Karnataka High Court
M/S Vijayalakshmi Offset Printers vs M/S Melgiri Enterprises on 15 April, 2010
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
E)A'I'FLD THIS T H E 15"" DAY OF 1'~\.}7'I~'{II. 2010 I
I-3i:',I+"ORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVINID Q . I
CIVIL REVISION PETITION :NO.b8A?IC/'jflJ;w1 "
BETWEEN: I I I
M /S VIJAYALAKSHMI OFFSET PR'I;\I'r*I2I2S
No. 56. 8*" MAIN ROAD
J.C. INDUSTRIAL I:ZSTA'I'I?.__ . _ _
KANAKAPURA ROAD. I3AN'cAI1,o'II2_I«:f--;560362.,
REPRESENTIEZD BY ITS PROP'Rl_E"I'OR " " "
SR1. RAMESI>»IBAB'U". ._ L I I
~I ' ' ' .. PI':'."I'ITIONER
[BY SMT. JA.I\(IUI---JI{\£?I2§I--,'_ AI>f~.r_.):. 3 . I
AND:
M/S IvII«:I;,c;II2I I2;N"I*::I:;I_>RISII+:S---.__ - '
17. 12TH MAIN ROAD. _.
NEXT TO S:B.M. '
RAJAJINAGAR... BANGAI;--ORi~': --« SS0 010.
REPRIQSIINTEI3 BY I\/IANAGISR 3:
* ENVENAISIVPQ1wER"A'I*T0RNI:Y HOLDER
" S. i\IAI&1\YAI'~JA;'«..._
C(CI=:y'S:~2IA; SRE*§'EKAN'II*IIA. ADV. I
'"~.."I'I"I,IS' REVISION PETITION IS FILIZD UNIDER
QS£«:c'I'Io.N' IS OF KARNATAKA SI\/EALI. c:AuSI;~;S COURT ACT.
A{}AINS'1'uTHE JUDGMEN'l' AND DEGREE DA'I'I:ZD 3.12.2009
- I ¢I*.ASSE;D IN 8.0 NO. 15185/2009 ON TI-IE FILES OF THE
" _ l'.7;*'". JADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, I\/EAYOHALL.
BANGALORIS [)ECRE3EING 'I'}~lE SUIT FOR RECOVERY or
" MONEY.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PE§TITIOI\I COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY. THIS COURT I\/1./\I)E"l"I"IEZ FOLLOWING:
..RESPONDENT
Ix)
ORDER
Though the matter is listed for admission, consent of learned counsel for the parties, tihe "re\-ziisioii "
petition is taken up for final disposal. "
2. This is a c1efer1c1ar1't'_s*--revisio.n qt1estio.rii.i1g the % correctness of the j_L1dg1'I1€VI1.tV:-".aI}§1 decree fdmed: 3.12.2009 passed in 17*" Add].
Small Cause C-.'.):VL'1Ifl.. HVarll'i»._[)ivisAit§i1. Bang__galore (S.C.C.H 211:." t _T_he5'v.'pa,rt.ies*fire referred as per t.he ranks before t.heu._eot1rt"V.be<lo*.x{."'-Alt.' the eommeneeme1'1t of the V argurnelrits leamoeldv counsel for the Revision petitioner f.il6'd,i.l1E;i1$lC.fidi,I1gS of trial court, €X.hibi'€.S and also made zivetiiatblve «th.e_ €~\fl'd€fl(§€ let in by parties. The facts in brief are as follows:
it r.Suit in S.C.No.15i85/O9 was filed seeking VA .,reeovery of sum of RS2.-4,000/~ with interest". at 24% pa. V from the dat;e of t.ransactio11 till the date of payment. It éw was contended in the suit, that plai11t:iff is a wl'1oiesale dealer in Micro Offsets, T .13. inks and other pri'11t,ing'=_ materials and it. was run under t.he name 211i_.y;*i*--st.ylefbf * M/s. l\/Ielgiri Enterprises. and deferidaiit pf regular customer since last five years. l'itwas'-rjtjntendedu that plaintiff used to s1,:pplyflM:i:'("E'~::(b) 'l'l.fP'Inksl:'a1i:dV"Vb't'hVe1"
printing materials to t,he:~..dei'endari..:t1:¢ the 'y21ea'r§ 2000 on Cash as well as on agreed that whenever the basis, the defendant 30 days from the theffdefendarit. fails to do so within t.he the defendant shall pay the inter6St.. at t:l1€:rV 'rattle $240/0 interest Ila. It was eeritended that it washhaving a running aceotmt of the defendant.'-andfas~~ and when the defendant. used to place V V' 01"de'rs OVCI' .g3hone or through his agents, materials were if It: was contended that during the perioci 2005 to 28.11.2006 and on several other oceasions plaintiff supplied Inateriais to the defendant 4/ on credit basis for total worth of Rs.6,37.'/'96/~« and ii was contended that against the supply of the mat.e1'_ialds.._ defendant issued post dated cheque for dated: 15.09.2008 aniciiiggsii iss1,ziV1'1g»V .r)thef=fih respect of balance amounts due.
