TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 999
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....031, and is engaged in the business of readymade garments. 4. Respondent/plaintiff avers that he has been trading with appellant/defendant since March 2022. He raised bills for each and every supply for appellant/defendant who acknowledged the receipt of such bills. 5. Respondent/plaintiff sold to appellant/defendant T-shirts at regular intervals and did business of Rs. 19,85,701/-, out of which appellant/defendant paid only Rs. 8,00,000/- till date of filing of suit and did not clear the balance amount of Rs. 11,85,701/-. 6. Fourteen tax invoices commencing from 26th April 2022 till 23rd July 2023, amounting to a total of Rs. 19,82,701/-, were appended as supporting documents. 7. Part payment of Rs. 8,00,000/- was made through ten instalments, the details of which form part of paragraph 5 of the plaint filed before the Trial Court. 8. Respondent/plaintiff kept waiting for the balance payments, pursued the appellant/defendant, however, appellant/defendant was delinquent in paying the said balance of Rs. 11,85,701/-. 9. Legal notice dated 24th February 2024 was sent by speed post on 26th February 2024 to appellant/defendant raising the said demand and giving 15 day....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt had sold goods amounting to Rs. 78,69,073/-, and invoices had also been raised in that respect. Customers had made payment amounting to Rs. 76,94,202/-, which was received in the DCB Bank Account bearing No. 30922900004282 of M/s Shreya Traders and the remaining amount was received in cash. 17. Appellant/defendant also paid GST to concerned authorities, amounting to Rs. 1,80,538/- for the period from 1st October 2021 to 8th February 2022. An amount of Rs. 51,04,130/- was transferred by appellant/defendant from the account of M/s Shreya Traders for the goods purchased by appellant/defendant. 18. Prior to using the GST number of M/s Shreya Traders, appellant/defendant used GST number of respondent/plaintiff for selling goods amounting to Rs. 4,42,368/-, and the goods were delivered to Sandeep Dresses and Das Garments. Out of Rs. 4,42,368/-, the amount of goods purchased from M/s Keshav Garments was Rs.1,18,760/- and remaining goods were purchased from other seller to supply to Sandeep Dresses and Das Garments. 19. In the month of July 2021, appellant/defendant asked the respondent/plaintiff to settle accounts. Respondent/plaintiff asked appellant/defendant to come on week....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... paragraph nos.22 & 23 of evidence affidavit of appellant/defendant (Ex. DW-1/A), this was reiterated, and it was also confirmed in the cross-examination of appellant/defendant. To this extent, the fact that this particular purchase took place and outstanding balance was Rs. 11,85,701/-, became crystalized and conclusive. 25. Appellant/defendant had raised four deductions viz. (i) Rs.2,40,328/- on the alleged fake invoice number 22-23/KG-95; (ii) goods returned to respondent/plaintiff vide Debit Note dated 17th September 2023 Rs.3,36,878/-; (iii) discount qua the goods of respondent/plaintiff sold by appellant/defendant Rs.1,47,338/- and; (iv) amount of Rs.80,000/-, deducted by M/s Sandeep Dresses towards supply of inferior goods. This total amounted to Rs.8,04,544/- and, therefore, according to appellant/defendant, an amount of Rs.3,87,157/- was due against him. 26. It was noted that appellant/defendant did not cross-examine the respondent/plaintiff regarding adjustment of Rs.2,40,328/- Rs.1,47,338/- and Rs.80,000/-. Secondly, the District Judge notes that no evidence was placed regarding adjustment of the amounts of Rs.1,47,338/- and the return of goods worth Rs.80,000/-. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed by appellant/defendant against M/s Shreya Traders. The District Judge, therefore, held that the appellant/defendant's claim for Rs.23,71,283/- is sub-judice in another suit and, therefore, simpliciter decreed the principal amount of Rs. 11,85,701/- in favour of respondent/plaintiff and granted interest at the rate of 7% per annum applying Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC'). Analysis 33. Having traversed through the pleadings of the parties as well as the evidence and the impugned order and judgment, the Court does not find the appeal merited for, inter alia, the following reasons: 33.1. Firstly, respondent/plaintiff was able to prove the sale of goods to appellant/defendant and part payment of Rs. 8,00,000/-. This was admitted by appellant/defendant in his written statement, affidavit of evidence and cross-examination. 33.2. Moreover, as per Section 102 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ('IEA') the burden of proving documents rests on the plaintiff, and once plaintiff creates a strong prima facie case, the onus may shift to the appellant/defendant to disprove it. The Supreme Court in Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan v. Nawab Kazim Ali Khan (2022) 20 SCC 233, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The High Court of Calcutta in A.E.G. Carapiet v. A.Y. Derderian AIR 1961 Cal. 359 has laid down that the party is obliged to put his case in cross examination of witnesses of opposite party. The rule of putting one's version in cross-examination is one of essential justice and not merely technical one. A Division Bench of Nagpur High Court in Kuwarlal Amritlal v. Rekhlal Koduram & Ors. AIR 1950 Nagpur 83 has laid down that when attestation is not specifically challenged and witness is not cross-examined regarding details of attestation, it is sufficient for him to say that the document was attested. If the other side wants to challenge that statement, it is their duty, quite apart from raising it in the pleadings, to cross-examine the witness along those lines. A Division Bench of Patna High Court in Karnidan Sarda & Anr. v. Sailaja Kanta Mitra AIR 1940 Patna 683 has laid down that it cannot be too strongly emphasized that the system of administration of justice allows of cross-examination of opposite party's witnesses for the purpose of testing their evidence, and it must be assumed that when the witnesses were not tested in that way, their evidence is to be ordinarily accepted. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce direct evidence, vide National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rattani. 76. Burden to prove documents lies on the plaintiff alone as onus is always on the person asserting a proposition or fact which is not self-evident. This position is summarised in the observation to the effect that, an assertion that a man who is alive was born requires no proof; the onus, is not on the person making the assertion, because it is self-evident that he had been born. But to assert that he had been born on a certain date, if the date is material, requires proof; the onus is on the person making the assertion, vide Robins v. National Trust & Co. Ltd. 77. It is also to be noted at this juncture that there is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof. Burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the fact and it never shifts, onus of proof on the other hand, shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. For instance, in a suit for possession based on title, once the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability so as to shift the onus on the defendant, it is for the defendant to discharge his onus and i....