Madras High Court
Rajasekaran Textiles vs Jaisor Spin Textiles (P) Ltd on 22 June, 2021
1 S.A.(MD)NO.534 OF 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.(MD)No.534 of 2014 and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014
1. Rajasekaran Textiles,
95, Thiruvengadam Salai,
Sankarankoil Kasba,
Sankarankoil Taluk,
Tirunelveli District,
Through its Proprietor
Sankaranarayanan.
2. Rajasekaran Textiles,
95, Thiruvengadam Salai,
Sankarankoil Kasba,
Sankarankoil Taluk,
Tirunelveli District,
Through its Proprietor
Rajasekaran. ... Appellants/Appellants/
Defendants
Vs.
Jaisor Spin Textiles (P) Ltd.,
Malayankulam,
Sanakarankoil Circle,
Tirunelveli District,
(Registered under Companies Act 1/56,
No.18-29744 of 1995)
through its Managing Director,
P.L.J.Lakshmanan,
S/o.P.L.Jeganathan ... Respondent/Respondent/
Plaintiff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/10
2 S.A.(MD)NO.534 OF 2014
Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of
C.P.C. r/w. Order 42 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C., against the
judgment and decree dated 29.01.2014 passed in A.S.No.17 of
2012 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2011 passed
in O.S.No.44 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court,
Sankarankoil.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram,
for Mr.D.Nallathambi.
For Respondents: Mr.F.X.Eugene
***
JUDGMENT
The defendants in O.S.No.44 of 2010 on the file of the
Sub Court, Sankarankoil, are the appellants in this second
appeal.
2. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein,
namely, Jaisor Spin Textiles (P) Ltd., for recovering a sum of
Rs.6,25,243/- with interest from the appellants herein. The
case of the plaintiff was that they had a running arrangement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3 S.A.(MD)NO.534 OF 2014
with the appellants. As per which the plaintiff would supply
yarn to the appellants and they have to convert it into terry
towels. The plaintiff has to pay charges to the defendants as
per the agreed rate. This arrangement was going on between
the parties from September 2004 till 07.08.2006. It was
agreed that as on 07.08.2006, the defendants were in
possession of 12,546.96 Kg. of yarn. The defendants neither
gave finished products nor returned the raw materials.
Therefore, the plaintiff was left with no other option but to file
the said suit for recovery of the said sum from the defendants.
The defendants contested the suit claim and also raised a
counter claim.
3. According to the defendants, the plaintiff has not
taken note of the wastage and shrinkage that is bound to
happen in such manufacturing process. The defendants would
further allege that the plaintiff had not paid them the job work
charges fully. Therefore, the defendants also filed a counter
claim for directing the plaintiff to pay them a sum of
Rs.2,67,790/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4 S.A.(MD)NO.534 OF 2014
4. One Dhandapani was examined as P.W.1 on the
side of the plaintiff and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.20 were marked. The
second defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and three others
as D.W.2 to D.W.4. D.W.3 and D.W.4 are said to be experts
having knowledge of production in cotton yarn industries. The
defendants also marked Ex.B.1(statement of accounts) for the
relevant period. The learned trial Judge by judgment and
decree dated 14.10.2011 directed the defendants to pay a sum
of Rs. 4,68,343/- to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation. The
counterclaim was however dismissed. Aggrieved by the same,
the defendants filed A.S.No.17 of 2012 before the Principal
District Court, Tirunelveli. The first appellate Court by
judgment and decree dated 29.01.2014, confirmed the
decision of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, this second
appeal came to be filed.
5. This second appeal was admitted on the following
substantial questions of law:-
“a) When D.Ws.3 and 4 are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5 S.A.(MD)NO.534 OF 2014
experts/officers working in Textile Committee
deposed about the wastage in the manufacturing
process, whether the Courts below are correct in
decreeing the suit and dismissing the counter
claim without touching upon the issue of
wastage in the manufacturing process?
b) Whether the first appellate Court is
correct in dismissing the appeal filed by these
appellants which includes counter claim to the
tune of Rs.2,67,790/- even without any
discussion in spite of a specific issue on that
aspect?
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of
grounds. He pointed out that it was not as if on 07.08.2006,
the quantity mentioned in the plaint was handed over. It was
rather the running account between the plaintiff company and
the defendants. When a given quantity of yarn is supplied, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
6 S.A.(MD)NO.534 OF 2014
finished product will obviously not be of the same quantity.
There is bound to be certain amount of loss and shrinkage in
the manufacturing process. Defendants 3 and 4 who are
experts in the field have categorically deposed about the
same. The Courts below had not taken note of this aspect. He
also faulted the first appellate Court for not even whispering
about the counter claim lodged by the defendants. He called
upon this Court to answer the substantial questions of law in
favour of the appellants and allow this second appeal.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent submitted that the appellants are virtually
re-agitating the concluded findings of fact and that no
substantial question of law arises for consideration. He
pressed for dismissal of this second appeal.
9. I carefully considered the rival contentions and
went through the evidence on record.
10. The impugned judgments rest primarily on
Ex.A.11 that was marked through D.W.1. During his cross
examination, the said witness fairly admitted that Ex.A.11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7 S.A.(MD)NO.534 OF 2014
which was issued in the letter pad of Rajasekaran Textiles was
signed by the first defendant Thiru.T.Sankaranarayanan.
Therefore, it is not open to the defendants to dispute the
contents of the said document. A mere look at Ex.A.11 would
show that the defendants had admitted that as on 07.08.2006,
they were in possession of 12,546.96 Kgs. of cotton yarn. The
Courts below have decreed the suit only by proceeding on this
basis.
11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent, what has been admitted need
not be proved. The defendants cannot get over the legal effect
flowing from Ex.A.11. The Courts below have decreed the suit
claim only by proceeding on the premise that as on 07.08.2006
the defendants were in possession of 12,546.96 Kgs. of cotton
yarn and that they have not supplied any finished product. It
is not the case of the defendants that after the said date (ie.)
07.08.2006 they had made supplies. Therefore, the question of
giving allowances towards wastage and shrinkage will not
arise at all.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
8 S.A.(MD)NO.534 OF 2014
12. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment
and decree passed by the first appellate Court does not call for
any interference. The substantial questions of law are
answered against the appellants.
13. This second appeal is dismissed. The learned
counsel appearing for the appellants informs this Court that
50% of the decretal amount to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- was
already deposited by the appellants before the Court below.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
22.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
9 S.A.(MD)NO.534 OF 2014
To:
1. The Principal District Judge,
Tirunelveli.
2. The Sub Judge,
Sankarankoil.
3. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
10 S.A.(MD)NO.534 OF 2014
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
S.A.(MD)No.534 of 2014
22.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
