Delhi High Court
M/S. Anant Raj Industries vs M/S. Dlf Construction & ... on 17 February, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 486/2000
% 17th February, 2011
M/S. ANANT RAJ INDUSTRIES LTD. ...... Appellant
Through: None.
VERSUS
M/S. DLF CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Seth with
Mr.Mithun K.S.Rathore, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This case was argued on behalf of the appellant on 15.2.2011.
Today no one appears for the appellant. I have therefore heard the learned
counsel for the respondent and am proceeding to pass the judgment.
2. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under
Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment
and decree dated 12.6.2000 whereby the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for
recovery was dismissed by holding that the appellant/plaintiff failed to prove
RFA No. 486/2000 Page 1 of 5
that payment was not made for goods having been sold to the
respondent/defendant under the disputed bills/invoices, Ex.PW1/5 to
Ex.PW1/8. Qua one of the invoices it was held that the plaintiff/appellant
failed to prove that any goods were supplied.
3. The facts of the case are that there was relationship of buyer and
seller between the parties whereby the appellant/plaintiff claimed to have
sold goods, being ceramic tiles, to the respondent/defendant. A running
account was maintained, and the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery
on the basis of the running account. The respondent/defendant appeared
and contested the case. The stand of the respondent/defendant was that
with respect to each bill, a specific cheque qua that particular bill was issued,
and all the bills by which supplies were made, were duly cleared. It was
further argued that at the time of preparation of the cheque, a bill summary
used to be prepared and unnecessary charges which were claimed by the
appellant towards insurance, transportation and so on were reduced and the
cheque was paid for the amount actually due. The bill summary on each
occasion used to be given to the plaintiff/appellant before the cheques for
payment used to be issued.
4. Both the parties led evidence and filed their statement of
accounts in the Trial Court which were duly exhibited. On the basis of the
evidence led by the parties, the Trial Court arrived at a finding of the fact
that with respect to the disputed bills, no payments were due because out of
RFA No. 486/2000 Page 2 of 5
the 4 bills, 3 were paid and no goods were proved to be supplied under the
4th bill. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Trial Court, which
summarizes the position are paras 13 and 14 which read as under:-
"The only dispute between the parties is about reconciliation
of accounts. While the plaintiff states that defendant has
not paid balance amount as per running account maintained
by the plaintiff, the defendant says that it has paid the
entire amount as per the running account maintained by the
defendant. Both the parties have produced their ledger in
order to prove their point. It is admitted by the plaintiff
witness that the defendant has been making payment as per
bills and with every payment, a bill summary has been given
by the defendant. It seems, a dispute arose between the
parties about payment of certain amounts in the year 1995-
96. In 1995, plaintiff vide letter dated 31.3.95 Ex.DW1/3,
wrote to the defendant requesting clearing of all due
payments in time to make it convenient for the plaintiff to
supply the material on time. The plaintiff, however, did not
specify what were the due amount. The plaintiff's witness in
his testimony has categorically stated that n o letter has
been placed on record allegedly written by the plaintiff to
the defendant asking for nay payment of the due amount.
On the other hand, there is a letter written defendant
Ex.DW1/4 wherein the defendant has stated as under:
" Regarding settlement of your account and payment of
your outstanding bills, we have already submitted you
a reconciliation statement of your account.
During the meetings with you we have explained that
difference is mainly due to following reasons:-
1. Bills are not raised as per the terms of purchase
orders.
2. Following bills are not appearing in our books for
which you have to give proofs that the material is
received by us:-
RFA No. 486/2000 Page 3 of 5
Bill No. Date Amount In Rs.
692 13-10-92 2,902.77
693 13-10-92 27,142.65
694 13-10-92 27,200.99
Since our Sales Tax assessment for the year 1992-93 is
to be finalized by 29-03-96, you are requested to hand
over the Sales Tax Forms without any further delay on
29th morning otherwise the liability arising out of non-
submission of sales tax forms will be on your account
which will be Rs.11.65 lacs for the year 1992-93.
14. The purchase orders Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4 which
have been placed by the plaintiff on record are only
subsequent purchase orders. It is not the case of the
plaintiff that the payment of the supplied made against
these purchase orders have not been made. Similarly, the
invoices Ex.PW1/5, 6, 7 and 8 are the invoices in respect of
the material supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant. It is
not the case of the plaintiff that the payment against these
invoices has not been received. Plaintiff's contention is that
there was running account between the parties and as per
running account, the amount of Rs.1,98,341.90 was due with
the defendant. On the other hand, defendant has proved its
own running account showing that the entire payment has
been made. In such a case it was incumbent upon the
plaintiff to prove the supplies made by the plaintiff to the
defendant against which the payments have not been made
by the defendant. The defendant has specifically proved the
payments of the three bills about which the dispute was
raised by the plaintiff. These bills have been paid as per the
bank certificate Ex.DW1/P1 vide cheque no.254937, 254955
and 216316. The defendant has also filed statement of
account obtained from the bank showing that these amounts
of the cheques have been credited in the account of the
plaintiff. At no point of time plaintiff had written any letter
to the defendant to show which were the bills which were in
dispute, rather it was the defendant who had written to the
RFA No. 486/2000 Page 4 of 5
plaintiff about three disputed bills and requested the plaintiff
to give proof of the material supplied. I consider that the
plaintiff has miserably failed in proving that any amount was
due and recoverable by the plaintiff from the defendant."
5. I completely agree with the findings and conclusions of the Trial
Court. Simply by filing a statement of account, a suit cannot be decreed for
recovery of money unless the entries are proved which show the sale of
goods. Of course, statement of account of the appellant/plaintiff may have
been good enough if the respondent/defendant had not filed its statement of
account and other evidences, however, the respondent/defendant not only
filed its statement of account but the Trial Court has also relied upon the
admission in the cross-examination of the appellant's/plaintiff's witness that
with respect to each bill a summary used to be prepared and a cheque used
to be issued with respect to each bill. With respect to the disputed bill
except for an entry in the statement of account no proof was filed that the
goods were actually supplied.
6. I therefore do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned
judgment and decree which calls for interference. The Trial Court has rightly
held that the appellant failed to discharge its onus to prove the claim of any
due under the bills. The appeal is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to
bear their own costs.
FEBRUARY 17, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ak
