The burden of proof lies with the claimant to substantiate claims with credible documentation, and evidence of timely payments to claimants influence recovery judgments.

JUDGMENT :

C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

The plaintiff in C.S.No.29 of 2000 aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.09.2016 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, on the Original Side dismissing the said suit, has filed the present appeal.

2.C.S.No.29 of 2000 had been filed seeking a judgment and decree against the defendants jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.39,67,144/- together with interest at 24% per annum from the date of the plaint till date of realization and for costs of the suit.

3.It had been contended in the plaint that the plaintiff, a registered Partnership Firm was a regular supplier of cotton fabrics to the 1^st defendant which was also a Partnership Firm carrying on business at Thane, Maharashtra. The defendant would convert the fabrics into garments and export such garments. The 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th defendants were partners of the 1^st defendant. The 5^th defendant who was yet another partner was subsequently impleaded during the pendency of the suit.

4.It had been stated in the plaint that the 1^st defendant used to send to the plaintiff the details of the fabrics required, the construction, colour and other points of specification. The plaintiff would get the samples ready and send the same to the 1^st defendant. If the 1^st defendant were to indicate changes / modifications in the samples, the plaintiff would have to obtain fresh samples and send them for final approval. After the samples had been approved, the plaintiff would quote the price for acceptance by the 1^st defendant.

5.The arrangement between the parties was that the 1^st defendant would first place a trial order for about 100 meters which would be supplied by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the 1^st defendant would place bulk orders and issue purchase orders setting forth the terms and conditions for the supply. The purchase orders would be countersigned by the plaintiff. This was the usual / normal practice. There would be occasions when there would be considerable time interval between the trial order and the bulk order to about four to five months. But the plaintiff did not alter the quoted price even if there had been increase in input prices. The plaintiff never claimed the price which prevailed on the date of the supply but raised invoice only on the contracted price.

6.It had been further stated that the supplies were made either directly or by signing documents by the bank. When documents were sent through the bank, the payments were cleared within a reasonable time. But when supplies were made directly, the payments for the bills were always belated, with the delay being anywhere between three to twelve months though in the invoices it had been stated that the payments should be effected within thirty days. It had been further stated that though the payments were delayed by the 1^st defendant, the plaintiff still continued to honour its commitment to supply the fabrics in accordance with the purchase order.

7.In June 1998, the 1^st defendant wrote to the plaintiff that they had obtained quotations from other suppliers and found that the prices quoted by the plaintiff over the last two years had been 20% to 30% higher than the other suppliers. The 1^st defendant wanted the plaintiff to issue credit note at 10% of all supplies for the period from 01.04.1996 to 30.06.1998. The plaintiff issued a reply denying the allegations.