[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Sri Mahaveer Textile Industries vs M.Manickam (Died) on 6 January, 2026
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 15.12.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 06.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
A.S.No. 98 of 2018
And
C.M.P.No. 18398 of 2021
1. Sri Mahaveer Textile Industries
A registered firm rep., b y
Managing Partner
A.Chandrasekar
S.F.No. 28, Pollachi Main Road,
Vadugapalayam,
Palladam – 641 664.
Coimbatore District.
2. A.Chandrasekar
S/o. M.Arunachalam ... Appellants/Defendants 1 & 2
Vs
1. M.Manickam (died)
S/o. Nallanamudaliar
2. P.S.Sivakumar
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:14 pm )
3. Sarathambal
W/o. Late Manickam
4. A.Ramalakshmi
D/o. Late Manickam
5. M.Shivaram,
S/o. Late Manickam
... Respondents/Defendants
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC, read with Order 41 Rule
1 CPC against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No. 257 of 2013 on
the file of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Erode, dated 06.07.2017.
***
For Appellant : Mr. S.Mukunth
Senior Counsel
for M/s. S.Kiruthika
For Respondents : Mr.K.Myilsamy
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:14 pm )
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.)
The first and second defendants in O.S.No. 257 of 2013 on the file
of the II Additional District Court at Erode, are the appellants herein.
2. O.S.No. 257 of 2013 had been filed by the plaintiff seeking a
Judgment and Decree for a sum of Rs.26,67,600/- together with interest and
costs. By Judgment dated 06.07.2017 the suit was decreed necessitating
filed of the present Appeal.
3. Pending the appeal, the first respondent/plaintiff died and his
legal representatives have been brought on record as third to fifth
respondents.
4. In the plaint in O.S.No. 257 of 2013, the plaintiff
M.Manickam, Proprietor of Balamurugan Textiles contended that he is a
dealer in yarns, and that the first defendant is a registered partnership firm
also doing business in textiles and the second defendant was the Managing
Partner, the third defendant was the broker and agent of the first and second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:14 pm )
defendants. It had been further contended that the second defendant
approached the plaintiff through the third respondent for supply of yarns on
credit agreeing to pay the value of the yarn within 10 days from the date of
purchase. Accordingly on 03.11.2010, the plaintiff sold 150 bags of yarn for
a sum of Rs.13,57,200/- on credit. There was also delivery of the said 150
bags of yarn and delivery was also taken. Again on 14.11.2010, the second
defendant purchased a further 150 bags of yarn for a sum of Rs.13,10,400/-.
This was also delivered and delivery was also received. It had been
contended that towards the said purchase for a total 300 bags of yarn, the
first and second defendants were liable to pay a sum of Rs.26,67,600/-. It
had been stated that since they did not pay the amount, the plaintiff issued a
notice on 05.04.2011. It was replied on 19.04.2011 raising false allegations.
The first defendant contended that 300 bags of yarn were not received. The
plaintiff denied that particular statement made by the defendants. It was
under those circumstances that the suit was filed seeking recovery of a sum
of Rs.26,67,600/- together with interest and costs.
5. In the written statement filed by the first and second defendants,
the entire transaction as alleged by the plaintiff were denied. It had been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:14 pm )
contended by the said defendants that the said defendants purchased 150
bags of yarn on 03.11.2010 and 14.11.2010 only from their agent / the third
defendant. It was also contended that the quality of the yarn was not upto
the standard and therefore, the defendants had advised the third defendant to
return the 300 bags of yarn. It had been stated that accordingly, the third
defendant had taken back 80 bags of yarn on 04.11.2010 and also a further
75 bags of yarn on 16.11.2010. It had been contended that the claim of the
plaintiff is false and therefore, it had been stated that the suit should be
dismissed.
