Karnataka High Court
Ajyakumar S/O Shankaralingappa vs The Karnataka Handloom Development ... on 6 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14263
RSA No. 100550 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100550 OF 2016 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
AJAYKUMAR S/O SHANKARLINGAPPA
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: NOT KNOWN,
R/O: MADENAHALLI, TQ: GUBBI-572216,
DIST: TUMKUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE KARNATAKA HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD. HUBBALLI,
RPTD BY ITS JOINT DIRECTOR
SRI. B.N. GADAG,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI-580023,
Digitally
DIST: DHARWAD.
signed by ...RESPONDENT
VISHAL
VISHAL NINGAPPA
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL (BY SRI PRAKASH ANDANIMATH, ADVOCATE)
PATTIHAL Date:
2023.12.14
11:35:46 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
+0530
100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.03.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.
205/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI, DISMISSING
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
31.03.2010, PASSED IN O.S.NO. 23/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE III-
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI, DECREEING THE SUIT
FILED FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14263
RSA No. 100550 of 2016
JUDGMENT
The present second appeal by the unsuccessful
defendant assailing the concurrent findings of facts of the
Courts below, whereby, the suit seeking recovery of money
was decreed directing the defendant to pay Rs.2,97,080.96,
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
the suit till its realization.
2. The parties herein are referred to as per their
ranking before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. Plaintiff is the Karnataka Handloom Development
Corporation Limited, Hubli ("Corporation" for short) and the
defendant was serving with the plaintiff-corporation as Sales
Assistant Grade-I from 20.09.1982. It is the case of the
plaintiff that, the corporation has entrusted the fabrics to the
defendant during the year 1996-97 and the plaintiff
maintains the register for having entrusted the goods to the
defendant. The plaintiff-corporation suspected the bonafides
of the defendant and therefore got the stocks and accounts
verified through special audit. At that time, plaintiff-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14263
corporation came to know that the defendant has not
accounted for fabrics worth Rs.3,53,180.80. The defendant
was called upon to account for the same, the charges were
framed against the defendant and objections were called for
from him, domestic enquiry was held and charges leveled
against the defendant were held to be proved, by an order of
punishment, the defendant was punished holding that he is
to be compulsorily retired from the service of the plaintiff-
corporation.
4. Thereafter notice was issued by the plaintiff-
corporation stating that the defendant is liable to pay an
amount of Rs.3,53,180.80 and after deducting certain
amount towards gratuity and other benefits, defendant is
liable to pay sum of Rs.2,97,080.96 with interest at the rate
of 18% per annum.
5. Pursuant to the suit summons issued by the Trial
Court, the defendant appeared and inter-alia denied the
plaint averments and contended that the defendant has not
misappropriated or not accounted for the fabrics as stated by
the plaintiff-corporation. It is specifically denied that
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14263
defendant is liable to pay any suit claim as made by the
plaintiff. It is contended that the account department of the
plaintiff-corporation has passed a journal voucher No.972
stating that there is neither shortage nor misappropriation of
amount and the debit and credit is fair and proper. It is
stated that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by time and
stating these grounds, sought for dismissal of the suit.
6. The Trial Court on basis of the pleadings framed
the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff corporation proves that
it came to know for the first time that the
defendant has not accounted the fabrics
worth of Rs.3,53,180.80 and has not paid
the said amount inspite of the demand?
2. Whether it further proves that a sum of
Rs.56099.84 which was due to the defendant
as gratuity is adjusted for the amount due by
the defendant and hence the defendant is
liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,97,080.96?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
interest at the rate of 18% p.a on the said
amount?
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14263
4. Whether the defendant proves that the
fabrics worth of Rs.39,19,657.27 was
entrusted to him for the second sale and
after the sale and physical stock and transfer
of stock there was an excess amount of
Rs.6/- and there is no misappropriation of
funds by him?
5. Whether the defendant proves that suit filed
by plaintiff is barred by law of limitation and
hence the same is liable to be dismissed?
7. In order to substantiate his claim the plaintiff-
corporation examined one Basavaraj N.Gadag and
Rukmanagad Sharma as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked
documents at Exs.P.1 to P.12. On the other hand, the
defendant examined himself as DW.1 and two witnesses as
DWs.2 and 3 and got marked documents at Exs.D.1 to D.64.
