M/S.Srivari Ply Boards Pvt.Ltd vs R.Palanisamy
2025 Latest Caselaw 5441 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5441 Mad
Judgement Date : 27 June, 2025

Madras High Court

M/S.Srivari Ply Boards Pvt.Ltd vs R.Palanisamy on 27 June, 2025

Author: G.Jayachandran

Bench: G.Jayachandran

                                                                                          A.S.No.83 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 27.06.2025

                                                          CORAM:

                              THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

                                                 A.S.No.83 of 2022
                                                       and
                                               C.M.P.No.3102 of 2022

                     1.M/s.Srivari Ply Boards Pvt.Ltd.,
                     Rep.by its Managing Director,
                     Mr.C.Srinivasan

                     2.Mr.C.Srinivasan,
                     Rep.by its Managing Director of
                     M/s.Srivari Ply Boards Pvt.Ltd.,

                     3.Tmt.Kalavathi,
                     Director of M/s.Srivari Ply Boards Pvt.Ltd.,
                     W/o.Mr.Chokkalingam.                                               .. Appellants


                                                              Vs.

                     R.Palanisamy                                                       .. Respondent

                     PRAYER: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 Order XII Rule 1 of
                     Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the decree and Judgment passed by the
                     IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in O.S.No.67 of
                     2016 dated 20.10.2021.



                     1/7




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis               ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 02:54:31 pm )
                                                                                             A.S.No.83 of 2022

                                         For Appellants          : Mr.B.Neduchezhiyan

                                         For Respondent      : Mr.S.Kousik
                                                               for Mr.V.Anandhamurthy
                                                           JUDGMENT

This Appeal Suit has been filed by the defendants, who lost the suit

for recovery of money instituted by the plaintiff based on goods sold and

delivered.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant's company

managed by the 2nd and 3rd defendants as the Managing Director and

Director respectively, placed an order for the purchase of 500 tonnes of

firewood per month for a period of 12 months. Based on their intent,

invoices were raised and goods were delivered at the premises of the

defendants. However, the defendants failed to pay the price of the goods.

Even a cheque for Rs.25,000/- issued towards part consideration, was

dishonoured. Only after a notice issued under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, the said amount was paid. The defendants are liable to

pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 15% being a

commercial transaction.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 02:54:31 pm )

3. The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that

the price of the firewood was paid as and when it was delivered. At some

point, the goods were not of standard quality and were returned.

Therefore, according to the defendants, there is no liability on their part

and the suit was filed only to make an illegal gain.

4. The trial Court, considering the pleadings, framed issues and

examined witnesses. To prove the claim, the plaintiff mounted the witness

box and marked fourteen (14) documents as exhibits Ex.A1 to Ex.A14.

The 2nd defendant mounted the witness box on behalf of the defendants,

but no documents were filed by them.

5. The trial Court, after perusing the invoices, lorry receipts and

the receipts issued by the defendants for receiving the goods, found that

except for one entry in the invoice, there was no proof of payment.

Accordingly, it passed a decree for the outstanding amount of

Rs.6,30,150/-, after deducting Rs.25,000/-, which was admittedly paid by

the defendants following the dishonour of the cheque due to insufficient

funds. Thus, the trial Court decreed recovery of Rs.6,05,150/- with

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 02:54:31 pm )

interest at 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit (i.e.,

20.02.2013) to the date of decree and thereafter, 6% interest from the date

of decree (i.e.,20.10.2021) till the date of realization.

6. The said judgment is challenged in this appeal by the

defendants on the ground that the records produced by the plaintiff do not

prove actual delivery of goods. The invoices bearing future dates do not

correlate with the receipts and delivery notes. The trial Court, according

to the appellants, miserably failed to take note of the fact and erroneously

accepted a false explanation given by the plaintiff, resulting in the

impugned decree.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent/plaintiff drew the attention of this Court to the invoice marked

as Ex.A1 and submitted that, based on the purchase order (Ex.A1)

firewood was periodically supplied to the defendants. Invoices along with

a cluster of delivery notes, were raised consolidating more than one

transactions. These consolidated invoices were produced before the Court

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 02:54:31 pm )

accompanying with individual receipts for each consignment and weigh

bridge receipts. The defendants had also endorsed the delivery of goods

in those receipts. Therefore, the trial court has rightly allowed the suit.

8. Point for consideration:-

Whether the trial Court erred in passing the decree based on

the consolidated invoices which carried future dates, some of which were

post-dated in relation to the respective delivery notes?

9. This Court, on examination of Ex.A2 to Ex.A6, finds that the

invoice Nos.5, 4, 3, 6 & 7 though appearing to be consolidated invoices,

contain the respective vehicle numbers and are supported by weigh

bridge receipts as well as receipts issued by the defendants on their

letterhead. The payments made are duly endorsed in those receipts. The

plaintiff has not claimed amounts already paid as reflected in those

receipts. Only the unpaid invoices are the subject matter of the suit and

the trial Court, on proper scrutiny of the documents, rightly restricted the

suit claim from Rs.6,98,210/- to 6,05,150/-. No contra evidence let in by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 02:54:31 pm )

the appellants/defendants, except for oral evidence, which lacks

corroboration.