6. The third defendant had filed a written statement wherein it
had been contended that the third respondent had not received any notice as
contended by the plaintiff. It had been stated that as required by the first
and second defendants, the plaintiff had supplied 150 bags of yarn on
03.11.2010 and another 150 bags of yarn on 14.11.2010. It had been
contended that the total cost of the yarn was Rs.26,67,600/-. However, the
fact that the amount had not been repaid was not to the knowledge of the
third defendant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:14 pm )
7. The third defendant denied that the third defendant had taken
back 80 bags of yarn and another 70 bags of yarn from the first and second
defendants. It had been stated that the third defendant was not privity to the
contract between the plaintiff on the one hand and the first and second
defendants. It was stated that the suit should be dismissed against the third
respondent.
8. The first and second defendants filed an additional written
statement denying and disputing the contentions in the written statement of
the third defendant that the first and second defendants had purchased total
300 bags of yarn. It was contended that the claim in the suit is false and
therefore, the suit should be dismissed.
9. The plaintiff filed a reply statement once again reiterating that
the first and second defendants had purchased 150 bags of yarn on two
separate occasions, totally 300 bags of yarn from the plaintiff and had not
paid the amount towards the cost of the said yarn.
10. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:14 pm )
framed for trial:-
“1. Whether 150 bags of yarn was sold the defendants
one and two at request of second defendant on
03.11.2010 by the plaintiff which were worth
Rs.13,57,200/-?
2. Which 150 bags of yarn was sold the defendants one
and two at request of second defendant on 14.11.2010 by
the plaintiff which were worth Rs.13,10,500/-?
3. Whether the defendants one and two have not paid the
total amount of Rs.26,27,600/- due to the plaintiff?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs
claimed?; and
5. To What other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?”
11. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and marked Exs.
A-1 to A-16. Exs. A-1 and A-3 are the bills dated 03.11.2010 and
14.11.2010. Exs.A-2 and A-4 are the receipts issued by the Gemini Textiles
and by the first defendant dated 03.11.2010 and 14.11.2010. Ex.A-5 was the
extract of the ledger and Ex.A-6 was the monthly statement of sales tax for
November 2010. Exs. A-12 and A-13 were the notices exchanged between
the parties. Exs. A-14 to A-16 were the invoices and bills fro the supply of
yarn. The third defendant examined himself as DW-1. The second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:14 pm )
defendant examined himself as DW-2. Exs. B-1 to B-10 were marked
through Court. Exs. B-1 to B-4 were return delivery receipts and Exs. B-5
and B-6 were notices issued between the parties. There were two other
witnesses examined as DW-3 and DW-4.
12. On the basis of the above evidence, the learned trial Judge
found that the second defendant had admitted in his cross examination that
he had facilitated supply of 150 bags of yarn from the plaintiff to Gemini
Textiles. It was observed that the statement of DW-1 on 03.11.2010 and
14.11.2010, that goods were delivered but were not all the quality was by
him was not stated in his written statement or in the additional written
statement. His further evidence that the goods were actually supplied was
also noted by the learned Trial Judge. It was also found that Exs. B-1 to B-4
were not original receipts and only carbon copies. DW-1 was not
confronted with the said exhibits. It was thus held that there had been
delivery of the goods but no payment made for the goods and in view of that
particular finding, the suit was decreed as prayed for with costs.
13. In the appeal before this Court, the learned Senior Counsel for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:14 pm )
the appellant contended that there was no direct contract between the
appellants and the first respondent. The learned counsel contended that the
second respondent was the agent and it was with him only alone did the
appellants had an agreement for supply of yarn. The learned Senior counsel
further contended that since the quality of the yarn was not proper, the
second respondent had taken delivery of initially 80 bags of yarn and
subsequently another 70 bags of yarn and in this connection, drew the notice
of this Court to Exs. B-1 to B-4 delivery return challans. The learned Senior
Counsel stated that therefore, the reasoning of the learned trial Judge that
the suit should be decreed in entirety must be interfered with and the decree
and Judgment should be set aside.
