Court dismisses appeal, orders payment of Rs. 10,30,016.97p. Debit notes, claims not proven.

The appeal challenging the recovery of the balance price of goods was dismissed by the court. The appellants/defendants were ordered to pay the principal amount of Rs. 10,30,016.97p with interest. The court held that the appellants/defendants were not entitled to raise debit notes for adjustments, as they were unrelated to the transactions in question. Additionally, claims regarding air freight charges and rate differences were not substantiated with evidence. The court concluded that the primary documents presented were sufficient to prove the transactions, and the appellants/defendants failed to provide adequate proof to support their claims.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Recovery of balance price of goods.
2. Validity of debit notes raised by the appellants/defendants.
3. Agreement regarding air freight charges.
4. Dispute over the rate difference of goods supplied.
5. Admissibility of computerized ledger accounts.

Summary:

1. Recovery of Balance Price of Goods:
The appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 5th November 2004, which ordered the appellants/defendants to pay Rs. 17,07,700/- with interest @ 9% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 10,30,016.97p from the date of filing the suit till realization. The respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,30,016.97p towards the balance price of fabric sold and delivered to the appellants/defendants.

2. Validity of Debit Notes Raised by the Appellants/Defendants:
The appellants/defendants admitted the balance due but claimed adjustments through debit notes amounting to Rs. 10,25,694/-. The court found that the appellants/defendants did not prove the reply to the legal notice and did not file any counterclaim for the alleged due amount. The debit notes were not related to the transactions in question, and the sole witness admitted they were unrelated. Thus, the court held that the appellants/defendants were not entitled to raise debit notes against the respondent/plaintiff.

3. Agreement Regarding Air Freight Charges:
The appellants/defendants contended that the respondent/plaintiff delayed the delivery of fabric and agreed to bear the air freight charges for timely delivery to buyers. However, no written or oral evidence of such an agreement was provided. The court noted that the appellants/defendants did not produce any evidence of incurring air freight charges. Consequently, the debit notes for air freight charges were deemed invalid for adjustment against the dues.

4. Dispute Over the Rate Difference of Goods Supplied:
The appellants/defendants argued a rate difference due to overcutting on delivery challans. The court observed that the appellants/defendants did not produce the originals or copies of the challans. There was no other document to support the claimed rate of Rs. 265/- instead of Rs. 290/-. The court concluded that the correction on the challans could be as per the agreement, and the appellants/defendants failed to prove otherwise.

5. Admissibility of Computerized Ledger Accounts:
The appellants/defendants argued that the respondent/plaintiff did not prove the computerized ledger account as per Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The court held that primary documents like purchase orders, confirmation letters, and delivery challans were sufficient to prove the transaction. The ledger, being secondary evidence, was not crucial for the case.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal with costs, affirming that the appellants/defendants were not entitled to the adjustments claimed through debit notes and that the principal amount claimed by the respondent/plaintiff was due.

---