M/S Vijayalakshmi Offset Printers vs M/S Melgiri Enterprises on 15 April, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Vijayalakshmi Offset Printers vs M/S Melgiri Enterprises on 15 April, 2010

Bench: Aravind Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNA'I'AI<.:A AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS TH}: 15?" DAY OF APRIL 2010
BEI~'OR.I:-:

THE I~ION'I3I.E MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND 
CRP No.82 2010 S I S
BETWEEN':
M/S \/IJAYALAKSHMI OI«'I~'SE'I' PI{INfI'I5NS' ; 
N056. 8'!" MAIN ROAD.   "

J . C . INDUSTRIAL ESTATE.
KANAKAPURA ROAD.

BANGAI.ORE~560062, * '
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETQE1._ 

SRLRAMESHBABU.    _ 
 ~  -,_  _   ;:.._PE'fI'i'1"iONl'.lR
[BY SM'I'.JAl\/{UNA BAI. ADV;) _  '  

M /S MEEGIRI EEE\%Tf§I9j5RlS'E_S;' _ h
1.7. 12'1"?-i IVIAINROAD-.--.. =   
NEXT TO S.S.,_.IvI'.. 1-'*'._BLOC.K;
RAJAJINAGAR. ' ' '-

 , &BANGiALOi?,E--56OO I I
- I *EEpRESENTE.D BY MANAGER 8: GENERAL
 POwI;R.,OEIA:1=ORNEY HOLDER.

" SNARAYZINA, '  _ V V _j.

..RI*3SPOND ENT

S  [BY SRI.I:_:;S..S7I<EEKANTIEEIA. ADV. FOR C/R]

  'rI§II'S CIVIL REVISION PETXTION IS E?'£LE.I) UNDER

 '*SE.C'I'I'ON 18 OF KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT.
_A"GA'INS'I' THE JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DA'I'ED:3.12.2009

 V' PASSED IN S.C.NO. i.5}88/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE 17'?"

-4. " ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE. MAYO:--iAL1.. BANGALORE.
 DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OI? MONEY.



Id

THIS CEVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
OREDERS THIS DAY. THE COURT MADE 'l'Ir-{I3 {:O§JIJOVVI?€Q:

ORDER

Though the i"n::--1tt.er is listed for » consent. of learned counsel for the 1:.arifies--,_the'-1"ea?'i-s_ioi3, O petition is taken up for final7(flisposeil-... 2 V

2. This is a d.e't"e.ndarit's"reyision ques'tio'_niI'1g the correctness of the jtidgrrieiiti _e'1_.ecree dated:

3.u;2oo9 pasggiin so isrss/09 ﬁy the 17m Addl r Small Cause -j_C~ourt,.» 4_lV'i.'gryo'*-V.riai»l "Division, Bangalore 2

3. peirti.es'..._eLre referred as per the ranks Etlhe__Couurt«below. At the commencement of the O2rrgurr1e.nts:fle'arned emmsel for the Revision petitioner filed'the plémfiirigs of trial co1,:rt'. exhibits amd also made 'V._availa~ble:. the evidence let. in by parties.

4. The facts in brief are as follows:

Suit. in S.C.No. 151.88/O9 was filed seeking recovery of sum of Rs.26.455/-- with interest: at 24% p.21. ¢/ ta) from the date <)fi'1'a11s:1('tic)n till the date of payment. it was contended in the suit that. plaimiiff is a wholesale dealer in Micro Offsets, "RP. inks and other p1<i_nt.4ing niaterials and it. was run under the name arid s'fyIe----idi7--.iA ~ M/ s. Melgiri E1'111erpi'ises and defendarlt'. isvéddtane ef:=it:s._V 0 regular customer since last five years, 0 it was"eQI2i.en"deAéi--:.

that plaintiff used to suppiy.._vi'\'/i~ieroA.T.P i11.Ai{s Vrefjher " 00 printiing materials to the defe1'1dant"fr_0n1 'the-..y.ea1* 2000 on cash as well as on eieedit agreed that whenever the. were _s>uppx1'ie'dVcirizeredit basis, the defendadniv within 30 days from the the defendani faiis to do so withiniihe sii1;:$u1af;--ed"'pei'i0d, the defendant shall pay the 0.0"-infe-resi,"r._the of 24% interest p.a. It was 1 ~..C"0.n11end'e.d " t.haf_i.~it was having a running acceizm. of the det'e_nda1'1t_va'_.nd as and when the defendant used to place

r)rders'vr.;{rer phone or through his agents, materials were 0' suppiied.

