Samuruddi Green Infratech PVT. LTD. vs. Sneha Enterprises
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T
This regular first appeal is filed by the defendant/appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 8-1-2024 passed in Original Suit No.6601 of 2018 by the XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-28), thereby, the suit filed for recovery of money by the plaintiff is decreed and the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.4,89,843/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of its realisation and further decreed that NC: 2024:KHC:22175 the defendant shall pay the suit claim together with interest within two months from the said order.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff.
The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are that the plaintiff is a proprietary concern and it supplies the spare parts and other required hardware and safety material to the customers. The defendant is a regular customer of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had supplied hardware and safety material on various dates between 18-7-2017 and 3-11-2017 as per the orders placed by the defendant. The defendant has issued a ledger account extract to the plaintiff admitting the liability. Hence, the defendant is liable to pay Rs.4,89,843/- to the plaintiff. In spite of repeated requests, the defendant did not pay the said amount to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of money. NC: 2024:KHC:22175
The defendant resisted the suit and filed written statement. The defendant has admitted that it was the customer of the plaintiff. It is alleged that the plaintiff has failed to furnish the Purchase Order through e-mail and enquiry asked for by the defendant. The copies of some of the quotations furnished by the plaintiff clearly speaks that those were not issued by the plaintiff, but by some other entity namely, Swathi Earth Moving Spares. Hence, the question of paying amount towards the quotation pertaining to said Swathi Earth Moving Spares to the plaintiff does not arise. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the suit.
Upon rival pleading of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:
i. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant is outstanding due a sum of Rs.4,89,843/- towards supply of materials?
ii. Whether the plaintiff proves that as on the date of the suit defendant is liable to pay a sum of NC: 2024:KHC:22175 Rs.5,43,525/- together with interest @ 20% per annum till its actual realization?
iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought in the suit?
iv. What order or decree?
In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and got marked forty-seven documents as Exs.P1 to P47. On behalf of the defendant, the Managing Director of the defendant-Company was examined as DW1 and got marked six documents as Ex.D1 to D6. 7. The trial Court, after considering the evidence of PW1 and DW1 along with material documents, decreed the suit of the plaintiff.
Heard the arguments of the learned counsel on both sides on 'Admission'. NC: 2024:KHC:22175
Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submitted that the General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff-Company does not have any personal knowledge of the transactions and hence, his evidence cannot be relied on. In reference to above, he places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAN KAUR (DEAD) BY LRS. v. HARTAR SINGH SANGHA reported in (2010) 10 SCC 512. The invoices produced by the plaintiff are concocted and not supported by any evidence. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal.
Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that in the trial Court, the defendant submitted no objection to examine the General Power of Attorney holder on behalf of the plaintiff-Company and therefore, raising such a ground in this appeal is not acceptable. Further, the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the defendant is not applicable to the present case on hand as the General Power of Attorney holder had personal knowledge regarding transactions between the NC: 2024:KHC:22175 plaintiff and the defendant. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
In the suit filed by the plaintiff, an application came to be filed under Order III, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking permission to lead oral and documentary evidence through power of attorney. For which, the defendant stated 'no objection' and accordingly, the application was allowed.
ORDER III, RULE 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, reads as under:
"
Recognised agents.-The recognised agents of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are-
a) persons holding powers-of-attorney, authorising them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties;
b) persons carrying on trade or business for and in the names of parties not resident within the local limits of the NC: 2024:KHC:22175 juri iction of the Court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, in matters connected with such trade or business only, where no other agent is expressly authorised to make and do such appearances, applications and acts."
In the present appeal, the defendant has taken up the contention that the General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff-Company does not have any personal knowledge of the transactions. However, in the trial Court, when an application is filed seeking permission to lead oral and documentary evidence through power of attorney, the defendant stated 'no objection'. Therefore, the contention now taken up cannot be accepted. Further, the plaintiff is a Company and PW1 is the Power of Attorney holder of the said Company. During the trial, the defendant stated no objection for examining the plaintiff through Power of Attorney holder. The proprietor is the wife of the Power of Attorney holder. Learned counsel for the defendant has fully cross-examined PW1. In the NC: 2024:KHC:22175 course of cross-examination, PW1 has denied the suggestion that he does not have any personal knowledge regarding the transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant. Therefore, the Power of Attorney holder, being husband of the proprietor of the plaintiff-Company, has personal knowledge regarding the transactions. Hence, he was a competent witness to depose about the plaintiff and its transactions.
Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the defendant in the case of MAN KAUR (DEAD) BY LRS stated supra is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, the evidence of PW1 is rightly considered by the trial Court.
The defendant has admitted that he is the customer of the plaintiff-Company. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the year 2017, the plaintiff had supplied material to the defendant-Company, but it is the defendant's contention that one Swathi Earth Moving Spare supplied the material and not by the plaintiff- NC: 2024:KHC:22175 Company. A perusal of Ex.P47 clearly reveals that the material mentioned in Exs.P2 to P36, Ex.P42 and P43 have been supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant as per the Goods Service Tax B2B summary. The consignment could not be moved without generating e-way bills in view of the provisions of Rule 138 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and the subsequent Notification No.FD 47 CSL 2017, Bengaluru, dated 6-9-2017. Therefore, these transactions prove that the plaintiff has supplied material to the defendant. However, the defendant has failed to place any rebuttal evidence to doubt the evidence of the plaintiff.
For the reasons stated above, the trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff, which needs no interference by this Court. There is no good ground available to admit the appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. NC: 2024:KHC:22175 In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A. No.1 of 2024 does not survive and it is also dismissed. JUDGE
KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.