Madras High Court
M/S.Meera Electricals vs M/S.Classic Towers Pvt. Ltd on 19 September, 2025
S.No.201of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 22.07.2025
Pronounced on 19.09.2025
Coram:
The Honourable Mrs.Justice K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
Second Appeal No.201of 2019
M/s.Meera Electricals
Rep, by its Partner,
C.Madhanmohan
No.911, Avinashi Road,
Coimbatore-641 018
.. Appellant
versus
1.M/s.Classic Towers Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep., by its Managing Director,
Classic Garden,
1552, Trichy Road,
Coimbatore-641 018
2.A.Anwar
.. Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:39:38 pm )
S.No.201of 2019
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 CPC, praying to set aside
the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2006 made in A.S.No.172 of 2005 on
the file of learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, confirming
the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2005 made in O.S.No.3119 of 2004 on
the file of Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Thangavel
For Respondent : No appearance for R1 and R2
JUDGMENT
Challenging this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree
dated 24.01.2006 made in A.S.No.172 of 2005 on the file of learned III
Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and
decree dated 12.04.2005 made in O.S.No.3119 of 2004 on the file of
Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore.
2.The plaintiff is the appellant herein. The plaintiff has filed the above
suit for recovery of money directing the defendant's to pay a sum of
Rs.60,843.08/- being the principle and interest due from the defendant with
future interest at the rate of 24% per month at Rs.37,769/- from the date of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:39:38 pm )
S.No.201of 2019
filing of the suit till the date of realization.
2.1. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the dealer in
electrical goods and the 1st defendant is a company registered under Indian
Companies Act. The 2nd defendant is the Managing partner of the 1st
defendant's company.
2.2. The defendants placed purchase orders with the plaintiff for
supply of electrical goods. The plaintiff effected supplies in pursuant to the
purchase orders and raised invoices for such supplies. The defendants failed
to pay the invoice amounts aggregating to Rs.60,843.08/-. Inspite of several
repeated demands by the plaintiff, the defendants failed to settle the
accounts. The plaintiff issued a statutory notice on 17.12.1997 demanding
payment of the amount due with interest and the same was not received by
the defendants. Hence, the suit for recovery of the amounts due.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:39:38 pm )
S.No.201of 2019
3.The claim of the plaintiff is resisted by the defendants stating that
the defendants are not liable to pay the suit amount and the interest as
claimed in the suit. The statement of accounts filed by the plaintiff is
incorrect. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the
defendant for payment of interest. The 2nd defendant admits that he has
purchased certain electrical goods from the plaintiff but the value detailed in
the bills are excessive. The plaintiff charged abnormal rates for every goods
supplied by him, which is 25 % more than market value. When the same
was informed to the plaintiff, the plaintiff agreed to reduce the amount, but it
was not done. Hence, the defendant is not liable to pay the suit claim.
4.The trial Court accepted the contention of the defendants and
accordingly dismissed the suit against which the appeal suit in A.S.No.172
of 2005 was filed before the 1st Appellate Court and the same was also
dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
Aggrieved by this, the present second appeal is filed under Section 100 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:39:38 pm )
S.No.201of 2019
CPC.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submits
that the 1st respondent/1st defendant is liable to pay the amount mentioned in
the invoices under Ex.A2, A3 & A4 towards the goods supplied to them by
the appellant/ plaintiff and the above invoices are based on the purchase
orders placed by the 1st respondent/1st defendant under Exs.A.9 & A13 and
A14. His further submission is that the above documents marked as A2, A3
& A4 were rejected by the Courts below, for not producing the account book
and for non-examination of the accountant of the appellant/plaintiff. The
Courts below also rejected the documents marked as A9,A13 & A14
(Purchase orders) on the ground that handwriting found in A.9, and A14 are
different and that they could have been written by different persons for the
1st respondent. The above findings of the Court below are erroneous for the
reason that based on the purchase orders made under Exs.A9, A13 & A14
goods were supplied to the 1st respondent under Ex.A2, A3 & A4 and
moreover, there is no need to file the ledger book of the appellant/plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:39:38 pm )
S.No.201of 2019
His further contention is that there is no need to examine Accountant of the
appellant/plaintiff to prove the invoices under Ex.A2, A3 & A4. His further
contention is that in a commercial transaction, parties are entitled to claim
24% interest and that the decision in 2001 1 LW 293 relied upon in the
Courts below is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on
hand.