5. It was contended that during the period April 2005 to 28.11.2006 and on several other 6%/---

occasions plaint'i.ff supplied materials to {lie €lt?f€l'1Cl£il'11. on credit basis for total worth of Rs.6.37f/96/-- and it was contended that agaiiist the supply of the Mi1'i'at,er.ial's.. defendant issued post dated cheque for -- dated: 13.12.2008 amongst iss1iirilgi"oi;ihler respect of balance aniounts,due.':4".Si'i1ce did not make payment the" 'the defendant. and by Hxtc) have presented the came to be returned with ":.§!.il ei.1dc)r"sern"e.nt~-V""insufficient. funds'. prlecetavdirigs under Sec. 138 of Negotielble (for short 'the l\l.l.Acii') for dish_m1ourbfcheque'; in"':C.C.N0.3638/2007, before the l"-j§urisdie.t,i0ria'l 1\/[a'gi"s't'rate which ultimately on contest. V' -..res;ultedccn$g:icti()n of the accused therein revision petitioner' _3f1f3i"€in by sentencing the accused to pay fine V"'QrTu11de_1'go imprisonment for default. Hence. it was t =cO*nt.eI1ded in the suit t:l1at'. defendant. was liable to pay 21 'V of Rs.26/L55/~ which includes the principle amount. as well as the interest. On service of notice ¢Z before the trial court. defendant. entzered appearance and filed written staternent by denying the t.rarisaoti«ons with the plaintiff and also supply of printing materials. [)efendant E?.:1SG»..d€1'§'i€C1v"'thvaT "t._1_1'_eVre,_ V was any amount due from ciefe11dai'1t:.A_'toi [:51;1'i11t.ift__T~._Vit--i. was also denied in the wryiitteil Statei'ne'ni;"<.1tl*i'at" no ' V materials has been rs;upp1.ieC}--.."_:i?)'i*"-a..Rs.6§37.,7796/~ as contended by the p1a'in.t'i'ff.'ihebasis of the pleadings, the points for its det.ermi11at€ior1_;r"----. " '7 that the i A i' purchased materials for the period Apnigzooé to 28.11.2005 and towards V'i'repayni"en«i had issued cheque bearing yy V:V'i:.'i*J.o:.2.43O78 for Rs.1'7,405/v dated and the same has been '"ret.urned encashed and defendant. has not paid the arnouni; afte.r 1'e(teipt. of notice of dishonour'?

2. What order or decree'? 4

7. I have heard SI11t.JaI}1L1I1E.i Bai. 1ear11ed e0uns:;el appea1"ing;{ for the revision peI'iti<me1'/ defexldzmt and Sri K.S.S1'eekantha, learned counsel e1ppeari11g;___»t"c>1* the resp0nder1t/plaintiff. V.

8. Smt. Jamuna Bai would e0nt.e'iid---jhége trial Court failed to take into eonsideI*a1.i0.h"theiddisefe 3é.uh::ie;sf' in the plair1tifi's evidence. 'C1I.I"~:;1Cc0uv~11t of \'/e_h1e_i'1-;...it--Vhas 2 L resulted in p1*ejudice__ to would contend that. ac:(to1'dih'g"'1.<e> 'pe1_a1f'§.fj.t.iff;e::uiAe11»2section is said {.6 have been.:V'd.Qnei"VV'fex*':V¥E:1j'e«:j-periodV"April--2005 to N0Verdber--e2Of)E3.by "t]j'eve._jde--fe11dant, which could not have been aeee'p_ted.VV "'{'I;'i"5341'COL11't for the reason that no pru.:i;ehte'~ busiriese person would have supplied the 'mVaTeria1s.ye_r«1""vthe credit. basis and 1101: initiated any aetieeh f(jr'V.";1bA'eL1ih. three years and would have remained silent She woulcl elab()1'ate her submissions by that piairltiff Elaci not provecl the tiyansaetions in questi0r1 by producing saiisfaetory evidence to establish the nexus between the elllegcéci t.1_'aI1sa<::t.i0r1. cheque issued and the amounts due and as W such she contends that plaintiff was not entitled for a judgment. and decree. She would also submit. that .-.t___ri.aE court committed a serious error by relying judgment pronounced by the Magistrate H convicting the defendant for under Section 138 of 'the On these grounds, she tliatghi and decree passed by the.