did not make payment defendant and by 9-"'l'."'5-'?nt' lgaicl-.. have presented the cheques came to be returned with funds'.
Hence, under Sec.138 of short: 'the i\l.I.Act'] for dishonouruc-fVcltietiule._'i11.V.:A:§3:t?~.itio.3623/2007. before the jurisdfictienaél' .l\/iagi'strate""..which ultimately on contest resulted*'-"in canvictieri of t:he accused therein i.e. revision 'petition-er:'«»..herein by sentencing the accused to pay fine or undeifgc.i.:'np1'is0I1rnentfor default. "Hence. it was . ficntended in the suit that. defendant was liable to pay a of Rs.24.0()O/« which includes the principle. V' "amount well as the interest. On service of notice before the trial court. defendant entered appearance Q1 and filed written statement' by denying the transactions with the plaintiff and also supply of TP. printing materials. l)efe11dant; also denied was any amount due from deferidant» to thjeh villi. was also denied in the written'.sijaternenf"that materials has been sL1pplie'cli:l"'~~i'or contended by the plainiiff. the pleadings, the trial Co1iiriVli71'ani-ed for its deterrriinationzg
1. pla;ifniVifi7_ lfieoves that the .... llpin-.r:l"lased materials A -- for the period ll 1.2006 and towards issued Cheque bearing a N1o.2éi3o-so for Rs.15,000/~ dated V'*W_i5';O.9.20O6 and the same has been eneashed and defendant' has paid the amount after receipt of notice of dishonour'?
2. What: order or decree'?
8. Plaintiff got: examined one witness namely S.Narayana the Me11'121g<%r of the Firm PWI and Q"
6
got marked Exs.P1 t.o PS9. The defentglant iet. in evidence through the proprietor Sri.Ramesh DW1, but did not get any documents mar1<.e.du'§ contended in evidence by the devferidant had been given as Security and th'ere--.v;ras no a.;fr:ot:_nt_. due from the defendant; to the the pieadings and evidence evta1"uating the same, Court below by decree dated 3.12.2009 It was also observed Para~18 that. any pursuant, to the judgment" Court, the said amount.-Vie oft"f';1.'orn the claim of t.he plaintiff and Vacco'35di.ng1Ay t.hewa{1i1'. came to be decreed. It is th;s«.jud§§fn-entf'.eand decree is questioned in this revision V dd _ petitiion. ' V' 1 have heard Smtdamuna Bat, learned connsel appearing for the revision petiti0ner/ defendant aw and Sri K.S.S1'eekantha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / plaintiff.