6. Despite notice, the respondents remained absent.
7.Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
8. The following question of law is formulated in this second appeal:
Whether the Courts below were right in rejecting
the invoices Ex.A2, Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 for the goods
supplied merely on the ground of non-examination of the
accountant and for non-production of the account
book?''
9.The Courts below non suited the plaintiff for non examination of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:39:38 pm )
S.No.201of 2019
accountant and for non production of the account book as required under
Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to prove the transactions between
the plaintiff and the defendants.
10.It is the specific case of the plaintiff that, the defendants have
purchased certain electrical goods on credit and as per Exs.A2 to Ex.A4
invoices, the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.60,843.08/- to the
plaintiff. The 1st defendant admits that he has purchased certain electrical
goods from the plaintiff but he did not admit that he has purchased goods for
the value detailed in Ex.A2 to Ex.A4 invoices. Hence, the defendants are
not liable to pay the suit claim. The further contention of the defendants in
their written statement is that the plaintiff was charging abnormal rates for
the goods supplied, which is 25% excess of the market value and when the
same was informed to the plaintiff, he agreed to reduce the sale price. When
the 2nd defendant admits that he has purchased certain electrical goods from
the plaintiff, and denies the values mentioned in the invoices are correct, it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:39:38 pm )
S.No.201of 2019
for the plaintiff to establish that the values mentioned in the invoices are
true. In the case on hand, the plaintiff was cross examined at length. The
witness admitted that document Ex.A1 is the statement of accounts, Ex.A2
to Ex.A4 are invoices, Exs.A9, A13 & A14 (purchase orders) and Exs.A5 to
A.8, A.10, A.11, A12 & A15 are notices, returned covers and
communications sent to the defendants.
11.The 1st defendant examined himself as D.W1. He does not admit
that he has purchased goods for the value detailed in the above bills.
Therefore, he claims that he is not liable to pay the suit claim.
12.An invoice formally requests payment for the goods or services
after they have been provided and accepted. In legal matters, an invoice
provides essential details, such as the specific items delivered, the agreed-
upon prices, and the total amount due, which helps to substantiate a financial
claim. Moreover, invoices, are considered crucial documents in financial and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:39:38 pm )
S.No.201of 2019
legal disputes because they can be used as evidence of the transaction and
the debt owed by the buyer. Courts have emphasized that an invoice, in
conjunction with other documents like purchase orders, account books and
proof of receipt is vital for establishing the authenticity and reality of a
transaction. Therefore, an invoice serves as a critical proof of payment
request and proof of delivery. At the same time, once the defendant accepts
or signs the purchase order, it becomes a legally binding contract between
both parties, obligating them to uphold its terms, unless there is a dispute
about what was delivered and for what price. It has been averred in the
written statement filed by the defendant that he has purchased certain
electrical goods from the plaintiff. But the value detailed in the invoices are
incorrect. The further averment is that the defendant has made several
payments to the plaintiff and after deducting the same the plaintiff has come
forward to claim an excess amount from the defendant. The Courts below
adverting to Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 have concurrently
held that unless, the accountant of the plaintiff is examined and the account
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:39:38 pm )
S.No.201of 2019
books are produced for comparison, the value detailed in the invoices cannot
be accepted. It is no doubt that the burden of proof lies on a person making
any claim or asserting any fact.
13.Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to recapitulate
the law on the subject.
