Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
M/s. Duraisamy & Company, Madurai & Another - Appellant
Versus
M/s. R. Piyarilal & Co., (P) Ltd., Rep by its Director, Pawan Agarwal, Mumbai & Another - Respondent
A.S.(MD). No. 301 of 2008 & M.P.(MD). No. 1 of 2008
Decided On : 17-06-2022
Appeal Suit - Business Transaction - Code of Civil Procedure - [O.S.No.509 of 2004] - [Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure] - [Order II Rule 3 CPC, Order II Rule 7 CPC, Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872] - The court discussed the mis-joinder of parties and cause of action, admissibility of computer-generated ledger accounts, and the requirement of certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court found that there was no mis-joinder of parties and cause of action, and the absence of certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, did not render the ledger accounts inadmissible. The court also held that the non-examination of the person who made entries in the ledger accounts was not fatal to the case of the respondents/plaintiffs.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents/plaintiffs, engaged in garment export business, filed a suit against the appellants/defendants for non-supply of goods and claimed a sum of Rs.5,67,901.30/- and Rs.1,72,028.95/- along with interest. The trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents/plaintiffs. The appellants/defendants filed an appeal challenging the judgment and decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a business transaction between the parties and the appellants/defendants admitted to receiving defective goods. The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation and there was no mis-joinder of parties and cause of action. The court also ruled that the absence of certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, did not render the ledger accounts inadmissible.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement of the respondents/plaintiffs to the claimed amount, the maintainability of the suit, the liability of the appellants/defendants, and the bar of limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was no mis-joinder of parties and cause of action, and the absence of certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, did not render the ledger accounts inadmissible. The non-examination of the person who made entries in the ledger accounts was not fatal to the case of the respondents/plaintiffs.
Final Decision: The Appeal Suit was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were upheld.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2008 made in O.S.No.509 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No. 1), Madurai.)
1. The appellants are defendants and the respondents are plaintiffs in O.S.No.509 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Madurai. After completion of pleadings and trial, the trial Court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.3,29,276.50/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of plaint till the date of payment. Challenging the same, the appellants/defendants in the suit have filed the present appeal.
2. Brief facts stated in the plaint is as follows:- The respondents/plaintiffs are doing garment export business from Mumbai. The appellants/defendants approached the respondents/plaintiffs for purchase of their garments and accordingly, the respondents/plaintiffs placed an order to the appellants/defendants under agreed terms. Though the appellants/defendants agreed to supply the required garments on or before 15.01.2000, they had partly supplied the goods that too were sub-standard and hence, the respondents/plaintiffs rejected and returned the same to the appellants/defendants. According to the 1st respondent/1st plaintiff, in this regard, the appellants/defendants are liable to pay Rs.2,97,857/- with 24% interest till 31.03.2003 amounting to Rs.5,67,902.50/- and there is a Ledger account of the 1st plaintiff's company to that effect. The 2nd respondent/2nd plaintiff is a partnership firm and the appellants/defendants have to pay Rs.31,421.10/- to the 2nd plaintiff as on 31.03.2000 and along with the air freight charges of Rs.58,808/- paid by the 2nd plaintiff and the compound interest, totally, the appellants/defendants are liable to pay Rs.7,39,929/- to the 2nd plaintiff and there is also a ledger account of the 2nd plaintiff's company to that effect. One M/s.Thiruvettai Spinners at Madurai, is the supplier of yarn to the appellants/defendants and according to the respondents/plaintiffs, they have no business transaction with M/s.Thiruvettai Spinners, however, the said firm had sent bills for the purchase of yarn by the appellants/defendants, to the respondents/plaintiffs. Though the appellants/defendants issued a Cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of M/s.Thiruvettai Spinners at Madurai, still the appellants/defendants has to pay a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- to the said firm and in this regard, M/s.Thiruvettai Spinners filed O.S.No.777/2002 against the respondents and the appellants herein, before the Sub Court, Madurai. Thus, the respondents/plaintiffs herein sought for joint trial of both the suits. With the above averments, the respondents/plaintiffs herein filed the above suit to direct the appellants/defendants to pay a sum of Rs.5,67,901.30/- to the 1st plaintiff and Rs.1,72,028.95/- to the 2nd plaintiff along with 24% interest from the date of plaint till the date of payment.
3. Brief averments stated in the written statement is as follows:- The 1st appellant/1st defendant's partnership firm was dissolved in September 2000 and it is not registered under the Companies Act, as such, the suit against the 1st appellant/1st defendant is not maintainable and has to be dismissed. The suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and cause of action. Further, the person who signed the plaint, had no authority to file the suit, as such, the suit has to be dismissed. The respondents/plaintiffs placed order only to the 2nd appellant/2nd defendant and the 1st appellant/1st defendant purchased yarn only as an agent of the respondents/plaintiffs and the 2nd appellant/2nd defendant manufactured garments after supply of yarn and accessories by the respondents/plaintiffs. The allegations of the respondents/plaintiffs that the goods will be supplied within 15.01.2000 and the supply of defective goods by the defendants, are denied. Thus, the allegation of return of defective goo
The absence of certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not render computer-generated ledger accounts inadmissible, and the non-examination of the person who made entrie....
The burden of proof lies with the claimant to substantiate claims with credible documentation, and evidence of timely payments to claimants influence recovery judgments.
The court clarified conditions for a reciprocal, mutual account under the Limitation Act, excluding claims due to lack of independent obligations among parties.
The suit under Order XXXVII of CPC is maintainable when based on written contracts (Invoices) and not on the Ledger Account. Territorial jurisdiction can be established based on the location of the H....
Partial evidence of a witness cannot be discarded without evaluating its probative value. Furthermore, documents like contracts are invalid if they antedate the purchase of the stamp paper, and liabi....
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
