Karnataka High Court
M/S Hinduja Casuals vs Dinesh Kumar on 17 August, 2023
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:29273
RFA No. 2435 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2435 OF 2007(MON)
BETWEEN:
M/S HINDUJA CASUALS
NO.70, MISSION ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 027,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
RAJENDRA J.HINDUJA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.M.HALASWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
DINESH KUMAR
PROPRIETOR
RAMACHANDRA TEXTILE PROCESSES,
NO.10/1, YALACHANAHALLI,
Digitally KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
signed by J.P.NAGAR POST,
MALATESH
KC BANGALORED--560 078.
Location: ...RESPONDENT
HIGH
COURT OF (BY SMT.RADHIKA.K FOR SRI C.M.DESAI, ADVOCATES)
KARNATAKA
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 5 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.07.2007
PASSED IN O.S.NO.6337/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:29273
RFA No. 2435 of 2007
JUDGMENT
Memo for retirement filed by Dr.V.C.Jagannath is hereby accepted.
Heard Sri B.M.Halaswamy, counsel for appellant and Kum. Radhika, counsel for respondent.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.6337/1996 dated 20.07.2007 on the file of the III Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, whereby, suit of the plaintiff is decreed in a sum of Rs.1,03,419.59 with interest at 10% per annum on a sum of Rs.58,811.35 from 08.09.1996 till realization.
3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their original ranking before the Trial Court.
4. The facts in brief for disposal of the present appeal are as under:
Plaintiff contended that he is running a dyeing and processing unit at Kanakapura Main Road, Bengaluru, in the name and style 'Sri Ramachandra Textile Processes'. The defendant being in the business in textile materials, had -3- NC: 2023:KHC:29273 RFA No. 2435 of 2007 entrusted to the plaintiff job work for dyeing and processing work in the year 1992-93. The defendant had supplied clothes (raw materials) for the processing and dyeing purpose. Accordingly, plaintiff completed the job work and returned the finished goods to the defendant along with invoices mentioning bill amount for the job work done during the said year i.e., 1992-93 and the total amount for job work done was at Rs.58,811.35 and demanded the job work charges from the defendant.
5. Despite sending invoices, defendant postponed the payment of bill amount on one pretext or the other. Plaintiff personally approached the defendant demanding said amount of Rs.58,811.35. But defendant did not pay the said amount on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, plaintiff was constrained to issue legal notice on 16.07.1994. After receipt of the notice, defendant sent an untenable reply and therefore, plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for recovery of said sum with interest.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:29273 RFA No. 2435 of 2007
6. Upon receipt of suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed his written statement denying the plaint averments and also contended that suit is barred by limitation.
7. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant is due a sum of Rs.58,811.35 paise towards the job work entrusted to him by the defendant during the year 1992-93?
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the interest at the rate claimed?
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable as contended?
4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit claim?
8. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and relied on 18 documents as Exs.P.1 to 18, comprising of invoices at Exs.P.1 to 3, letter dated 14.08.1993 at Ex.P.4, postal acknowledgment at Ex.P.5, postal receipt at Ex.P.6, letters dated 27.09.1993, 28.12.1993, 15.03.1994 and reply dated 28.02.1994 at Exs.P.7 and 10 respectively, postal receipts at Exs.P.11 and 17, postal -5- NC: 2023:KHC:29273 RFA No. 2435 of 2007 acknowledgements at Exs.P.12 and 16, letter dated 30.06.1994 at Ex.P.13, postal receipt at Ex.P.14, office copy of legal notice at Ex.P.15 and reply notice at Ex.P.18.
9. On behalf of defendant, one U.Anjanappa, was examined as D.W.1 and he exhibited and marked the authorization letter as per Ex.D.1.
10. On conclusion of recording of evidence, Trial Court heard the arguments of the parties in detail and decreed the suit by judgment dated 20.07.2007, which is challenged in this appeal, on the following grounds.
The Trial Court erred in law and fact that the 3 invoices Ex-P-1 to P-3 has sufficient to prove the claim the plaint. The 3 invoices Ex.P-1 to P.3 are not accompanying any delivery challan's or work orders. The plaintiff's has failed to prove that the work order was placed and after the completion of the work order goods are redeliver to the plaintiff. The non-proving of the job work itself non-suits the plaintiff's claim. The Trial Court has erred in not giving any deductions to the debt note of Rs.11,201.10. If the Trial Court accepts the 3 invoice Ex.P-1 to P-3 has valid, the debt note Ex.P-8(a) also ought to have been given -6- NC: 2023:KHC:29273 RFA No. 2435 of 2007 appropriate deductions. If debt note is un-acceptable so is the invoice.
