Entries in books of account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant under Section 34 of the Evidence Act, but they are not sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability without something more.

P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, J.

( 1 ) RESPONDENT-COMPANY filed OS No. 667 of 1984 which was renumbered as OS No. 193 of 1985 on the file of the IV Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,55,639,70 Ps. with subsequent interest being the balance amount due and payable by the defendants as per their accounts towards the value of the cement supplied. Defendant No. l is a Partnership firm, of which the second defendant is the Managing Partner, while defendants 3 and 4 arc partners. First defendant-Firm applied for dealership of the Plaintiff-Company and the company appointed the first defendant as its authorised stockist for Charminar, Mir Alam Mandi in June, 1988 and the business of supply of cement by the plaintiff-Company to the first defendant-Finn was carried on from June 198 3/12/1983. The plaintiff-Company also appointed the first defendant-Firm as its distributor for twin cities and Ranga Reddy district as per its letter dated 10-6-1983. The plaintiff- Company used to supply cement to the first defendant-Finn and the first defendant-Firm used to clear the bills from time to time. The plaintiff-Company in all despatched cement to the value of Rs. 24,57,712. 00 after giving credit to the payments made by the first defendant-Finn, the first defendant-Finn lias to pay Rs. 9,81,317. 00 to the plaintiff- Company. The plaintiff - Company demanded payment of the said sum through number of letters and the second defendant also held discussions with the Commercial Manager and the General Manager of the plaintiff - Company. Curiously defendants came up with a story that in the supply of cement there were some diversions and the cement supplied was of inferior quality, and hence, they paid compensation to those persons to whom cement supplies were made. Pending finalisation of the accounts, second defendant has agreed to deliver back 4,000 bags of cement to the plaintiff-Company, but finally returned only four tracks of cement on 28-3-1984. Second defendant and the representatives of the plaintiff-Company held a conference wherein certain understanding was reached, but the second defendant went away without signing the minutes. Hence the plaintiff-Company got issued illegal notice, for which a contentious reply was sent by the defendants. Hence the suit.

( 2 ) IN the written statement filed by the first defendant which was adopted by defendants 2 and 3, it is stated that the plaint as signed by Mr. M. Madhusudhan Rao is not in accordance with law. It is admitted that the first defendant was appointed as a dealer in cement for twin cities and Ranga Reddy district in terms of the letter dated 6-10-1983. They denied that the plaintiff - Company supplied stock worth Rs. 24,57,766. 00. They have received only stock worth Rs. 21,19,962. 00as per their books of account- The first defendant-Firm also paid to the plaintiff-Company a sum of Rs. 13,51,560. 00. As the plaintiff-Company made supplies of stock directly to Safari Complex Company worth Rs. 15,000. 00; Rs. 35,280. 00 and Rs. 6,200. 00 which are diversions made by the plaintiff-Company, for which first defendant-Firm is not liable. First defendant-Finn is also entitled to Rs. 0-75 Ps. Commission which as per the letter of appointment dated 6-10-1983 comes to Rs. 40,912-50 Ps. The first defendant-Finn is also entitled to a rebate of Rs. 2. 00 which also comes to Rs. 71,380. 00, It is also stated that the quality of cement supplied by the plaintiff-Company is poor, and therefore, customers complained about the same, and as such, the first defendant-Firm paid compensation to them aggregating to Rs. 4,59,890. 00. All these amounts were due from the plaintiff-Company. Although the plaintiff-Company promised to take back the entire stock, in reality took only 1,000 bags and on account of this attitude also they suffered. The deposit of Rs. 25,000. 00 made by the defendants has to be accounted for by the plaintiff-Company. In all, the first defendant-Firm is ent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document