It is most humbly
submitted that the Defendants were not duly informed of any such
mediation process.

21.That the contents of para no. 21 of the plaint under reply are denied
outrightly being false, moonshined, and incorrect. It is specifically denied
that the Defendants failed to appear before the Rohini District Legal
Services Authority from 15.03.2024 to 24.04.2024. It is further denied
that any Certificate of Non-Starter Report dated 24.04.2024 was validly
issued against the Defendants. It is most humbly put forth before this
Hon’ble Court that the Defendants were never served with any notice
regarding the alleged mediation proceedings, and therefore, the question
of their appearance does not arise.
22.The contents of para no. 22 of the plaint under reply are denied
categorically being false, frivolous, and baseless. It is specifically denied
that the Defendants deceived, fraudulently or dishonestly induced, or
intentionally deceived the Plaintiff in order to cheat or break any trust. It
is submitted that the allegations made in this instant paragraph under reply
are vague, unsubstantiated, and merely an attempt to give a supposed civil
dispute the color of a grave illicit act.

23.The contents of para no. 23 of the plaint under reply are also denied
fervently being false, fabricated and incorrect. It is specifically denied that
the Defendants are liable to pay any interest at the rate of 24% per annum
or that such an interest rate was ever agreed upon. It is further denied that
any such interest was ever payable as per trade, custom, or market usage.
The claim for an outstanding principal amount of Rs. 19,59,725/- is also
denied as no such liability exists. The Defendants have cleared all genuine
dues, and the Plaintiff’s claim is unfounded, baseless and speculative.

24.The contents of para no. 24 of the plaint under reply are denied
vehemently being incorrect, moonshined and misleading. While
transactions took place between the parties, it is specifically denied that
the cause of action arose in the manner alleged by the Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff has incorrectly claimed that the goods were supplied as per the
demand and satisfaction of the Defendants, whereas in reality, multiple
complaints were raised regarding the quality and quantity of the goods
supplied. Despite this, the Plaintiff has failed to address the concerns
raised by the Defendants. It is further denied that any amount of Rs.
 19,59,725/- remains outstanding or payable by the Defendants. The
Plaintiff has falsely alleged that the Defendants refused to make payments
when, in fact, payments were duly made as per the genuine transactions.
The assertion that the Plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 22.01.2024 and
that the Defendants received such notice on 24.01.2024 is also denied. It
is most humbly stated that since, no legal notice was received, the claim
of a continuing cause of action is baseless and incorrect. It is pertinent to
mention here that the Defendants deny all allegations of non-payment and
dispute the claim that any liability exists. The present suit has been filed
with incorrect assertions and is not maintainable in law or fact. All the
contentions stated in Paragraph 24 of the plaint are denied in to-to.

25.The contents of para no. 25 of the plaint under reply are denied
downrightly being false, frivolous and misleading. The Defendants
specifically deny that the present suit has been filed within the period of
limitation, as alleged. It is further denied that any Pre-Institution
Mediation took place between 15.03.2024 to 24.04.2024, as no valid
notice was ever received by the Defendants. It is submitted that since, the
Defendants were never served with any such notice, the claim that a Non-
Starter Report dated 24.04.2024 was issued and is annexed with the suit,
holds no merit.

26.The contents of para no. 26 of the plaint under reply are denied
categorically being incorrect, untrue and misleading. The Defendants have
no knowledge of any other litigation between the parties apart from the
present suit. Since, the plaintiff claims that it served a legal notice and
 pre-institution mediation notice, but in reality, they were never received
by the defendants; in the same way, defendant no. 2 doesn’t knows what
all frivolous legal discourses have been initiated by the plaintiff, merely to
persecute the defendants and extort money from them. However, the
Plaintiff is to be put under strict proof of the same.

27.The contents of para no. 27 of the plaint under reply are denied stringently
being false, incorrect, and misconceived. It is specifically denied that this
Hon’ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the
present suit. It is denied that the Proprietor of M/s Goyal Chemicals
approached the Plaintiff at its business premises in Wazirpur Industrial
Area, Delhi, for the purchase of chemicals or that any such agreement
regarding payment of bills was made in Delhi. It is denied that the
chemicals were supplied from the Plaintiff’s premises in Delhi. The
Defendants categorically state that the goods were delivered to the
Defendant in Haryana, and therefore, the jurisdiction lies with the
appropriate court in Haryana and not in Delhi. It is further denied that the
terms and conditions mentioned on the invoices confer jurisdiction upon
this Hon’ble Court, as the mere mentioning of a jurisdiction clause on an
invoice does not override the principles of territorial jurisdiction
established under the law.