irreguiarity andvseeks same and allowing of the '}:":'3r('V'I'iSi0I::jV' petitgiono" .. 9, --_ 'Pei"'i.:ont'ra',"-.Si'i--__Sreekantha, iearned counsel appearingraforv the 'V{CSp'C»I1dCI1T.*p18£iH?.iff would contend tha,tﬂit.'v has (:oni.e:vvin the evidence of the defendant; that »goods supplied to the defendant on credit b-;is'i.s3' Vw11"_'i--(ihg;f' also accepted and the preseiit j tra.n's'ac."t.i0n along with other transaction relates to ,.ﬂ.ru'n;~ning account maintained by the p1aint.if'I for supply i\/'Iicro Offsets, T.P. Ink and other printing materials and thus when the defendant was t::'a11sa.et,ii'1g with the plaintiﬂ' for the past five years prior to the ti-a.nsaction in ¢/ 9 qttestion there was no occasion for the plaintiff to disbelieve the defendant to supply the goods and in order to secure the payment. the plaintiff had post dated cheques and thus he relies..A4't--1po:n' judgment passed by the jurisdictionalIMag'iat;rat.e_"fat'V, V EX.P-2 which had convicted the the offence punishable Lil1d>t:'«I:"_§':'€?¢(TI,ttll}_ Act. He would also subniit bellow'-tl1»aVs taken into consideration if,"_'i?§5nfii'mation. of balance issued the {defen'dant,'a_d.1jnﬁtting and agreeing thereu1;idei' l"}j§.rf"VV}V1VV'il3'l to t.he plaintiff. T he Si§§1'1&1'[.L3l;C fettnc'. also eonfrorited to IDWI and it, has" adiniltted by him as that of his ..Ac:(:of'd'iiigly, he submits that order of the V' tria_E. do'es_}not suffer from any illegality muell mate__rial_>1r1fegalarit;y. He would contend that the trial Cotirt ltas taken into consideration the evidence let in brath the parties as also the documents produced by if = .1;.}--"le plaintiff while d€('1'€'¥E3iI'}g the suit and ac(:o1*diI1g1y he seeks for dismissal of the revision petition and W 1 0 c:oni"irmat.ion of the jucignierit. and decree passed by the Court below.

10. Having heard the learned ct)_tV1__ri_se.1 the parties, the foliowing points ariseﬂfoi"my;eo1'1si(1Vera1ii.oii:_A I. X/Vhether U'1€_jLtdQiT.1_é"I'1_I. arid giecfijee by " V the Court be£oLL> V_s_tgj}'?e_rs__v_]'}'om'*«crafty friaterial irreguiariI'ythe_ trial'. CQu}'1:.has exer<:ised its _ju¥'iSCtiCE'iOI"I iHl_lVe_3;(j¢:;IZ§;'_'_>Vb

2. :1. M 1 ;

