TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff had proved supply of goods and receipt of the price so as to justify the decree passed by the trial court.
Analysis: The plaintiff was required to establish, by cogent evidence, that the goods were supplied under a proved work order and that the challans and receipts relied upon were genuine. The evidence did not prove any written supply order, and no witness connected with delivery or receipt of goods was examined. The signatures on the challans were not proved in the manner required by law, and the mere presence of a signature on the documents was insufficient to establish receipt by the department. In the absence of proof of the foundational facts, the burden did not shift to the defendants. The findings of the trial court were, therefore, unsupported by the record and contrary to the rule governing proof of documents and the initial onus on the plaintiff.
Conclusion: The plaintiff failed to prove supply of material or entitlement to the decretal amount, and the decree passed by the trial court could not be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A plaintiff seeking a money decree on the basis of supply documents must first prove the underlying transaction and the execution or authenticity of the relied-upon documents, and the burden cannot shift to the defendant unless that primary onus is discharged.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
