Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, NIRAL R. MEHTA
JAY AMBE INDUSTRIES PROPRIETOR SHRI DINESHKUMAR BAJRANGLAL SOMANI – Appellant
Versus
GARNET SPECIALTY PAPER LTD. – Respondent
What are the requirements for corroborating entries in a ledger account under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872? How to determine if a Power of Attorney holder possesses sufficient personal knowledge to depose regarding commercial transactions? What is the legal position regarding the necessity of issuing a prior demand notice before instituting a suit for recovery of money?
Key Points: - It is well settled that a ledger has no evidentiary value unless entries are proved by independent evidence, such as corroboration via Daily cash book or Roznama, to satisfy Section 34 of the Evidence Act (!) (!) (!) . - The trial court committed a serious error in dismissing the suit despite the lack of denial or rebuttal evidence from the defendant, as undisputed documentary evidence and oral testimony by the plaintiff's agent constituted sufficient proof (!) (!) (!) . - A Power of Attorney holder can depose regarding transactions to the extent of their personal knowledge, and the absence of cross-examination disputing this knowledge validates their testimony (!) (!) (!) . - There is no general law mandating a prior demand notice for suits for recovery of money, except under specific statutes like the Bombay Rent Act or Section 80 of the CPC for suits against the State (!) (!) . - The trial court erred in ignoring invoices and delivery challans signed by the defendant, as the initial burden of proof was discharged by the plaintiff, and the defendant failed to rebut this evidence (!) (!) (!) . - The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment and decree were quashed, and the defendant was directed to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.29,36,211/- with 6% per annum interest (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
NIRAL R. MEHTA, J.
1. This first appeal is at the instance of an unsuccessful plaintiff and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2012 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vapi, in the Special Civil Suit No.62 of 2016 (Old No.72 of 2014), whereby the suit for recovery of money came to be dismissed.
2. The facts emerging from the records are that the Special Civil Suit No.62 of 2016 (Old No.72 of 2014) was instituted by the plaintiff (a proprietory concern) for recovery of an amount of Rs.29,36,211/- (Rupees Twenty-Nine Lakh Thirty-Six Thousand Two Hundred Eleven Only) from the respondent-original defendant with 15% interest. The aforesaid suit was instituted by the plaintiff through his Power of Attorney Holder.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that there was a commercial transaction of sale & purchase between the plaintiff and the respondent-defendant. The respondent-defendant purchased papers from the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.42,31,167/- (Rupees Forty-Two Lakh Thirty-One Thousand One Hundred Sixty-Seven Only), out of which only Rs.12,64,950/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Sixty-Four Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Only) was paid. Thus, for the recovery of t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