8. The Trial Court on basis of the oral and
documentary evidence held that the plaintiff-corporation has
proved that the defendant has not accounted to the fabrics
worth Rs.3,53,180.80 and the defendant is due for an
amount of Rs.2,97,080.96 after deducting the gratuity
amount and by the judgment and decree, decreed the suit of
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14263
the plaintiff for recovery, directing the defendant to pay a
sum of Rs.2,97,080.96 with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of the suit till realization. Feeling
aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred appeal
before the First Appellate Court.
9. The First Appellate Court while re-appreciating
and reconsidering the entire oral and documentary evidence
independently, concurred with the judgment and decree of
the Trial Court. Feeling aggrieved, the present second appeal
by the defendant.
10. Heard Sri Pruthvi K.S. learned counsel appearing
for the appellant and Sri Prakash Andanimath, learned
counsel for the respondent and perused the judgment and
decree of the Courts below.
11. Fact that the defendant was working with the
plaintiff-corporation as Sales Assistant Grade-I from 1982 is
not in dispute and also that he was required to maintain the
stock of the fabrics sold and account, for the account
proceeds thereof. It is also not in dispute that the charges
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14263
were proved against the defendant and there was order of
compulsory retirement from the service. The plaintiff-
corporation after the audit has found that the defendant has
not accounted for the fabrics worth Rs.3,53,180.80. The
defendant in order to substantiate his claim has placed
reliance on Exs.D.63 and 64, which are the statement of
account obtained from the account department, to verify the
statement of account he has to take permission from the
higher authorities. Exs.D.63 and D.64 are by an accountant,
the signatory to the said document has not been examined
by defendant, to substantiate his claim that there was no
misappropriation on part of the defendant. Plaintiff-
corporation maintains register for having entrusted goods to
the defendant, as follows.
Sl. Amount
Details
No. (in Rs.)
1 Opening balance of stock as on
01.04.1996. 9,75,007.95
Add: Transfer in stock during 1996-
1997. 29,44,649.32
Total 39,19,657.27
2 Less: Transfer out of stock during
1996-97. Rs.11,49,212.37
Less: Sales Rs. 4,71,318.05 16,20,530.42
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14263
3 Balance of stock as on 31.03.1997. 22,99,126.85
4 Less: Physical balance of stock as on
31.03.1197. 19,45,946.05
5 Net shortage of stock as on
3,53,180.80
31.03.1997
Therefore, there is shortage of Rs.3,53,180.80 which is
not accounted by the defendant. The defendant contends
that in the sale campaign there was no shortage at all. In
the year 1995-1997, the defendant was entrusted with
sales, audit was conducted as per Ex.P.10, wherein it was
reported that there is shortage of finished goods worth
Rs.3,53,180.80 and it was not accounted for by the
defendant and the witnesses examined on behalf of the
defendant more particularly, DW.2 though categorically
stated that the value of the fabrics was Rs.19,98,197.90,
however, stated that the same is not reflected in the office
records nor any other materials have been placed by the
defendant to substantiate that the value of the stock infact
was Rs.19,98,197.90 as stated supra.
12. The trial Court held that the statement of
accounts and the persons examined could not justify about
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14263
the genuineness of the said documents and in the said
circumstances, the trial Court and the first Appellate Court
arrived at a conclusion that the defendant is unable to
establish about the sale and physical stock that was
available in his statement of accounts and the defendant has
failed to prove that there is no misappropriation of funds.
13. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have
taken into consideration the material placed by the plaintiff
more particularly the account statement at Ex.P.2, the
framing of charges and audit report at Ex.P.10 and arrived at
a conclusion that the defendant has not accounted to the
fabrics as stated by the plaintiff in his pleadings and
accordingly, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
held that the plaintiff's suit for recovery of money needs to
be decreed and directed the defendant to pay a sum of
Rs.2,97,080.96 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of the suit till realization.
14. The manner in which, the Courts below have
assessed the entire oral and documentary evidence, this
Court is of the considered view that the same does not
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14263
warrant any interference under Section 100 CPC against
concurrent findings of facts of the Courts below and
accordingly, this Court pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The regular second appeal is hereby
dismissed.
(ii) The judgment and decree of the Courts
below stands confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
EM, CT: UMD