8. Srnt. Jamuna Bat would contend Court failed to take into (1onsic1erati_0.1i1 the in the p1aintiiTs evide,n<_:e. on a<:ct:.t1r1:t:'_' resulted in prejudice to contend that, according. to piaintteiifif, 't--ransat:tionVAvVi:is said to have been done far' to November-200$ '-the not have been accepted '{:_>y. .ti"1'e..__tiria}._C'ourt"{or__the reason that no prtidentfr,busine'ssf-._pe,rson'~._would have supplied the inaterials the' _<;:reci'it'&'"_.basis and not initiated any
-v~.'actic_sng.for' about "thr_e_e«.years and would have remained
7.,s'1";ter'1t.,, She "."W"O111C1 elaborate her submissions by cc)i'it.e'1iding.7jj_ plaiittiti had not proved the 'V.transact,io_ns in question by producing satisfactory "«Ievidence to establish the nexus between the alieged transaction, cheque issued and the arnounts due and as such she contends that piaintiff was not entitled for a judgment and decree. She would aiso submit that trial &/ court eornnlitted a serious error by 1*eiyii'ig, upon the judgment pronounced by the Magistrate Court convicting the defendant. for the offence t_'.t)§iT}.'lI}.f1:'i"t.'.'u_§"jd under Section 138 of 'the N1. 's't1f_i'_t.V On these grounds. she submits decree passed by the Court beloyestiffers 'from rna'i;eriai irregularity and seeksvfor S€t:iifig:_:'é3|SidC the"same and aliowing of the revision pet.i.tion-.-
9. Per 1 Sreekantita','"iearned counsel appearingr._,for<._the.:it_resp'(:ntient{pia:intiff would contend that it h..asrconie»in4i_;i1ye'=eK/'idericte of the defendant that goods were'e.beiri§' sii'ppi.ifed4to the defendant on credit vifhich is--~._a_1_so accepted and the present
7.,t'ran'sact.i_o'nWalong with other transaction relates to 1*u.'nni'ng maintained by the plaintiff for supply ".Qf Mic1:oVfffOffsets,'T.P. Ink and other printing materials "and 'thus when the defendant was transacting with the plaintiff for the past five years prior to the t.1'ansaetior1 in question there was no occasion for the plaintiff to disbeiieve the defendant to supply the goods and in @/ 9 order to secure the p2;1ym_ei'it, the plaintiff had obtained post dated cheques and thus he relies upon the judgment passed by the jurisdictional Me1gist.rat:e."'*.;1t' EXP-2 wliich liad eonviet.eci the 21e.cuseci~clefeiid-ai_;'iI:__'_'iloij the offence punislieibie under Section 133"
Act. He would also submit that Couft.' beiowi'l1;§Ls--,te1Vl{e'n into consideration EXP? iiaine-'IV i'o1'1'l'i'i*r_naLion' u balance issued by the dei'encEaii--t adn'i'i.tt.ing ai1Ci«..ietvgret%.ii1g thereunder the balance due by hini to theiplaintifl'. The signat'.u1'e found in wzis slst)_ (:oi'if1'o1it.ecl"t<) DWI and it:tAA.b%é_vca1i ll'1i.m as that'. of his signatiufey. ll _ submit.s that order of the trial Court" ntit.ls_Li"i'lfe'it from any illegality much less rnat,ei§}i2il "lI'I'€gLlJ13._lfVllty. He would contend tliat the trial Co1,1_rt. I.al{_€1] into consideration the evideime let in as also the documents produced by the f5laii1t.iif'wl:'1il_e deereeing the suit and eutcordingly he 'Vseeks ..i"oi" dismissal of the revision petition and ,eorifirmV2i"t.io1'1 of the judgment and decree passed by the V"-(_Zo1:1rtA_«belt)w. W ll)
10. Havirlg heard the learned counsel for the parties. the following points arise for my c(msidera--i}i'ori':--«ll'._
1. Whether Ll'1e_judgmenl and crlecree-. b_i;h"
the Court below SL{[f8;j'S _;'rom 'ail-iy --.rj1ci:teVricil irregularity or the trial Col_Lri_lias exercised _j urisd iction illegallt,"~
2. What order?'
11. Re~Poir1t l The factt5,\z..r1;iictli are that.
the plaintiff is' la_I'lildllldez:1lir1g in l\/li(:1'o materials. It is also not dispihed' parties that the defeiiddnt is a cs-'uvstome1=-. olfilihe' plaintiff and used to purchase l'l'\/licro l.Clffes"ets. 'I'.I5."I'r1k and other printiiig materials °'fr(i'm_ and was the regular customer of the plaiizitiff frorr=;._p}:21st. five years prior to the date of the suit. is adin;_it.i.ed by the plaint.iff themselves that goods ..jwere"beiI1g supplied both on Cash and Credit basis to the
-- devfeiidazii. In so far as the credit payment. is concerned = -it.--is contended by the plaintiff that 30 days time was normally given to the defendanli. to make the payment and in the event payment. exceeded beyond 30 days. defendant." had a_2gi*eeci to pay interest 24""/o p.a....fn_)41'1i_V the date of supply. It contended by the in respect of the Credit Iiransaetmnsmdei"endé1'n't- '-to issue post dated cheques in ;'1'esipet2~1'_. bi' ' :1I';hef'*i1:_' goods/materials supplied (;n'"--~._ei'edit=. 'be1si's:.'A A~~f.i'ir.;.QVugg1'1 defendant has denied this fact_in.i'Ehe=wi*itten.statement. it is contended by plairitfifii has admitted in the Cross--ex;1ri;.in21t,i'di'iV"aibqtirtju.isstmjbi posi--dated ehequesV.'v For t.i1e"e'heques were issued to the p1airi'i:i.ff'--is net";:fr)r'i.hAeemii1g either in the written statement or" ._defei1dém'1t.'"s evidence. It in this be.ekgred.rir1..t}1e riyéil contentions raised by the respeetiive"~et)ui:se1 is required to be addressed by this V V' Court.