The facts- being in dispute are that the plaintiff supplier and dealing in Micro OffSC3'=i.S:,'_TT.?.111k'"El1T1Cl'£)T.h€I' printing mmerials. It is also not either of the parties that the defendam; 13'.a,'CiiS,i;'OITl1¢.I"VOi' the plaintiff and used to purchase r3'\ i'v'§i-ere .._{)i'i"es§et,s, i.P.Ink and other printing materials from plaimiff and vwxs the regulai" (_:usi0me1* of the v."x.A'plI3;ii:1'tii~f from past five years pirior to the date of the suit. It is acimitted by the plaintiff themselves that goods ll were being supplied both on cash and credit. basis to the defendant. In so far as the credit payment is concerned it is contended by the plaintiff that 30 days tiin3e:"'a.>vas normally given to the defendant. to make llh(3....§')§i},f:f'{1-fill"V. and in the event payment exceeded defendant had agreed to pay the date of supply. ii. is (.sQi'11_en(le(lthy the in respect of the credit to issue post dated of' the goods/materials SLipp}.l§3Td'-.V Though dei'e11déntilVhss:'. the written si,3.t:enie1ii.. it is ttoﬁ-t,e11dec§. that defendant has admittied in the cross;exa.ini1iati't$ii about issue of postedated °---::heqt1es";A Fer whdt'"';jl1.11'p()se the cheques were issued to not forthcoming either in the written sta't.ernevi1~t.v'§'or defendants evidence. it is in this dbnaekgretind the rival contentions raised by the 'res-peetdive counsel is required to be addressed by this _,..C;()LiI'l. ?

1')

12. P1aiI1tifi' has contended that for the period April-2005 to NOVCmb€f"2006. the plaintiff had supplied rnateriais to the defendant on credit. basis for a':_t:.r_31i,a1 worth of Rs-6,3'7,796/- on different t)eeasi()1'1s_t')'y«raisiraggé the invoices. The original of the said iiivtiieeahasbeen produced by the plaimiff before the" i'.-'J.agi:'i7i:rg1etee~{joiirtf,in'.. C.C.No.3638/2007 and as sueh ;'_t.i1.e 1}')1'£1'i]'<]:'i'.if:fV..E13§iVC{_:

produced by way of secondary eVide'nee s.th'eA.e_ertii;'ied copies of the those invoices before Sm'-al_1 Court as Exs.P8 to P59. Since iVfi.~~---was i*L:1'ar1i.r'1.g .ae(;:(m1'1t,, dei'e11d§inbtViV1'sA 'to' image issxied cheques in respect of those invoices -w"iivit(';h'i'ishis-aicé to be due as on the date of the issuanefe _oi7.the'*_eh'eques. The issuance of tlie "*eheqii'es"~.and ti/1eV"nat:ure of transactions between the

-pa1f_ties 4tVi';.e"_sL1bjeet matter of the adjudication before the'-j__ti1"ivsdietioiial Magistrai'.e in C.C.No.3638/2007 and "it has ended in Conviction of the eirietised therein. nameiy _ the- defendant (revision petitioner herein]. = .TI--'hereafterwards, the plaintiff has institut.ed the present suit for recovery of the eiiiicduriiis due under the invoices. Q/' The CO1'1t€1'1'[i()I'1 that came to be put fo1'wa1'ci by the defendailt in the suit Could be found in paragraph;:'a:gb.t' written st.at,emeI1t. wherein it' is COHi.(')I'1Clt3C1_.'l}"1E1t',r was no su lv of n1ai'.erial bV..~1:hr-3' .4_'1:he:-, Pix . spa a defendant.. Virtually. defe11daI1t..iA:has_Aﬁaiacle-- denying the t.1'ansaeti01'1 ~'t.i"zh£*. defendant admits 1.ha£*.he eiiastcameii of the plaintiff Firm. The g;»eti'ss--eXan1i1ia.t.i0n admits that him and the plaintiff. "rm question has been been admitted by D.W. lfthlat. proceedings against:

him for di'i%h()I1C)L1l'A'--Q'fV*~~Clh€qu€S and it ended in his eoxiygietian. "

p1aii'1iiff in order to establish the fact: supplied by the plaintiff to the def'e..nda'1'it.. h'as pibdixeed the iI'ivoi(':es l:Zx.P8 'LE3 P5 . The reeeigﬁéshoi' these invoices have been denied by the " ._clve,_fe_§:1da1'ii. The sum total of the said invoices is l¥;'.s.6._3'7.?96/». H0we:ve1*, the ciefendarit. by €XC(? 14 letter dated 30.9.2006 h.as confirmed that balance. due from him to the plaintiff is Rs.E:'».35.733/~. 'l'here is no explanation ftirthctoiuingg, what.soever. as to wi_:'y.._'jthe_ defendant. has executed the confirmation oi'fb.alanl(:'e" " favour of the plaintiff, if the co11t.e~n't,'io--n is that there was no amount to plaintiff. A perusal of the defendant has takenaodefeneee.ne_:ofu:denying"the: entire transaction including the plaintiff.

