Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 57631
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J
M/s.Meera Electricals Rep, by its Partner, C.Madhanmohan – Appellant
Versus
M/s.Classic Towers Pvt. Ltd., Rep., by its Managing Director – Respondent
Second Appeal No.201of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Thangavel
For the Respondents: No appearance for R1 and R2
The courts underscored that invoices serve as crucial evidence in civil claims, reinforcing the need for corroborative evidence to establish transaction validity. The standard of proof remains preponderance of probabilities.
Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 34 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Appeal against judgment and decree - Proof of invoices and contractual obligations - The plaintiff provided electrical goods to the defendants as per purchase orders and invoices; defendants failed to pay amounts due despite repeated demands. The lower courts dismissed the suit based on non-examination of the accountant and non-production of account books. The appellate court held that invoices are critical evidence, and corroborative proof needs to accompany them - Defendants did not substantiate claims of excessive pricing or lack of contract - The standard of proof in civil matters is preponderance of probabilities - Second appeal granted, original judgment set aside. (Paras 5, 19, 20)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's claim for payment based on supply of goods. (Para 2) |
| 2. defendants' claims on pricing excess and lack of contractual obligation. (Para 3) |
The Honourable Mrs.Justice K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI Second Appeal No.201of 2019 M/s.Meera Electricals Rep, by its Partner, C.Madhanmohan No.911, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore-641 018 .. Appellant versus
1.M/s.Classic Towers Pvt. Ltd., Rep., by its Managing Director, Classic Garden, 1552, Trichy Road, Coimbatore-641 018
2.A.Anwar .. Respondents Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 CPC, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2006 made in A.S.No.172 of 2005 on the file of learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2005 made in O.S.No.3119 of 2004 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Thangavel For Respondent : No appearance for R1 and R2 JUDGMENT Challenging this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2006 made in A.S.No.172 of 2005 on the file of learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2005 made in O.S.No.3119 of 2004 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore.
2.The plaintiff is the appellant herein. The plaintiff has filed the above suit for recovery of money directing the defendant's to pay a sum of Rs.60,843.08/- being the principle and interest due from the defendant with future interest at the rate of 24% per month at Rs.37,769/- from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.
2.1. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the dealer in electrical goods and the 1st defendant is a company registered under Indian Companies Act. The 2nd defendant is the Managing partner of the 1st defendant's company.
2.2. The defendants placed purchase orders with the plaintiff for supply of electrical goods. The plaintiff effected supplies in pursuant to the purchase orders and raised invoices for such supplies. The defendants failed to pay the invoice amounts aggregating to Rs.60,843.08/-. Inspite of several repeated demands by the plaintiff, the defendants failed to settle the accounts. The plaintiff issued a statutory notice on 17.12.1997 demanding payment of the amount due with interest and the same was not received by the defendants. Hence, the suit for recovery of the amounts due.
3.The claim of the plaintiff is resisted by the defendants stating that the defendants are not liable to pay the suit amount and the interest as claimed in the suit. The statement of accounts filed by the plaintiff is incorrect. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for payment of interest. The 2nd defendant admits that he has purchased certain electrical goods from the plaintiff but the value detailed in the bills are excessive. The plaintiff charged abnormal rates for every goods supplied by him, which is 25 % more than market value. When the same was informed to the plaintiff, the plaintiff agreed to reduce the amount, but it was not done. Hence, the defendant is not liable to pay the suit claim. 4.The trial Court accepted the contention of the defendants and accordingly dismissed the suit against which the appeal suit in A.S.No.172 of 2005 was filed before the 1st Appellate Court and the same was also dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by this, the present second appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the 1st respondent/1st defendant is liable to pay the amount mentioned in the invoices under Ex.A2, A3 & A4 towards the goods supplied to them by the appellant/ plaintiff and the above invoices are based on the purchase orders placed by the 1st respondent/1st defendant under Exs.A.9 & A13 and A14. His further submission is that the above documents marked as A2, A3 & A4 were rejected by the Courts below, for not
