TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 2
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts, as set out in the Plaint, are that the Plaintiff is engaged in the business of trading electrical goods, under the name and style of M/s Indersons. He had supplied various electrical goods to the Defendant from time to time and raised Invoices/Bills. It was claimed that as per the Statement of Account maintained by the Plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 7,68,227/- remained due and payable by the Defendant, towards the price of the aforesaid goods supplied to him. 4. It was averred that the Defendant became irregular in making payments as per the Invoices, despite repeated requests by the Plaintiff. 5. The Defendant issued a Cheque bearing No. 001223 for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-, towards discharge of his legally enforceable liability. The Cheque on presentation, got dishonoured, whereafter, the Plaintiff issued Legal Notice dated 03.03.2012 demanding payment of the outstanding dues. However, despite service of the aforesaid Legal Notice, the Defendant failed to pay the balance amount to the Plaintiff. 6. The Plaintiff filed a Complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the Defendant, which is still pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mself as PW-1 who reiterated the assertions as made in the Plaint and relied upon the documents exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/64. 14. The Plaintiff also examined PW-2, Sh. Harneet Singh Dawar, his son, who proved the Invoices Ex. PW2/1 to x. PW2/20. 15. PW-3Sh. Shakambar Dutt, Finance Manager of the Plaintiff, proved the Notice Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/3, sent by the Plaintiff for payment of the balance payment. 16. The Defendant, Mohammad Laik examined himself as DW-1, and reaffirmed his defense, as taken in the Written Statement. 17. The learned Additional District Judge, after considering and appreciating the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, observed that the Plaintiff had failed to establish that the bills/Invoices had ever been accepted by or on behalf of the Defendant. It was further observed that no independent or corroborative material had been placed on record to demonstrate that the said Bills/Invoices had been forwarded to the Defendant, through speed post or any other mode. Reliance was placed on Harish Mansukhani v. Ashok Jain, 2009 (109) DRJ 126 (DB) and Devender Bhati v. Chander Kanta, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14224. 18. Consequently, it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve that all outstanding dues had been settled, the learned Additional District Judge ought to have decreed the Suit in favour of the Plaintiff. The dismissal of the Suit, despite such findings, is contrary to the evidence on record and suffers from a manifest error of law and appreciation of facts. 25. It is therefore, submitted that the impugned judgement be set aside and the Suit of the Plaintiff/Appellant, be decreed. Submissions Heard and Record Perused. 26. The Plaintiff had filed a Suit for Recovery of Rs. 7,68,227/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. It was the case of the Plaintiff that he, under the name and style of M/s Indersons, a Proprietorship Firm, supplied electrical goods to the Defendant from time to time, in proof of which he had proved his Invoices, Ex.PW-2/2 to Ex.PW-2/20, which are from 04.01.2011 to 06.05.2011. These Invoices were duly supported with the delivery challans, Ex.PW-1/3 to Ex.PW-1/64. 27. The Defendants had not denied or questioned the testimony of PW-1, Sh. Jagdish Singh Dawar, the Plaintiff, PW-2, Sh. Harmeet Singh Dawar, his son and PW-3, Sh. Shakambar Dutt, the Accountant of the Firm, either to challenge the genuineness of the Invoice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed three cheques, two being of Rs. 50,000/- each and one cheque amounting to Rs. 65,000/-; the aforesaid three cheques were duly encashed by the Plaintiff. 31. Pertinently, these three cheques are dated February and March, 2013, but the Statement of Account Ex. PW1/1produced by the Plaintiff, is still June, 2011. There is no updated Statement of Account produced, to reflect that subsequent payments were made or not made. The Plaintiff in order to prove its case, should have produced the up-to-date Statement of Account to reflect if any payments were made after June, 2011. Therefore, though Statement of Account, Ex.PW1/1 has been produced, but it does not give a complete picture of all the payments made by the Defendant. 32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandradhar Goswami and Others v. Gauhati Bank Ltd.,1966 SCC OnLine SC 255, observed that a person cannot be held liable solely on the basis of entries contained in the statement of account that are maintained in the course of business. In terms of Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, entries made in the books of account are relevant, however, such entries must be duly supported by independent and corroborat....