On a winter afternoon at Rohini Courts, a long-running commercial dispute over a petrol pump investment finally reached closure. The Commercial Court held Bakshi Enterprises liable to refund ₹50 lakh to Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., finding that the money was paid for partnership induction and not for diesel purchases, as claimed by the defence. The judgment was delivered by the Commercial Court at Delhi District Court after detailed hearings and a close look at bank records, witness testimony, and missing paperwork.
Background
The case dates back to November 2019, when Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. transferred ₹50 lakh through RTGS to Bakshi Enterprises. According to the plaintiff, the amount was paid after repeated assurances that it would be inducted as a 50% partner in a petrol pump at Rohini–Mangolpuri, with future stakes promised in two other outlets.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Ends Criminal Case Over Family Land Mutation: Cheating, Forgery Charges Found Unsustainable
The defendants, on the other hand, painted a different picture. They argued that the money was merely an advance for diesel purchases made during routine business dealings with late Usha Bakshi, who managed the pump at the time. Two undated cheques of ₹25 lakh each, signed by her, were described as “security cheques,” not repayment instruments.
When no partnership deed emerged and no refund followed, Times Infrastructure approached the court seeking recovery with interest, alleging it had been taken for a ride.
Court’s Observations
The court noted upfront that one fact was not in dispute: Bakshi Enterprises admitted receiving the ₹50 lakh through banking channels. Once that admission was on record, the burden shifted. “The defendants were required to show that the amount was not towards partnership consideration,” the bench observed, adding that bare assertions would not suffice.
Read also:- Delhi Metro Advertising Contract Dispute: High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award for Missing Core Findings
On the diesel-sale defence, the court was plainly unconvinced. No delivery challans, transport records, stock registers, or acknowledgments from the plaintiff were produced. Cash memos and ledger extracts relied upon by the defence failed basic evidentiary tests. The judge remarked that these documents were not proved by their author and remained unsupported by any receiving.
The cheques, though never presented during Usha Bakshi’s lifetime, also played a role. The court recorded that the signatures appeared to be hers and that no expert evidence was led to dispute them. “The explanation that the cheques were mere security remains unsubstantiated,” the court said, pointing out that even a security cheque usually aligns with some proved underlying transaction.
Equally important was the court’s view on credibility. The defence witness admitted she had no direct knowledge of the alleged diesel supplies and relied on what she had been told. Such testimony, the court held, was hearsay and could not rebut consistent bank records and oral evidence led by the plaintiff.
Decision
In its final order, the Commercial Court decreed recovery of ₹50,00,000 in favour of Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., holding that the payment was made towards induction as a partner and that the defendants failed to prove any alternative explanation. The court awarded interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit until realisation and held the defendants jointly and severally liable, bringing the dispute to a close at the trial court level.
Case Title: Times Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs Bakshi Enterprises & Ors.
Case No.: CS (Comm.) 739/2022
Case Type: Commercial Suit for Recovery of Money
Decision Date: 18 December 2025