14. The learned counsel who appeared for the first respondent and
thereafter for the legal representatives of the first / second to fourth
respondents however contended that Exs.A-1 to A-3 very clearly showed
that goods had been supplied to the first and second defendants. In this
connection, the learned counsel also placed reliance on Exs. A-2 and A-4
which were receipts for delivery of the goods. Reliance was also placed on
the monthly statement of Sales Tax for the month of November 2010 under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:14 pm )
Ex. A-6 and also on the extract of ledger, Ex.A-5 to show that goods had
been delivered on instructions of the first and second defendants. The
learned counsel therefore insisted that the onus therefore shifting on the
defendant to show that there has been discharge of the amounts raised under
the bill. It was contended that the appeal should be dismissed.
15. We have considered the arguments advanced and perused the
materials available on records.
16. The only point to be considered is whether the first
respondent has established sale and delivery of textile yarn as claimed in the
plaint and whether there has been discharge of the amounts towards such
sale.
17. The first respondent was a dealer in yarn doing business in
the name of Balamurugan Textiles. The first appellant is a registered firm.
They were also doing business in Textile yarns. The second appellant was
the Managing Partner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:14 pm )
18. It is the case of the first respondent that the appellants herein
had sought delivery of 150 bags of yarn on 03.11.2010 and yet another
delivery of 150 bags of yarn on 14.11.2010. The bills for the supply of the
said yarn were marked as Exs. A-1 and A-3 respectively. The documents
very clearly show that the bills had been raised in the name of the first
appellant/ Sri Mahaveer Textile Industries. During the trial, the carbon copy
of the said bills have been produced. It is clear that the first appellant had
purchased 150 bags of cotton yarn on 03.11.2010 and again on 14.11.2010
another 150 bags of cotton yarn from the first respondent herein. Ex.A-1
was for Rs.13,57,200/- and Ex.A-3 was for Rs.13,10,400/-. Both the bills
have been counter signed by the second respondent. The goods in Ex.A-1
was to be supplied to Gemini Textiles and the goods in Ex.A-3 was to be
supplied to the first appellant. The registration number of the lorry under
which the goods were transported was also given. Ex.A-2 is the delivery
receipt of the said goods by Gemini Textiles. Ex.A-4 was the delivery
receipt of the goods by the first appellant. These four documents, namely,
Exs.A-1 to A-4 very clearly show that goods had been sold and delivered.
They have been purchased by the first appellant/Sri Mahaveer Textile
Industries. Ex.A-5 is the extract of ledger of the first respondent in the name
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:14 pm )
of the first appellant and again the transactions are very clearly reflected.
Ex.A-6 is the monthly statement for November 2010 forwarded to the
commercial taxes Department by the first respondent. The statement shows
the transactions of the first respondent and also reflect the transaction to the
first appellant. It is thus clear that the bills as reflected under Exs. A-1 to
A-3 have again been proved by Exs. A-5 and A-6.
19. The first respondent also issued a legal notice in this regard
claiming the amount towards goods supplied. The first and second
appellants issued a reply which is marked as Ex.A-13 wherein they had
stated that they had privity of contract only with the second respondent and
not with the first respondent. This statement is obviously false as reflected
by Exs. A-1 and A-3. There had been no documents produced to show that
discharge of the amount to the first respondent.
20. It is also to be noted that DW-2, who was examined on behalf
of the appellants very categorically admitted that goods had been sold and
goods have been delivered and that there are no documents to show that the
amounts had been paid. The learned trial Judge had rejected Exs. B-1 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:14 pm )
B-4 on the ground that the originals had not been produced. There is no
explanation given as to why the originals had not been produced. Even
otherwise, the second respondent had denied that he had taken back the
goods as mentioned under Exs. B-1 to B-4. We hold that Exs. B-1 to B-4
had not been proved in manner known to law. It has to be concluded that
they have been prepared by the appellants herein to avoid the claim of the
first respondent. Since there has been delivery of goods and conversely,
since there has been no establishment for payment for the delivery of the
goods, the only conclusion which could be reached is that the appellants are
liable for the amounts as claimed by the first respondent.
21. We find no reason to differ from the Judgment and Decree of
the trial Court. The Appeal Suit stands dismissed with costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.
[C.V.K., J.] [K.B., J.]
06.01.2026
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:14 pm )
II Additional District Court, Erode
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
vsg
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
And
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:14 pm )
06.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:14 pm )