The said conte1r1é:i,oVi1 has bee'1;il.j"a£?_.£T€5pteed by the trial Court on eﬁiétniinattoix _c)i7._evidenee of evidence of PW1 as well-as scrutiny' of'oros's;.7§§xa.n"1ination of DWI. Nowhere the defendaiitf hats suggested to the piaintiff to if "'whether."'an'y..'deliverytthallans have been issued by the if point of time as and when the n1at.e__rials/goods were supplied by them. On the other Vlhand, itzuis admitted by defendant that he has executed 'W. l.?p§:;P9', viz., Confirmation of Balance. The signature l * -found in Ex.P9 is also not in dispute. Qonpled with this fact, it found that defendant has issued post $2' . ''x'\..utO1'iCk,Shaw.

. 35 dated Cheque to the plaintiff but it is noi disclosed to why the said cheque was issued to plaintiff. OI].-'~Lh(¥ other hand. defendarii has C,ateg()rically execution of E32»/;.P.9 vi2:., Confirmation o'E._'llB.€_ilaneee; which factor has been taker} iiitoleoliiaaide1'21I;ion «.by'i'l=ie Court below while dec1'eeiI1g_the su~i_t.l",_He11(:e;' Aii=e'an'noi_ V be said that said finding slu~f'fers from inafe-rial irregularity. As seen from ri1e'_;u:i«g1nVén_t of ti'ilé1l"eoL1rt at paragraph-- 10 clefendantz has fin :ll1i_.§-1!Cf.C3$_=-€Xai'{1iI1ati()I1 admitted that; from plaintiff betweeril"2lO04;V2OC§f§.l' alsolluéidniitted therein by the defendant lihlai; t;hc~> plaintiff to c1espa_te_vh gob'c|_:§ and 1o'laii'itii'i' used to send the sauiie by of " foiinrl that Court below on apprec~iati()n ofleyidenee taking into consideration the defence 'set up" the defendant has found that amounts are the defendant to the plaintiff and the said if '.]:Ll'£l,lgfI]{3l'1l. and cieeree passed by the trial Court neither suffers from any illegality or material irregularity and as W lo such the-.=. c:ont,ent.ion of tlie lezlrned counsel for the petitiorier cannot. be acrcepted and is reje_r~:i_.ed. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered a1ge1ii'1"st"-ibis.' petitioner and in i'avom* of the i'espor'1cic:ni'mplsgﬁiii.l'lZ._ V'

15. Re--PoiI1t No.2 In View of the dlSCL1SSlOl"_lS made"herein--7.o.bo£?e,Vtlie following order is passed:

[i] The Civil 'l"{_e"V~isi<.i_i1 Pe':it_ioi11"«.is dismissed as devoid 0fmo.ri1':S, l l __ {ii} The.--;i&&LL'dgn";'ent4llgind'"de;:ree'u«}jassed by 17%"

_Ad'dl.5Iy_E§nieill__& .CaL_1si:s Court. Mayovﬁall. 't32Il.'E.g'C¥ié}Va€ sofixica. 15188/2009 claim ' 3. confirmed.

{iii} 2 *1\lo orde:1*a_s' t.o7'L:()sts. ofli.h'e disposal of the main petition itself, max"

"l\'.l.i.sc..Cvl4;647%?7'----20IO does not survive for (toiisideration a'r1Ad'-.thé' '_s21ri';éI' staiids dismissed as lnavirig become S8 IUD -«E inlits (:i.L.--1o'u-sv."' ("I73 Tl

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court