Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 1542
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
M/s. Acura Automation Engineers (P) Ltd., Coimbatore - Appellant
Versus
C. Krishna Kumar & Others - Respondent
A.S. No. 102 of 2018
Decided On : 19-04-2022
For the Appellant:A.E. Ravi Chandran, Advocate. For the Respondents:C.D. Johnson, Advocate, R2 & R3, No appearance.
The plaintiff's discharge of the burden of proof and the reliance on the presumption under Section 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, influenced the court's decision in affirming the Judgment of the trial Court and dismissing the Appeal with costs.
Headnote:
Appeal - Liability of Defendants - Section 482 of Cr.P.C., Section 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - The court examined the liability of the defendants to pay the suit claim, the authenticity of a letter dated 14.04.2012, and the issuance of a cheque by the defendants. The court held that the plaintiff had discharged the burden of proof by producing relevant documents, and the onus to disprove the documents shifted to the defendants, who failed to discharge such onus. The court also relied on the presumption under Section 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and held that the issuance of the cheque reflected liability on the part of the appellant. The court affirmed the Judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the Appeal with costs.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking payment for supplied electronic components from the defendants. The suit was decreed against the first defendant and dismissed against the second and third defendants. The first defendant appealed against the Judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had discharged the burden of proof by producing relevant documents, and the onus to disprove the documents shifted to the defendants, who failed to discharge such onus. The court also relied on the presumption under Section 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and held that the issuance of the cheque reflected liability on the part of the appellant.
Issues: 1. Whether the non-production of statements of accounts by the plaintiff is fatal to the case of the plaintiff? 2. Whether the claim of the first defendant that Ex.A-6 is a forged document had been proved during the course of trial? 3. Whether the issuance of a cheque by the second and third defendants would amount to admission of liability by the first defendant?
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff had discharged the burden of proof by producing relevant documents, and the onus to disprove the documents shifted to the defendants, who failed to discharge such onus. The court also relied on the presumption under Section 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and held that the issuance of the cheque reflected liability on the part of the appellant.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the Judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the Appeal with costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 96 C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.01.2017 made in O.S.No. 46 of 2014 on the file of the Third Additional District Sessions Judge, at Coimbatore.)
1. The first defendant in O.S.No. 46 of 2014 which was on the file of the III Additional District Court at Coimbatore is the appellant herein.
2. The said suit in O.S.No. 46 of 2014 had been filed by the plaintiff C.Krishnakumar against three defendants, M/s. Acura Automation Engineers (P) Ltd., and the two Directors of the first defendant, B.Suresh and B.Vijayanand, seeking a Judgment and Decree to pay to the plaintiff jointly and severally, a sum of Rs.16,88,198/- together with interest at 18% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation and for costs of the suit.
3. By Judgment dated 20.01.2017, the III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore decreed the suit as against the first defendant and had dismissed the suit as against the second and third defendants. Questioning that particular Judgment, the first defendant M/s. Acura Automation Engineers (P) Limited., has filed the present First Appeal.
4. In the plaint in O.S.No. 46 of 2014, the plaintiff had stated that he is the proprietor of M/s. Sree Krishna Electronics at Coimbatore and his company had direct business transactions with the defendants/M/s. Acura Automation Engineers (P) Ltd., and its two Directors B.Suresh and B.Vijayanand and had supplied electronic components. It was stated that there was an outstanding of Rs.12,73,687/- to be paid by the defendants. Thereafter, the second and third defendants had jointly issued a cheque dated 15.04.2012 bearing No. 064001 drawn at ICICI Bank Ltd., Coimbatore, for Rs.12,65,646/- in their capacity as Directors / authorised signatories of the first defendant. The cheque was presented for collection on 11.06.2012 by the plaintiff through his bank M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Avinashi Road, Coimbatore, but it was returned on the ground ‘insufficient funds’. The plaintiff then issued a notice and then filed C.C.No. 413 of 2012 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, which was later transferred to the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore.
5. The defendants then filed Crl.O.P.No. 1309 of 2013 before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and C.C.No. 413 of 2012 was quashed on the ground that the company / M/s. Acura Automation Engineers (P) Ltd., had not been shown as an accused in the said calendar case. The plaintiff further stated that however the issuance of cheque reflected the fact that the defendants are liable to pay the amount and therefore had instituted the suit seeking the relief as stated above.
6. The defendants filed a written statement denying that the second and third defendants had jointly issued a cheque for Rs.12,65,646/- in their capacity as Directors/authorised signatories of the first defendant. They also stated that C.C.No. 413 of 2012 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore, had been quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No. 1309 of 2013 by order dated 10.12.2013. It had been stated that it was false to state that the defendants had issued a letter of acceptance of liability by letter dated 14.04.2012. It had also been stated that there has been continuous transactions between the plaintiff and the defendants. It had been therefore stated that the cheque had been handed over only for security purposes and had been filled up by the plaintiff. It had been stated that the defendants are not connected with the letter of acceptance dated 14.04.2012. It had been stated that the defendants had been regularly paying the invoice amounts without any default. It was stated that the plaintiff supplied faulty goods and further, enmity had arisen between the plaintiff and the defendants, since the defendants purchased electronic goods from other dealers. It was stated that according to the statements of accounts, as on 11.01.2013, the defendants are due to pay only
