SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(P&H) 203

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.
Satish Kumar Malik - Appellants
Versus
Videocon Industries Ltd. - Respondents
RSA No.2197 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 15-02-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Deepak Girotra

The reliance on the statement of account certified under the Bankers' Book Evidence Act, 1991, and the requirement for parties to substantiate their claims with reliable documentary evidence.

Headnote:

Recovery Suit - Recovery of Rs.5,62,987.84 - Bankers' Book Evidence Act, 1991 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Bankers' Book Evidence Act, 1991 - The court relied on the statement of account issued by the bank which was certified under the Bankers' Book Evidence Act, 1991. The defendant did not produce any documents in support of his submission. The trial Court noted that a number of cheques were given by the defendant which were dishonoured. The plaintiff had also placed on record the customer ledger details pertaining to the defendant and the debt note raised to the defendant for the period 01.04.1999 to 05.06.2003 (Ex.P-9). The suit of the plaintiff was decreed and a decree for recovery of Rs.5,62,987.84 Paise along with interest of 8% per annum from the date of suit till its realization was passed.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, a manufacturer and seller of home appliances and electronic gadgets, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5,62,987.84/- from the defendant, who had purchased goods on credit but failed to make payments. The defendant counterclaimed, alleging fraud and non-fulfillment of assurances by the plaintiff.

Finding of the Court:

The trial Court decreed the suit based on the plaintiff's evidence, including the statement of account certified under the Bankers' Book Evidence Act, 1991. The appellate Court upheld the trial Court's findings and dismissed the suit.

Issues: The issues included the defendant's failure to make payments for goods purchased on credit, the plaintiff's alleged concealment of material facts, and the competency of the person filing the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the plaintiff's evidence, including the statement of account certified under the Bankers' Book Evidence Act, 1991, and the defendant's failure to produce any supporting documents. The defendant's counterclaim was rejected due to lack of reliable documentary evidence.

Final Decision: The trial Court decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.5,62,987.84 Paise along with interest, and the appellate Court upheld this decision, dismissing the suit.

JUDGMENT :

ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.

CM-5757-C-2016

1. For the reasons set out in the application, same is allowed as prayed for and delay of 14 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

RSA No.2197 of 2016

2. This is the defendant's second appeal against the judgment rendered by both the Courts below

3. The suit for recovery of Rs.5,62,987.84/- was decreed. Interest @ 8% was allowed from the date of filing of the suit till realization.

4. The plaintiffs are in the business of manufacture and sale of home appliances and electronic gadgets. The defendant used to purchase and sell their electric goods under the name and style of M/s. Paras Electronics. The defendant was the sole proprietor. The goods manufactured by the plaintiff were taken on credit by the defendant, however, he failed to make some payments and a sum of Rs.5,62,987.84/- was outstanding. The defendant was erratic in the payments and several cheques issued by him were dishonoured. The defendant had been proclaiming that he was facing financial constrains and had promised to pay the dues but failed to honour the commitment made by him. It was pleaded that the defendant with an ulterior motive filed a suit for rendition of accounts and the averments made therein were false and frivolous and no claims with them were pending.

5. The defendant took the plea that he had filed a suit and therefore, this suit should be stayed and the plaintiff should first render accounts. It was averred that he had made the payment of the refrigerators well in time and the plaintiff-company had cheated him and did not fulfill the assurances and the amount of most of the claims were not passed on to him. It was pleaded that the statement of account contained bogus and false entries in the name of M/s. Paras Electronics and superfluous amount had been claimed and debited in the name of the defendant-firm. It was averred that the plaintiff-company used to give 4/5/6 years warranty with free services and repair of some parts and an extra amount of Rs.200/- per refrigerator was charged and were to provide the facilities but failed to provide the services. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had charged a sum of Rs.2,05,200/- from him @ Rs.200/- per refrigerator for the 1026 refrigerators sold to him but they failed to provide free service and he was entitled to get this amount adjusted. It was pleaded that he had employed a mechanic for repair of the refrigerators and he was paying Rs.6,000/- per month to him and had spent Rs.3,60,000/- on his salary and he was entitled to recover that amount. It was claimed that the plaintiff failed to give the services to the customers and he had to spend Rs.56,250/- on it. It was pleaded that the defendant earlier had all the documents with him but on account of a fire all the documents were burnt. It was also pleaded that under a scheme the plaintiff was to give one refrigerator free on the sale of 19 refrigerators and 3 refrigerators were to be supplied free of cost on sale of 47 refrigerators and 5 refrigerators were to be supplied on the sale of 72 refrigerators and 8 refrigerators were to be supplied free on sale of 92 refrigerators and in addition to it some cash discount was to be given. The defendant's plea was that he had purchased 268 refrigerators in March, 2000 and he was entitled to get 50 refrigerators free of cost according to the said scheme and a sum of Rs.4,03,450/- was outstanding as per the scheme of May, 2000. Similarly, as per scheme of May, 2000, the refrigerator of the value of Rs.8015/- was to be supplied by the plaintiff-company to the defendant for a sum of Rs.7200/- and the refrigerator of the value of Rs.8265/- was to be supplied for a sum of Rs.7500/- and the refrigerators having the value of Rs.10,016/- was to be supplied for a sum of Rs.9651/- and the refrigerators of the value of Rs.11,115/- was to be supplied for a sum of Rs.10,735/- and the refrigerators of a value of Rs.9665/- was to be supplied for a sum of Rs.8700/- and the refrigerators



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top