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

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1335

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.Velmurugan, K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi, JJ.
M/s. Deendayal Totla - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Varalakshmi Starch Industries Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent 
APPEAL(CAD) Nos.33 & 34 of 2024
Decided On : 17-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Navod Prasannan
For the Respondent: Mr. A.Kaushik Narain Sharma for M/s.KNS Law Chambers

The court ruled that the suits for recovery of debts were not barred by limitation due to the pandemic, emphasizing the plaintiff's burden of proof and the validity of invoices and documentation associated with sales transactions.

Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act - Section 13(1A) - Civil Procedure Code - Section 96 - Recovery of debts - The plaintiff claimed amounts due for goods sold under invoices; defendants argued the claims were barred by limitation and challenged the authenticity of documents. The Court found the suits valid under extended limitation due to pandemic and upheld the decrees based on the weight of evidence. (Paras 12-18)

(B) Limitation Law - The court ruled that the failure to pay and initiate timely response to legal notices did not save defendants from liability, affirming that the burden of proof lies with the denying party. (Paras 14-17)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a company manufacturing tapioca starch, demanded payments from the defendants for goods sold between 2016 and 2017. The defendants contended they had settled debts and claimed the suits were time-barred, despite making payments and receiving goods, as per books of accounts prior to the pandemic.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, affirming the judgments of the lower court, confirming balances due based on invoices and ‘C’ forms from inter-State purchases.

Issues: The main issues were whether limitations barred the claims and the authenticity of financial documents.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the inability of defendants to prove their claims of full payment and manipulation of accounts. The 'C' forms and invoices were sufficient to validate the plaintiff's case for outstanding dues.

Result: The appeals were dismissed.

Table of Content
1. plaintiff's claim and background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. defendant's refusal and alleged fabricated claims. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's considerations on claims and evidence. (Para 6 , 8 , 11 , 12 , 14)
4. issues on limitation and valid claims. (Para 15 , 16)
5. appeal dismissed; no merits found. (Para 19)

JUDGMENT :

P. Velmurugan, J.

The instant appeals have been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Commercial Court, Salem in C.O.S.No.18 of 2022 and in C.O.S.No.19 of 2022 respectively, dated 09.11.2023.

2.1. The appellant in each of the appeals is the defendant in the respective commercial original suit.

2.2. C.O.S.No.18 of 2022 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for a judgment and decree directing the appellant/defendant in Appeal (CAD) No.33 of 2024 to pay the suit claim amount of Rs.46,43,158/- to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs.25,08,218/- from the date of suit till realization and for costs.

2.3. C.O.S.No.19 of 2022 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for a judgment and decree directing the appellant/defendant in Appeal (CAD) No.34 of 2024 to pay the suit claim amount of Rs.61,23,825/- to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs.33,08,069/- from the date of suit till realization and for costs.

3. The gist of the plaintiff’s case in both the suits, as per the plaint averments, runs thus:-

The plaintiff is a manufacturer of tapioca starch, Sago (Sabudhana), modified starches and is a registered private company. The defendant(s) were purchasing sago from 2016. The defendant(s) were making payments and as well issuing ‘C’ Form declarations as required under the Central Sales Tax Act for the inter-State purchases made by them from the plaintiff. The plaintiff has maintained proper accounts for the sales and as well for the payments made. In respect of C.O.S.No.18 of 2022, based on the books of accounts, the balance due is Rs.25,08,218/- and the defendant made payment of Rs.4,59,756/- lastly on 29.08.2017. In respect of C.O.S.No.19 of 2022, based on the books of accounts, the balance due is Rs.33,08,069/- and the defendant made payment of Rs.12,15,804/- lastly on 29.08.2017. The plaintiff was repeatedly demanding the defendant(s) to pay the balance and the defendant(s) did not come forward to repay. The plaintiff then issued legal notice dated 30.10.2019 / 31.10.2019. The defendant(s) knowingly evaded the legal notice. The plaintiff then referred the issue before Mediation Authority on 09.01.2020. The defendant(s) did not turn up for the mediation and a report was received as failed. Due to the out break of Covid 19, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo-moto Writ Petition No.3/2020 dated 10.01.2022 has extended the period of limitation and the suit is within the said period. The last payment was made on 29.08.2017 and the limitation expires on 28.08.2020, which was extended by the order of Apex Court. Hence, the suit(s).

4. Written statements were filed by the defendant(s) stating that the plaintiff has no right to recover any money from them as the goods shown in the invoices were not supplied to them. The invoices and accounts are manipulated. Further the entire amounts stood satisfied and duly accepted by the plaintiff, which was suppressed to raise this false claim. The defendant(s) ordinarily carry on business at Indore and the parties also agreed that any dispute relating to their business activity shall be adjudicated at Indore. The present suits are barred by limitation, as the prescribed period for recovery of money is three years which is to be computed from the date of supply of goods. The precise date of delivery is not maintained by the plaintiff. The other averments in the plaint are all denied. The entire sum payable to the plaintiff as per the terms and conditions agreed between them was paid by the defendant(s) and accepted by the plaintiff in full satisfaction. There was no protest nor any objection b

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