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

2007 Supreme(MP) 416

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Honble Mr. Justice A.K. Shrivastava, J.
JETHANAND AND COMPANY
Versus
MOHAN AND COMPANY
Decided On : Apr 12,2007

Advocates Appeared:
MADAN SINGH, S.A.Sobhani, Vikram Singh,

Judgment

( 1. ) THIS appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the defendant against the impugned and decree dated 1-5-1997 passed by learned 5th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 93-B/1997 whereby the suit of plaintiff/respondent has been decreed upto the extent of Rs. 80,254/-with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

( 2. ) A suit for realization of Rs. 1,26,225. 00 has been filed by plaintiff/respondent on the averment that plaintiff-firm is carrying on business of wholesale of English liquor, which is being carried under the supervision of excise Inspector and who supervises every account of plaintiff and also supervises the liquor which is being purchase by retail shopkeepers. The said excise Inspector also supervise that how much of the English liquor is being sold to the retailer by the plaintiff-firm. Without obtaining permission from the excise department the plaintiff cannot run the said business of wholesale of english liquor. Similarly, every retail shopkeeper is also obliged to obtain permit from the Excise department to purchase the English liquor.

( 3. ) IN Para 3 of the plaint, it has been pleaded that English liquor is being sold by plaintiff-firm to retailer according to the permit. The delivery challan is being kept in three copies. The first copy is being given to the purchaser, on second copy receipt of retailer is obtained and the third copy is being kept by the plaintiff. Thereafter plaintiff firm gives bill to the purchaser against which the purchaser pays the amount of bill. If amount of bill is paid by the purchaser, a receipt is issued to him.

( 4. ) IT is the further case of the plaintiff that in case the payment is not made by retailer within 5 days, he is obliged to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum and this condition has also been printed and embodied in the bill which is given to the retailer.

( 5. ) ACCORDING to Para 5 of the plaint, the Excise department has given licence to sell the English liquor and on the basis of said licence the defendant happens to purchase the English liquor from plaintiff-firm. From 22-5-1984 to 15-6-1987 the defendant purchased the liquor from plaintiff-firm, the cost of which is Rs. 1,26,225. 00 along with interest. This amount includes Rs. 80,254. 00 principal amount and Rs. 45,971/- as the amount of interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The said amount has not been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff-firm. The details of account has been given in Annexures A, B, C, D filed along with plaint. According to the plaintiff, plaintiff-firm keeps regular accounts.

( 6. ) THE defendant did not pay the suit amount despite several request was made by the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff has filed the present suit for realization of the said amount.

( 7. ) THE defendant by filing written statement denied the plaint averments. It has been specifically denied in Para 5 of the written statement that from 22-5-1984 to 15-6-1987 a sum of Rs. 1,26,225/- is outstanding towards defendant towards principal and interest. According to defendant, whenever the liquor was purchased by defendant, its payment was made to the plaintiff. ( 8. ) THE Trial Court framed the following issues :-

" (i) Whether the defendant had purchased the liquor of rs. 80,254/- from plaintiff-firm in between 22-5-1984 to 15-6-1987 ? (ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to realize interest at the rate of 18% per annum from defendant ? (b) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of rs. 45,971/- towards interest from the defendant ? (iii) Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by time ? (iv) Relief and cost ?

( 9. ) THE plaintiff thereafter adduced its evidence and examined one vishnu Kumar Jaiswal (P. W. 1), Manager of its firm. On behalf of defendant, jethanand (D. W. 1) was examined who is the partner of the defendant company.

( 10. ) THE Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence placed on record came to hold that defendant purcha












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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top