Commercial counter-claim and proof of goods delivery can rest on e-way bills, GST returns, and corroborative conduct.

A commercial counter-claim arising from the same transaction as the original suit did not require a fresh round of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, because repeated mediation would undermine expeditious disposal and pre-litigation mediation had already been invoked. The court also treated delivery of goods and the counter-claim as proved on a combined reading of e-way bills, GST returns, bank records, witness evidence, and contemporaneous WhatsApp messages, with the absence of rebuttal evidence and timely rejection of e-way bill details supporting the respondent's case. The recovery claim therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a counter-claim in a commercial suit required fresh pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015; (ii) whether the respondent proved the counter-claim and delivery of goods against the disputed invoices by relying on e-way bills, GST returns, account evidence, WhatsApp chats, and surrounding circumstances.

Issue (i): whether a counter-claim in a commercial suit required fresh pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Analysis: Commercial disputes fall within the mediation framework under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Commercial Courts (Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement) Rules, 2018. The dispute between the parties arose from the same commercial transaction matrix, and the counter-claim was integrally connected with the original claim. The record also showed that pre-litigation mediation had already been invoked by the appellant, and the appellant had earlier conceded before the Commercial Court that fresh mediation was not required for the counter-claim. Requiring a second mediation round for the same dispute would defeat the statutory objective of speedy commercial adjudication.

Conclusion: Fresh pre-institution mediation for the counter-claim was not required, and the objection against maintainability failed.

Issue (ii): whether the respondent proved the counter-claim and delivery of goods against the disputed invoices by relying on e-way bills, GST returns, account evidence, WhatsApp chats, and surrounding circumstances.

Analysis: The respondent did not rely on account entries alone. It produced invoice records, e-way bills, GST returns, bank statements, witness testimony, and material showing contemporaneous business dealings. Rule 138(11) and Rule 138(12) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 were relied upon to hold that failure to reject the e-way bill details within the prescribed time supported deemed acceptance. The appellant did not lead rebuttal evidence, did not produce credible GST material to show rejection of the goods, and offered no satisfactory explanation against the documentary and oral evidence. The court also drew support from the conduct reflected in the WhatsApp messages and the absence of effective denial of the parallel supply transactions.

Conclusion: The respondent proved its counter-claim and the appellant failed to prove its recovery claim.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge to the dismissal of the recovery suit and the decree on the counter-claim did not succeed, and the trial court's findings were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a commercial dispute, a counter-claim arising from the same transaction need not undergo a second round of pre-institution mediation where the statutory object of expeditious disposal would be defeated, and delivery of goods may be proved by a combination of e-way bills, GST returns, account evidence, and corroborative conduct, not by books of account alone.

---