Present appeal is filed by the defendant being

aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2014

passed in O.S.No.123/2001 on the file of the II Additional

Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) by which the Trial Court

had decreed the suit of the plaintiff directing the defendant

(appellant herein) to pay Rs.5,49,542.73/- with interest at

the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till

recovery, which the judgment and decree is confirmed by

the judgment and order dated 22.04.2015 passed in

regular appeal in R.A.No.29/2014 on the file of the

Principal

District

and

Sessions

Judge,

Dharwad

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’).

2.

The above suit in O.S.No.123/2001 is filed by

the plaintiff (respondent herein) for recovery of sum of

Rs.5,49,547.73/- with further interest at the rate of 18%

- 3 -

per annum from the date of suit till recover of the entire

amount contending inter alia that the plaintiff is a

registered company with its office at Mumbai, engaged in

manufacturing of One Day Alarm Time pieces, clocks

under the brand name of TIWAC. That the defendant is a

partnership concern dealing with sale

of aforesaid

products. That on 30.07.1992 defendant/firm had entered

into an agreement with the plaintiff agreeing to sell the

aforesaid products manufactured by the plaintiff/company

on certain commission basis. In furtherance to the said

agreement, defendant used to place orders for supply of

the aforesaid products and the plaintiff used to comply

with the said orders by sending the same through road

transports

namely,

Southern

Travels

Corporation,

Southern Tourist, etc. That soon after the dispatch of the

goods, relevant documents used to be forwarded by the

plaintiff to the defendant and the defendant used to sell

the said goods on behalf of the plaintiff at the rate fixed

and the sale proceeds used to be sent by the defendant to

the plaintiff after deducting agreed commission. That there

- 4 -

used to be a running accounts maintained between the

plaintiff and the defendant. The account was mutual, open

and current. Defendant had maintained the account with

the plaintiff from the date of agreement. That the plaintiff

maintained the books of accounts in the usual course of its

business. Defendant was sending stock statement from

time to time giving details of the stock received and was

also issuing sales tax Form-F once in a year declaring the

total

quantity

of

clocks

received

from

the

plaintiff/company. That the plaintiff and defendant had

thus transacted till the end of September, 1999. That as

per the accounts maintained by plaintiff, defendant is due

and liable to pay in a sum of Rs.5,49,542.73/- as on

30.09.1999.

That

despite

repeated

requests

and

remainders to the defendant, no amount was paid

constraining the plaintiff to file the suit for the relief stated

above.

3.

Defendant in his written statement denied the

case of the plaintiff and contended the suit is not

- 5 -

maintainable, however, admitted the entering into an

agreement with the plaintiff and conducting the business

with the plaintiff. It is further contended by the plaintiff

that the agreed rate of commission is 15% on the value of

the goods sold. It is also contended that the plaintiff

company used to send the goods through transporter of

their

choice

and

they

were

sending

the

relevant

documents after dispatch of the goods. That the stock

statements and the receipts had not been reconciled by

the plaintiff company till date. That the defendant had

intimated the plaintiff company on every occasion about

non-delivery of goods but the plaintiff company had not at

all bothered to set right the things. Defendant was

delivering the goods to the retailers on behalf of the

plaintiff company and was collecting the amount and was

promptly sending the same to the plaintiff. That the

accounts between the plaintiff and the defendant have not

been settled fully and finally despite repeated