28.The contents of para no. 28 of the plaint under reply are denied
downrightly being false, fabricated, incorrect, and misconceived. It is
denied that the valuation of the present suit for the purpose of court fees
and pecuniary jurisdiction has been correctly assessed.
 29.The contents of para no. 29 of the plaint under reply are denied
categorically being false and incorrect. Reply to para no. 26 may kindly
be read as reply to this instant para and the same is not repeated for the
sake of brevity.

PRAYER

In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it is, therefore,

most respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may graciously be
pleased to:

i. Dismiss the present suit filed by the Plaintiff as being devoid of merit,
frivolous, and not maintainable in law and facts;

ii. Hold that this Hon’ble Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain and try the
present suit, as the goods were delivered to the Defendant in Haryana,
and the cause of action, if any, arose within the jurisdiction of the
appropriate court in Haryana;

iii. Reject the Plaintiff’s claim for recovery of Rs. 19,59,725/- (Nineteen
Lakh Fifty-Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-Five Rupees Only)
as there exists no legally enforceable debt or liability against the
Defendants;
 iv. Deny the Plaintiff’s claim for interest at the rate of 24% per annum, as
the same is arbitrary, excessive, and lacks any contractual or legal
basis;

v. Award costs of the present proceedings in favour of the Defendants and

against the Plaintiff for instituting a false and baseless claim;

vi. Grant any other relief(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper
in the interest of justice.

DELHI
DATED: 04/03/2025 DEFENDANT NO.
2

THROUGH

RAJEEV BANSAL, MANSI BANSAL & VIBHOR BHATIA

(ADVOCATES)
FOR ACQUITY LAW ASSOCIATES
303, H-6, AGGARWAL TOWER,
NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE, DELHI – 110034
8377998979

VERIFICATION
Verified at Delhi on the day of March, 2025 that the contents of para no. 1
to 29 are reply on merits and Para A to I of the reply are preliminary objections
& submissions of the suit under reply and are true as the information supplied
and believed to be correct. Last para is a prayer clause to this Hon’ble Court.

DEFENDANT NO. 2

IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF SH. VINOD YADAV, LD. DISTRICT

JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT), NORTH-WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI
DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM.) NO. 520/ 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S D.R.J PETROCHEM, PVT. LTD. …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

M/S GOYAL CHEMICALS & ANR. …DEFENDANTS

 AFFIDAVIT

I, Arun Goyal, proprietor of M/s Goyal Chemicals, having its office at

4669-A, Ground Floor, Gali No. 16, Jai Mata Market, Tri Nagar, Delhi –
110035 do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am Defendant no. 2 and the proprietor of Defendant No.1 in the

above-mentioned case, well conversant with the facts and circumstances
of the case, and competent to swear this affidavit before this Hon'ble
Court.

2. The contents of the accompanying Written Statement have been drafted

by my counsel under my instructions. The contents of the same have been
read over and explained to me in vernacular, which I have understood and
found to be true and correct to my knowledge and belief.

3. The contents of the accompanying Written Statement may kindly be read

as part and parcel of this affidavit, as the same are not repeated herein for
the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at Delhi on this ____ day of March, 2025, that the contents of my
above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is false, and
nothing material has been concealed therein.
 DEPONENT

IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF SH. VINOD YADAV, LD. DISTRICT

JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT), NORTH-WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI
DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM.) NO. 520/ 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S D.R.J PETROCHEM, PVT. LTD. …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

M/S GOYAL CHEMICALS & ANR. …DEFENDANTS

 STATEMENT OF TRUTH
(UNDER FIRST SCHEDULE, ORDER VI- RULE 15A AND ORDER XI
RULE 3)

I, Arun Goyal, proprietor of M/s Goyal Chemicals, having office at 4669-A,

Ground Floor, Gali No. 16, Jai Mata Market, Tri Nagar, Delhi – 110035, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. I am competent to swear the present affidavit as I am the Deponent in the

above-captioned case, and the accompanying Written Statement has been
drafted by the Defendant(s)’ counsel on my instructions.

2. I am duly conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and
have also examined all relevant documents and records in relation
thereto.

3. I say that the statements made in para no. - A to I of Preliminary

Objections & Submissions are true and correct based on my personal
knowledge, the information supplied from the records of the case, and
legal advice tendered by my counsel, and the statements made in para no.
1 to 29 of the reply are true and correct based on my personal knowledge
and on the legal advice received and believed by me to be
true.

4. I say that there is no false statement or concealment of any material fact,

document, or record, and I have included information that is, according to
me, relevant for the present
 suit.

