Sri Gitam Kataki vs. Sri Sardar Servinder Singh Sethi

Held

The Court held that no substantial questions of law arise in this appeal, as the issues are covered by concurrent findings of fact. The Court found that the appellant failed to disprove the seal of his firm on the invoices, and no evidence was led to show fabrication. The Court distinguished the cited cases. In Narbada Devi Gupta, the Supreme Court observed that if documents are admitted and exhibited, and signatures are not disputed, further proof of contents is not required. The Court found this principle applicable here, as the appellant failed to disprove the firm's seal on the invoices. The case of Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta was distinguished as it involved different procedural aspects. The Court concluded that the findings of the lower courts were not perverse, not contrary to evidence, and not arrived at by wrongly casting the burden of proof. The appellant's plea of purchasing goods from another vendor was not proved. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Facts

The appellant, Sri Gitam Kataki, was the defendant in a suit filed by the respondent, Sri Sardar Servinder Singh Sethi, for the recovery of Rs.1,04,763.84 with interest. The respondent claimed this amount for lubricants supplied on credit via six bills. The appellant denied receiving the goods. The trial court decreed the suit, which was upheld by the first appellate court. The appellant, aggrieved by the concurrent findings, filed a second appeal before the High Court. The dispute centers on the validity of invoices as proof of goods delivery, particularly concerning seals and signatures.

Key Issues

1. Whether exhibiting a document without formal proof of the recipient's signature allows an inference of goods receipt as per Section 101 of the Evidence Act? 2. Whether the plaintiff's burden of proof is discharged by merely exhibiting a document without proving the recipient's signatures? 3. Whether Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act is attracted when there is a specific denial regarding the receipt of goods? The appellant argued that the respondent failed to prove the delivery of goods, relying solely on invoices without examining the signatories or proving the seals and signatures. The appellant contended that the lower courts erred in relying on documents where the signatures of employees were not examined and that the respondent admitted the bills were made by employees who were not produced. The appellant cited Narbada Devi Gupta and Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta. The respondent did not present arguments in the provided text.