AA Plaimifi' has contended that ibr the period to i\iovembe1"~2006, the plaintiffhad supplied
7.mat.erie11s to the defendant on credit; basis for a total worth of Rs.6.37,796/-- on differeiil 0ee.asi<)1'1s by 11-1isii'1g_;; W the i11\:c:)i(res. The ()1'igi1'1al of the said invoicres has been produced by the plaimiff before the Magistrate C(m.1{t'~«.i»_1i'1~..v C.C.N0._3623/2007 and as such the 131eii.'i'fV§iti;A:' produced by way of secolidary efixideiice _"t11e' *<fe1*ti:f'ied copies of the those invoices bet'01'e"1«Sna_}ai'i'i Céiuses C()€;i'rt'HiV--A as £243,198 to P59. Since 'clA.i'1Ii1J"}i]A'ig £.t§'iV('f31;i1'fi. defendant: is said to hgttve iiI'v1T€'.Svi:)§€(E1Z of those invoices which the date of the isstlarlce. i'ee§t12111(%e2 of the Cheques E':I1(ii4.Vt!.ii1_"€'; between the parties adj t1di()a1'.i()1'l before the jurieeiietiona-1V:Vi\iiéi:gistifei'te..-'in C.C.No.3623/2007 and it has ended in _e0r1.v'ict',i:;)1'1"of the aceuseezi therein namely 'the V'defen--€.la11t. "" "[1*evision peti.t:i0r1e1' herein). plaintiff has instituted the present:
suit i701" 1fe.c:*0y.ery of the amounts due under the. invoices. '4"-..'i"iisAeTcontehtion that came to be put folward by the ,el€A'.f€:f«'.'._1"':'3.11'f in the suit Could be found in p21rag1'aph 4 of '*wr--iit.t:en Statement. wherein it is e0.nteI1ded that there " was no suppiy 0'!" n1ate1'ial by the pla1'ntii'f t0 the W elefendaiiti. Virtually. clefe1'1da1ii', has made 2111 a:t:Y:4€n11)t- de1'1yi1ig the t'ransac.ti(i)i'i itself. At the saii'ie_;i.i_i'e_e;-.. defendaiii admits that he is a regiiiar CLlSt',(')1_1'i(:I' (if-ti-i.e plaintiff Firm. T he defendant. in hisw Cross?e>{:ii<:5{i!1é1t_ieii admits that there was t:1*a1isaeti01'1 'i3cém}e"c¥1'1 aiid ~{.ji':.ex°V.' plaiiitiff. 'i'h()i.1g11 issueuiee iii€;:.1esE'.iei~i:A}'i;is'"bc:'e11 disputed by the dei'eIid.¢}i1t., «'atlviz1i.t"i§ed by D.W.i. that plaintiff against:
him for dish0§11<:=i:;;if:-_ V:V(:'.1'1C.1t;".C1 in his conviction.