5. I say that all documents in my power, possession, control, or custody,

pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the proceedings initiated
against me, have been disclosed, and original/copies thereof annexed with
the Written Statement, and that I do not have any other documents in my
power, possession, control, or
custody.

6. I say that the above-mentioned pleadings comprise a total of 20 pages,

each of which has been signed by
me.

7. I say that the annexures hereto are the original or true copies of the
documents referred to and relied upon by the
deponent.

8. I say that the deponent is aware that for any false statement or
concealment, the deponent shall be liable for action taken against the
deponent under the law for the time being in
force.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at Delhi on this ____ day of March, 2025, that the contents of my
above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is false, and
nothing material has been concealed therein.

DEPONENT

IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF SH. VINOD YADAV, LD. DISTRICT

JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT), NORTH-WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI
DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM.) NO. 520/ 2024
 IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S D.R.J PETROCHEM, PVT. LTD. …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

M/S GOYAL CHEMICALS & ANR. …DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.1 REGARDING

ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF

I, Arun Goyal, proprietor of M/s Goyal Chemicals, having office at 4669-A,

Ground Floor, Gali No. 16, Jai Mata Market, Tri Nagar, Delhi – 110035, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am Defendant No.2 in the above-noted case and am well

conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. As such, I am
competent to swear this affidavit of admission and denial of documents
filed by the Plaintiff.

2. I hereby admit/deny the documents as follows:

S. No. PARTIC CORREC EXISTE EXECU ISSUAN CUSTODY OF

ULARS TNESS OF NCE OF TION CE OR DOCUMENT/
CONTENT DOCUM OF RECEIP REASONING
S OF ENT DOCUM T OF
DOCUME ENT DOCUM
NT ENT
1. Legal DENIED DENIED DENIED SUPPOSE The Defendant has
Notice DLY never received the
dated ISSUED alleged notice in the
22.01.202 BY manner claimed by the
4 PLAINTI Plaintiff. Mere issuance
FF of a notice does not
 establish delivery or its
legal effect.

2. Speed DENIED DENIED DENIED PLAINTI The Defendant has no

Post and FF knowledge of these
Courier receipts, and their mere
Receipts existence does not prove
that the notice was
actually received by the
Defendant.

3. Tracking DENIED DENIED DENIED PLAINTI The tracking reports do

Reports FF not conclusively
of Speed establish that the
Post and documents were served
Courier upon the Defendant or
that they were received
by an authorized
representative.

4. GST ADMITTE ADMITT ADMITT DEFEND The Defendant does not

Registrati D ED ED ANT dispute the existence of
on the Plaintiff’s GST
Certificat registration but states
e of that this document is
Proprieto irrelevant to the present
rship dispute.
Concern
of
Plaintiff
5. Invoices DENIED DENIED DENIED SUPPOSE The invoices and e-way
along DLY bills do not reflect any
with E- ISSUED legally enforceable
Way BY liability of the
Bills PLAINTI Defendant. The Plaintiff
 FF has failed to establish
that these invoices were
accepted,
acknowledged, or acted
upon by the Defendant.

6. Board DENIED DENIED DENIED PLAINTI The Defendant is not

Resolutio FF privy to the internal
n of resolutions of the
Plaintiff Plaintiff, and the same is
not binding upon the
Defendant. The Plaintiff
must prove its relevance
to this case.

7. Authoriza DENIED DENIED DENIED PLAINTI The Plaintiff has not

tion FF demonstrated that this
Letter authorization letter was
issued with proper
authority or is relevant
to the alleged
transactions with the
Defendant.

8. Special DENIED DENIED DENIED PLAINTI The Defendant has no

Power of FF knowledge of the SPA
Attorney and disputes its validity
(SPA) concerning the present
dispute. The Plaintiff
must prove its execution
and legal enforceability.

9. Ledger DENIED DENIED DENIED PLAINTI The Plaintiff’s ledger

Account/ FF entries are unilateral and
Statement self-serving, and they do
of not establish any legally
 Account enforceable claim
against the Defendant.

10. Original DENIED DENIED DENIED PLAINTI The Defendant denies

Non- FF the existence and
Starter validity of this
Report document. The Plaintiff
has not demonstrated its
relevance or how it
affects the claims in the
suit.

11. Certificat DENIED DENIED DENIED PLAINTI The Plaintiff has not
e u/s 65B FF established any proof of
Sale delivery, acceptance, or
Invoices acknowledgment of
these invoices by the
Defendant.