14.Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with relevancy
of entries in books of account including those maintained in an electronic
form when relevant. It reads as under:
''34. establishes that entries in books of accounts,
including electronic ones, are relevant if they were
regularly kept in the course of business and pertain to
a matter under court inquiry. However, these entries
alone are not sufficient to prove liability. They serve as
corroborative evidence and must be supported by other
evidence, such as invoices or documents of the
transaction, to establish a person's liability.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:39:38 pm )
S.No.201of 2019
15.Section 34, is an exception to Section 21 which provides that a
person cannot make evidence for him, provides that entries in books of
account including those maintained in an electronic form regularly kept in
the course of business, by a person, alive or dead, or relevant, whenever they
refer to a matter into which the Court has to require. It is not sufficient to
charge any person with liability unless some independent evidence is given.
The evidentiary value of entries of account book depends on corroboration
by other evidence despite entries are regularly kept and maintained by writer
who has full knowledge, no motive to falsehood, and there is the strongest
improbability of untruth. The original entries alone under Section 34 would
not be sufficient to charge any person with liability. The corroborative
evidence must have minimum probative value. This corroborating evidence
might be in any form like receipts, voucher, bills or even oral evidence of
witnesses having personal knowledge of the affairs of the transaction. The
veracity of account book cannot be doubted on ground that day books
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:39:38 pm )
S.No.201of 2019
supporting ledger entries and person who made said entries in ledger books
were not produced. [Ref: Ishwar Dass Jain Vs. Sohan Lal, reported in AIR
2000 SC 426].
16.In the case relied upon by the Courts below, the 1st defendant in
that case raised a plea that no orders were placed on to the plaintiff therein
for supply of goods during the relevant period. The plaintiff therein marked
the account books as exhibit to prove placing of order by the plaintiff and
supply of goods. Hence, it was held that, account books by themselves are
not sufficient to charge any person with liability. Entries in account books
should be proved to be real and honest transaction by adducing independent
evidence. Since the plaintiff therein failed to examine person who made
entries in account book as witness and person who dealt with receipts and
payments was also not examined as witness and therefore, the Court held
that, mere production of account books is not sufficient to establish
transactions entered in books as contemplated under Section 34 of the Indian
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:39:38 pm )
S.No.201of 2019
Evidence Act, 1872. But in the present case, the plaintiff has produced the
purchase orders and the invoices along with the statement of accounts to
substantiate its claim.
17.The defendants can dispute and argue the accuracy of an invoice
because it does not reflect the agreed upon terms. In the present case, the 1st
defendant in fact disputed the purchase order and the invoices. However,
the defendants failed to present concrete evidence to support these claims,
such as written complaint about non-issuance of purchase order and that the
value detailed in the invoices are incorrect. The defendants failed to
establish that the purchase orders were not issued by the defendants. In fact,
the 1st defendant in the written statement admits that he has purchased
certain electrical goods from the plaintiff but denied the value detailed in
Bill No.46479 dated 20.12.1994, Bill No.47443 dated 15.06.1995 and Bill
No.47583 dated 06.07.1995 marked as Ex.A2 to A4 respectively. The
further contention of the 1st defendant is that he had made several payments
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:39:38 pm )
S.No.201of 2019
to the plaintiff and after deducting the same, the plaintiff has come forward
to claim excess amount from the defendant. The 1st defendant also submits
that the plaintiff had charged heavy rates i.e more than 10% to 25% than the
market value and when he informed about the high rate of charge, the
plaintiff agreed to reduce the amount for each and every bill, but failed to do
so. Nowhere, the defendants have stated that, the purchase orders were not
issued by him and that the invoices are fake. Moreover, there is no evidence
on record to show that the defendants informed the plaintiff about the
excessive charge and the value detailed in the bills are excessive. The
defendants must clearly demonstrate the specific discrepancies in the value
detailed in the invoices.
18.It is well settled that a purchase order is a buyer's request, while an
invoice is a seller's request for payment after goods or service are provided.
A purchase order can become a legally binding contract, whereas, the
invoice serves as a legally binding document providing evidence of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:39:38 pm )
S.No.201of 2019
agreed terms of the transaction and the amount a buyer owes, offering legal
protection to both parties in case of disputes i.e., in case of legal disputes.
An invoice is used to substantiate claims regarding delivered goods and
payment due. It provides essential documentation of what was sold and the
price for the transaction.
19. Further, the issues in civil cases are to be decided on the scale of
preponderance of probabilities. The doctrine of preponderance of
probabilities was discussed in the judgment of Dr.N.G.Dastane Vs. Mrs.
S.Dastane reported in AIR 1975 SC 1534 reads as under:
"24.The normal rule which governs civil proceedings is
that a fact can be said to be established if it proved by a
preponderance of probabilities. This is for the reason that under
the Evidence Act, Section 3, a fact is said to be proved when the
court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so
probably that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of
the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The
belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a
balance of probabilities. A prudent man faced with conflicting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:39:38 pm )
S.No.201of 2019
probabilities concerning a fact-situation will act on the
supposition that the fact exists, if on weighing the various
probabilities he links that the preponderance is in favour of the
existence of the particular fact. As a prudent man, so the court
applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to
be proved. The first step in this process is to fix the probabilities,
the second to weigh them, though the two may often intermingle.
The impossible is weeded out at the first stage, the improbable at
the second. Within the wide range of probabilities the court has
often a difficult choice to make but it is this choice which
ultimately determines where the preponderance of probabilities
lies. Important issues like those which affect the status of parties
demand a closer scrutiny than those like the loan on a
promissory note : "the nature and gravity of an issue necessarily
determines the manner of attaining reasonable satisfaction of
the truth of the issue "Per Dixon, J. In Wright v. Wright (1948)
77 C.L.R. 191 at p. 210; or as said by Lord Denning, "the degree
of probability depends on the subject-matter.''
20.In the present case, the plaintiff through oral and documentary
evidence has established his claim. The initial burden of proof is discharged
by the plaintiff. Now, the onus shift on the defendants, to disprove the case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:39:38 pm )
S.No.201of 2019
of the plaintiff. But, the defendants failed to lead any evidence to prove that
the values detailed in the invoices are excessive. The defence set up by the
defendants is on the basis of Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 alone. There is nothing on
record to show that the value detailed in the invoices is incorrect was
communicated to the plaintiff. Only for the first time in the written statement
the above issues were raised. It is relevant here, before appreciation of
evidence and deciding the issues, the position of law is that the onus of proof
in civil trial is the obligation on the plaintiff that the plaintiff would adduce
evidence that proves his claims on preponderance or probability against the
defendant. As the fact of purchasing the goods from the plaintiff is admitted
by the defendants and failed to discharge that the value detailed in the suit
invoices and to bring on record the preponderance of probabilities by
reference to the circumstances upon which he relies, the plaintiff in such an
event is entitled under Law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case
including that of the plaintiff as well. The standard of proof evidently is
preponderance of probabilities. Inference of preponderance of probabilities
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:39:38 pm )
S.No.201of 2019
can be drawn not only from the materials on record but also by reference to
the circumstances upon which the plaintiff lies. The object of the judicial
process is to find the truth from the pleadings, documents and the evidence
led before the Court. The Courts below without analyzing the above in a
proper perspective way dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Therefore,
the plaintiff is, certainly entitled to recovery of the suit amount. Since, there
is no contract between the parties in respect of interest, the plaintiff is
entitled to the suit claim with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% from the
date of plaint till the date of realization.
21. In the result,
(1) The Second appeal is allowed. No costs.
(2) The judgment and decree dated 24.01.2006 made in A.S.No.172 of
2005 on the file of learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2005 made in O.S.No.3119
of 2004 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore is set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:39:38 pm )
S.No.201of 2019
19.09.2025
vsn
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
To
1.The III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore,
2. The Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore
3.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J.
vsn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:39:38 pm )
S.No.201of 2019
Pre- delivery judgment made in
Second Appeal No.201of 2019
19.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:39:38 pm )