13; """ estabiish the fact, that hy the plaintiff to the defendant pieci-t__.1(ied invoices EXP8 to P59. T he receipgifisv of theseiiivoiees have been denied by the d.efe1_iuciariif.« _"»__'1'he sum total of the said invoices is ':R,S»VV.V'3'_V3Vi However, the defe1'i(1am by exeigtuiirig 1et.tei?"'e1ateCiV'V'ii£3(V§5'.9.2006 has confirmed filial' baiaiice due _ f1-0m'"'him:i0v the plaintiff is Rs.6,35.733/--. There is no e'::p1ana1.~i.o"ri fOI't.hCOI'11iI'1g. Wh&1t'S(.)€V€1'. as to why the T 'dei'e.11_d'ani; has executed the e0nfim'ia.ti0n of b211EiI1 favour of the plaintiff. if the eonte1'1tion of the defenda1'1t is that there was no amount due from him to .t'-he plaintiff. A perusal of the written statement rexjealitheai::'2, defendant has taken a defence of denying 'th'e.:e:1t'[iret» if transaction i1'1eluding the transactionlfwitii-;t.l1;c; .1j'le.iii'1t'.i'fi'. The said contention has not been aeee--pt'.ed tr'ia'1~, f' Court on examination of eviden'ee.f"of evide_nee.of .PW1 as well as scrutiny of erossgexarn'inat.i'o.1:i .o"i'._I')W 1. if Nowhere the defendant has SLlgVg€StBd.f_Vtb rthe'--[_plai11i:if'i' as to whether any deliyferi*y efzaliaitifs liavefxeen issued by the plaint.iff as and when the materia.1s,!goods-- by them. On the other hand,_i11 is afdmiitted by d'efenda.nt that he has executed V'1':-',.,'"ilonfirniation of Balance. The signature aiso not in dispute. Coupled with this '~-.faet_;.-~it:}isf found that defendant has issued post A dated e.1'ie(:i1ue to the piaintiff but it is not disclosed as to _fwh'y--the said cheque was issued to plaintiff. On the "other hand. defendant eategorieafly admitted the " execution of E2x.P.9 via. Confirmation of Balance, fie' 'J| which fa('.t'.o1" has be-'€11 t'ake1i irito (.'.()1'1Sl(l€'I'El'{'iOI'1 by the Court' below while de(.:ré%ci11g the zauit. He1'1(:c, it o:>..1'r'1'-1;1_(0)~t.V_ be said that said 'finding su'l'l'ers from any.3:_rhafié::1*igilf~'._'.:0' irregtllarity. AS seen from the jL.1dg[I'1'1V€>I'1l of'fi*ia--l.:C()tf1i'1"at. pa1"ag1"aph--10 del'e1'1daa'1t. has in his :Ii'rc);¥'s:»'ictxé-1111i:1é1t"io1'i'1]' admitted that he pL:rc:i1asecil._,:t'§*1§ l{p1v;1i.11il1i"i"V between 2004-2006. It__ also...l:§itlh'1i'i..lod..t.lio1ioi11Ll)y the defcildam that. he \2l\rel1is;:fl plz,1ii1t,iff to despatch goodo same by Au€0ri(?l{ShE1}VfL V I 0 14:, -It is' "Elba-11:10 >?i,l1'>'1.3Jl'[jvv-CL')1,0iI"{' below on apprecie1i.io1'i of ezvideiicéggtilid fakii1g'ih~to consicierat:ion 1.1163 del'e1'1(te ugiii by the d'e.f§11dzi';'1t found that amounts are ..iiie,:defeI1da1'1t to the 'piaintiff and t;l1{=. Said 'ticirfmérrit: 'a_'i";d}?lé(trc2cé massed bv the trial Co1.11't: i'l(3ll.hCI' CD A ./ ]s1,1fl'erS3 f1"lomVar1y illegality or 111at:erial irreg;u.la1'i1.y and ..S{1AChl'V,l',hE3 comxerition of the learneci oomiscl for the '~*pet§i1oi()r1er (.*.a1"11'1o1' be 2-1(':(:c2pt:ed and is re_1'eoi'.o.(i. ".ACC()rdi1'1gly. point. No.1. is answorecl aggairist. tlie petitioner and in i'avou1' of the re:+:p()r1de1'1t;»plailitiff. 1 , I6
15. Re~Poim. No.2 in \JiC\--V of the discussions made herein ab<:>\re.'? t'i-19 f011()wmg order is passed:
[i} The Civil ReviSi011 Peiilima is _d:>.
devoid of rnerlfts.
[ii] The judgn'aer:t: and c1e'(rreé__TpTa1SSeci' by' 1?!-."_*T "T-- Addi. Small Ca{ 1s:é_s "(3.:)L'zr€.;.
Batagalore in daxted
3. 12.2009 i&s"'11§;re}_j§7flfi'.(') 1*--:3'ffirV1\i'1s;j(i. 'V {iii} N0 order as to b_0'sii.S., 7 In View of 'th_C _'dis})()sa1 ..'oI'<<thé "Inaifi pc:titio.n itsekf, MiSC.CV3:~;6479A/120 "do"c.s"--n()tA "sur\'}ive for c:onsiderat.i0n and f.he" same _St:ii2dS.._.di§i11issed heaving become illfructtuous;V. _ _ 1' sa/-
'9: