Burden to prove delivery of goods shifts to defendant upon undisputed proof of advance payment.

The Respondent (Plaintiff) filed a commercial recovery suit for ₹38,73,000/- against the Appellants, who are the legal heirs of Late Mr. Mohammad Shahid

The Respondent claimed he paid ₹30 lakhs as an advance in 2020 via RTGS for cloth supplies that were never delivered

The Appellants admitted receipt of the money but contended that goods worth ₹29,98,538/- were supplied between March 21 and March 28, 2021, supported by a ledger entry (Ex. DW-1/1) showing a nominal credit balance of ₹1,462/-

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Respondent, holding that the Appellants failed to prove the actual delivery of goods. The Appellants challenged this, arguing the Trial Court wrongly shifted the burden of proof onto them to prove delivery

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in shifting the onus of proof upon the Appellants (Defendants) to prove the delivery of goods when the Respondent (Plaintiff) asserted non-delivery

2. Whether the ledger entries (Ex. DW-1/1) without accompanying invoices or GST filings constitute sufficient evidence of discharge of liability

3. Whether the Respondent was entitled to pre-suit interest at the rate of 18% per annum

Section 104 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act), which stipulates that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence

While the plaintiff must prove their case, once a payment is admitted and a specific defense of "discharge of liability via supply" is taken, the burden of proving that affirmative defense shifts to the defendant

Rule 1 of Order XLI of the CPC and Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 regarding appellate jurisdiction

The Court reasoned that since the Appellants admitted receiving ₹30 lakhs, the burden of proving that this liability was discharged through the supply of goods rested squarely on them

The Appellants failed to produce any invoices, delivery challans, or transport receipts for the eight purported transactions in March 2021

The Respondent effectively proved a "negative" by summoning a GST Inspector (PW-3), who testified that the deceased’s firm had not reported any sales for March 2021 in its GSTR-1 returns, despite having reported all prior transactions

The testimony of the defense witness (DW-2) was deemed unreliable as he could not confirm delivery details or explain why records were missing

The Court concluded that a mere ledger entry, unsupported by statutory filings or primary documents of delivery, does not satisfy the evidentiary requirement to prove the sale of goods in a commercial dispute

The court modified the decree regarding interest: the pre-suit interest was reduced from 18% to 9% per annum and restricted to the period from the date of the first legal notice (06.12.2021) until the filing of the suit. The pendente lite and future interest at 9% per annum on the principal amount was upheld and the appeal was dismissed with these modifications