12. E-MOA DENIED DENIED DENIED PLAINTI The Defendant has no

(Electroni FF privity with the
c Plaintiff’s MOA, and it
Memoran is irrelevant to the
dum of present dispute.
Associati
on)

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Verified at Delhi on this ______ day of March, 2025, that the statements made
above are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is false, and nothing
material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF SH. VINOD YADAV, LD. DISTRICT

JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT), NORTH-WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI
DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM.) NO. 520/ 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S D.R.J PETROCHEM, PVT. LTD. …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

M/S GOYAL CHEMICALS & ANR. …DEFENDANTS

APPLICATION UNDER PROVISO TO ORDER VIII RULE 1 OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 FOR CONDONATION OF
DELAY IN FILING OF WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF
DEFENDANT NO.2 ALONG WITH SUPPORTIVE AFFIDAVIT.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the above-mentioned case is pending adjudication before this

Hon’ble Court and the same is now fixed for 17.03.2025.

2. That the Plaintiff has preferred the above-mentioned plaint for recovery of
money to the tune of Rs. 19,59,725/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh Fifty-Nine
Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-Five Only) along with interest against
the Defendants, which is pending sub-judice.

3. That the clear and legible copy of the present plaint was received on
26/11/2024 by the counsel for Defendants.

4. That the delay in filing the Written Statement was due to the time taken
by the Defendant no. 2 in gathering all relevant data, records, and
information essential for the present case. Upon receiving a clear and
legible copy of the instant case, the Defendant no. 2 had to retrieve and
reconcile documents from its office in Haryana, as the transaction
between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 took place and was executed
there. The process of collecting, verifying, and organizing these records
required a substantial amount of time. Furthermore, after compiling all the
 necessary data, the Defendant approached its counsel for briefing,
discussion, and preparation of the Written Statement, which further
contributed to the delay. The delay was purely unintentional and arose
solely due to the need for ensuring a thorough and well-prepared
response.

5. That the answering Defendant has filed the present Written Statement on
the 100th day from the date of receiving the summons in the present case.
Thus, there is an unintentional delay of 70 days in filing the Written
Statement.

6. That the Defendants have a strong case in their favor, and grave prejudice
will be caused to them if the present application is not allowed.

PRAYER

In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed

that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present application
and condone the delay of 70 days, thereby taking the Written Statement on
record, in the interest of justice.

Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also
be granted in favor of the Defendants.

DELHI
DATED: 04/03/2025 DEFENDANT NO.
2

THROUGH

RAJEEV BANSAL, MANSI BANSAL & VIBHOR BHATIA

(ADVOCATES)
FOR ACQUITY LAW ASSOCIATES
303, H-6, AGGARWAL TOWER,
NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE, DELHI – 110034
8377998979

IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF SH. VINOD YADAV, LD. DISTRICT

JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT), NORTH-WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI
DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM.) NO. 520/ 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S D.R.J PETROCHEM, PVT. LTD. …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

M/S GOYAL CHEMICALS & ANR. …DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT
 I, Arun Goyal, proprietor of M/s Goyal Chemicals, having its office at
4669-A, Ground Floor, Gali No. 16, Jai Mata Market, Tri Nagar, Delhi –
110035 do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am Defendant no. 2 and the proprietor of Defendant No.1 in the

above-mentioned case, well conversant with the facts and circumstances
of the case, and competent to swear this affidavit before this Hon'ble
Court.

2. The contents of the accompanying application have been drafted by my

counsel under my instructions. The contents of the same have been read
over and explained to me in vernacular, which I have understood and
found to be true and correct to my knowledge and belief.

3. The contents of the accompanying application may kindly be read as part

and parcel of this affidavit, as the same are not repeated herein for the
sake of brevity.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at Delhi on this ____ day of March, 2025, that the contents of my
above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is false, and
nothing material has been concealed therein.
 DEPONENT

IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF SH. VINOD YADAV, LD. DISTRICT

JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT), NORTH-WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI
DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM.) NO. 520/ 2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/S D.R.J PETROCHEM, PVT. LTD. …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
M/S GOYAL CHEMICALS & ANR. …DEFENDANTS
LIST OF DOCUMENTS ALONGWITH DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
DEFENDANT NO. 2.

S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. COPY OF AADHAAR CARD OF

DEFENDANT NO. 2.

DELHI
DATED: 04/03/2025 DEFENDANT NO.
2

THROUGH

RAJEEV BANSAL, MANSI BANSAL & VIBHOR BHATIA

(ADVOCATES)
FOR ACQUITY LAW ASSOCIATES
303, H-6, AGGARWAL TOWER,
NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE, DELHI – 110034
8377998979