The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of electronic documents as evidence under the Companies Act, 1956, and the requirement to prove documents in accordance with the law.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon in Money Suit No. 11 of 2006, plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

2. Kanark Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. as a Bonded Warehouse is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The Board of Directors authorized one of the Directors Sri Hridayananda Roy Choudhury to institute the suit for realization of money from the defendant Utpal Kalita against sale of India Made Foreign Liquor (for short ‘IMFL’) and India Made Beer (for short ‘IMB’) on different dates. The defendant is the owner of a shop of IMFL and IMB and used to purchase these products regularly from the plaintiff. Last payment was made by the defendant on 6.10.2004 against last invoice issued on 5.10.2004. The plaintiff maintained Books of Accounts in regard to the business with the defendant and as per Books of Accounts, plaintiff was entitled to Rs. 5,50,477/- for which demand was made on 7.8.2006 by sending an agent of the plaintiff company. The defendant did not make payment and several requests made thereafter also could not yield any result. Situated thus, plaintiff issued a notice through his lawyer on 11.8.2006 claiming the aforesaid sum of Rs.5,50,477/- along with interest @ 18 % per annum w.e.f. 6.10.2004 till realization. Upon receipt of the notice, defendant sent a reply notice through his lawyer on 2.10.2006 agreeing to pay the amount and requested the plaintiff to pay monthly installment of Rs.5000/- per month. By that notice, defendant also claimed rebate and discount as per various schemes allowed by the Company from time to time. As the defendant did not make payment of the amount claimed by plaintiff, plaintiff instituted the suit in November, 2006 praying for decree of Rs.7,55,530/- including the principal amount and the interest till the date and for further interest @ 18% per annum and the decretal amount w.e.f. 1.11.2006 till realization.

3. On being summoned, defendant appeared and submitted written statement broadly denying the averments made in the plaint. However, in para-11 of the written statement giving of reply notice by the defendant has not been denied. On the basis of the aforesaid submission of the parties, learned trial court framed following eleven issues and allowed the parties to prove their respective cases:-

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present manner and form?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action for the suit?

(iii) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?

(iv) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder/ mis-joinder of necessary party?

(v) Whether proper court fee had been paid?

(vi) Whether the suit is valued properly?

(vii) Whether the defendant is licensee of IMFS “OFF” Shop and used to purchase IMFL & I.M. Beer regularly from plaintiff?

(viii) Whether books of account maintained by plaintiff shows that Rs.5,50,477/- only is still pending for defendant?

(ix) Whether defendant was ready and willing to pay the same in installment of Rs.5,000/- per month?

(x) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to reliefs as prayed for ?

(xi) To what other relief/reliefs parties are entitled to ?

4. Plaintiff examined two witnesses including its Director, Hridayananda Roy Choudhury and exhibited as many as 12 documents from Ext. 1 to Ext.12. Defendant examined himself as sole witness but did not adduce any documentary evidence. Considering the depositions of the witnesses and the documents relied on by them, the learned trial court formed opinion that suit of the plaintiff was bad for defect of parties as there was no authorization by the Board of Directors for institution of the suit. According to the learned court, the material particulars were not disclosed in the plaint but were furnished in course of evidence and so they could not have been considered being beyond pleadings. Having noticed that defendant had admitted the liability to make payment, learned trial court observed that defendant wanted to pay the am