Pune civil court awards ₹4,800 apron balance despite unproven revised delivery deadline

A civil court in Pune has directed Nikhil Sethi to pay Leena Borkar ₹4,800 outstanding for twelve aprons supplied for his café, rejecting his request to withhold the money as compensation for late delivery. Borkar sought only the balance, and the court awarded no additional damages.

The aprons arrived at 2 p.m. on Friday, after the café’s planned morning opening. But while Borkar failed to prove that the parties had agreed to that revised delivery deadline, the court found that Sethi had not established a specific loss or a contractual basis for keeping the unpaid half of the price.

The decisive evidence on payment was a signed delivery and balance slip. It recorded a total price of ₹9,600, an advance of ₹4,800 and a remaining balance of ₹4,800. Sethi signed beneath the acknowledgment that he had received all twelve aprons. His express acceptance that the balance remained payable further supported Borkar’s claim.

The document had narrower value on timing. It showed when delivery happened, but did not say that delivery was timely or that Sethi had accepted Friday afternoon as a replacement deadline. Neither side independently corroborated its account of the timing agreement. The court therefore found Borkar’s proposed revised deadline unproven, without treating Sethi’s competing version as established.

That uncertainty did not erase the payment obligation. The slip contained no term permitting cancellation or withholding because of delay, and the record established no agreed remedy extinguishing the balance for goods received.

The court also distinguished an assertion of financial harm from proof of a deduction. Sethi supplied no calculation, supporting document or other evidence establishing the amount or nature of his loss. Without that foundation, the court could not assign compensation or set it off against the recorded debt.

Borkar argued that Sethi had agreed to collect the aprons at 2 p.m. on Friday after Thursday evening was first discussed. She relied on the signed slip for delivery and the outstanding balance, while acknowledging that it did not prove timely performance. She offered no separate message or witness confirming a changed deadline.

Sethi maintained that Thursday evening was the agreed time because the café was opening on Friday morning. His side argued that accepting the later delivery avoided further financial harm, rather than excusing the delay. Although he acknowledged the unpaid ₹4,800, he sought to retain it as compensation.

The order concerned twelve aprons costing ₹9,600, with half paid upfront and the rest due on delivery. The dispute arose after stitching ran beyond the initially discussed Thursday-evening collection and all twelve aprons were collected on Friday afternoon.

The judgment leaves the disputed delivery agreement unresolved. Its narrower conclusion is that proof of receipt and an unpaid price supported recovery, while the evidence did not establish either an agreed right to withhold payment or a measurable loss justifying a deduction.