The Trial Court erred in concluding that plaintiff is entitling for interest at the rate of 18% per annum. No material has placed by the plaintiff that 18% interest claim by plaintiff is valid and appropriate. There is no justification for the trial to accept the interest of 18%. The Trial Court erred in law and fact in holding that the suit is not barred by limitation. Admittedly suit is for money for the work done.
Under Article 18 the period of limitation is 3 years. The starting point of limitation under Article 18 of Limitation Act is when the work is done. In the present suit the invoices are raised for the work done on 04.06.1992, 13.06.1992 & 25.06.1992. The suit was filed on 07.09.1996. The suit is clearly barred by limitation.
The Trial Court erred in law in stating that the defendant has denied the liability only in the reply notice and held that limitation starts from the date of reply notice. In none of the correspondences the defendant has admitted or acknowledged any liability. Further Article-18 of the Limitation Act does not provide for in the extent of Limitation. The Trial Court erred in granting interest at 10% per annum during the pendency of the suit and for the future interest. The prevailing interest rate in any -7- NC: 2023:KHC:29273 RFA No. 2435 of 2007 nationalized bank is not more than 7.25 percent per annum.
11. Sri B.M.Halaswamy, counsel for appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, contended that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the material evidence on record in its proper perspective and passed the impugned judgment, resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought to allow the appeal.
12. Per contra, Kum.Radhika, counsel for respondent supports the impugned judgment.
13. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for the parties, the points that would arise for consideration are:
(i) Whether the plaintiff has successfully established that he was entitled to recover Rs.1,03,419.59 from defendant towards processing charges as per invoices at Exs.P.1 to 3, with interest, as prayed for?
(ii) Whether the impugned judgment suffers from legal infirmity and perversity, and thus calls for interference?
(iii) What Order? -8- NC: 2023:KHC:29273 RFA No. 2435 of 2007
14. In the case on hand, there is no dispute that plaintiff was doing dyeing and processing business and defendant has entrusted job work in the year 1992-93. Same is established as per Exs.P1 to 3. While in the written statement, defendant has denied the plaint averments, has also taken contention that suit is barred by limitation.
15. On careful perusal of the oral and documentary evidence placed by parties, it is crystal clear that defendant has placed an order for job work with plaintiff as could be seen from Exs.P.1 to 3. In respect of the same in the financial year 1992-
93 defendant was due in a sum of Rs.58,811.35.
16. The evidence placed on behalf of D.W.1 and his cross- examination would clearly establish that with regard to suit transaction, plaintiff has completely delivered the goods. Therefore, raising invoices for job work having been established by plaintiff, it is for the defendant to show that he has cleared the entire amount covered under Exs.P.1 to P.3. In order to prove the same, except oral evidence of D.W.1, there is no material on record placed by the defendant. -9-
NC: 2023:KHC:29273 RFA No. 2435 of 2007
17. These aspects of the matter has been rightly considered by the Trial Court and on consideration of the material evidence especially the letters written by plaintiff which are marked as exhibits in the suit and the legal notice and reply sent by defendant, it is crystal clear that defendant has failed to prove that he has paid the entire amount for the job work done by plaintiff in respect of the order placed by the defendant. These aspects of the matter have been rightly appreciated by Trial Court while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
18. Even after re-appreciation of the material on record, in the background of the grounds urged in the appeal, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity in recording the findings by the Trial Court on the issues and decreeing suit of the plaintiff.
19. Material evidence placed on record by defendant would not probabilise the contents of written statement. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that, judgment delivered by the Trial Court directing the defendant to pay Rs.1,03,419.59 with interest at 10% per annum on a
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29273 RFA No. 2435 of 2007 sum of Rs.58,811.35 from 08.09.1996 till realization is just and proper.
20. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative and negative.
21. Regarding Point No.3: In view of finding of this Court on point Nos.1 and 2 as above, the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is meritless and is hereby dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
kcm
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7