Partly allowed

M/S.v.Dasa Prabhu v. C.Venugopal

Kerala HC10 Jan 2022RFA/830/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the trial court's dismissal of a suit for recovery of money. The court held that the trial court failed to appreciate an admission in an acknowledgement letter and other documentary evidence. The appeal was allowed in part, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The decree and judgment dismissing the suit are set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh adjudication. Additional evidence is permitted.

M/S.v.Dasa Prabhu Vs C.Venugopal — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10^th DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 20TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

RFA NO. 830 OF 2009 (E)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.10.2009 IN OS No.65/2008 OF

¶7

SUB COURT, KOCHI

¶8

APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF IN O.S.:

¶9

M/s V.DASA PRABHU & SONS, TEA MERCHANT, BAZAR ROAD, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-2, REP BY ITS PARTNER, N.ANIL KUMAR PRABHU, AGED 49, S/o NARAYANA PRABHU.

¶10

BY ADV SMT.R.RANJANIE

¶11

RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT IN O.S.:

¶12

C.VENUGOPAL, AGED 57, S/o V.KRISHNA MENON, CHERUVELLIL MADOM, SOUTH CHITTOOR, KOCHI 682 027.

¶13

BY ADV SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶14

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON

¶15

10.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

RFA No.830 of 2009

JUDGMENT

A suit for recovery of money based on the accounts maintained by the plaintiff in due course of the business was dismissed by the trial court overlooking the admission made by the defendant in Ext.A14 letter. The defendant was acting as a commission agent under the plaintiff for the sale of goods. According to the plaintiff, an amount of Rs.6,44,855/- was due to the plaintiff on account of the sale of goods after deducting the commission, out of which an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid by way of two cheques. The balance amount was not paid in spite of request, hence the suit.

¶20

Ext.A14 letter was brought under challenge mainly on the reason that it did not contain the signature of the defendant, but admittedly, it is a letter issued by the defendant to the plaintiff in his own handwriting. As such,

¶21

there is no much merit in the contention that the said document cannot be accepted in evidence. Yet another case

¶22

¶23

RFA No.830 of 2009

¶24

was also raised by the defendant that it was issued under

¶25

compulsion, for which, no satisfactory evidence was adduced. On the other hand, the content of Ext.A14 letter and the admission thereunder would sanctify the entries in Ext.A3 ledger and Ext.A2 sale register. The payment made by way of two cheques which comes to Rs.2,50,000/- was also duly entered in the ledger and it has come out in evidence that it was maintained duly in the course of business done by the plaintiff. Since it is a ledger maintained by the plaintiff, unless it is proved that it is maintained duly in the course of business, no sanctity can be attached.

¶26

But the admission made in Ext.A13 and the entries in accordance with Ext.A2 sale register and the payment effected by way of two cheques would sufficiently show that it was maintained in the ordinary course of business. The trial court has failed to appreciate the admission made under Ext.A14 letter and the evidentiary value of Ext.A13 statement properly in tune with Ext.A2 and A3 documents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the parties may be permitted to adduce additional evidence

¶27

so as to adjudicate the dispute properly. It was not

¶28

RFA No.830 of 2009 4

¶29

objected to by the learned counsel for the appellant. Hence, the decree and judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court for fresh adjudication. The parties shall appear before the trial court on 31/01/2022. The trial court shall dispose of the matter within three months thereafter.

¶30

The appeal is allowed in part accordingly. No cost.

¶31

Sd/P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE

¶32

DMR/-

M/S.v.Dasa Prabhu v. C.Venugopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.v.Dasa Prabhu v. C.Venugopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesg R.Pottangadi Vs C.Bhaskaran Nair

Selvaraj Vs Valliyammal, (Died)

Bhanumathi Vs Kumaraswamy

Matathodi Muhammad Ali, Vs Idathatta Anusha

Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd. Vs Kecramtakath Kunhipathumma

Rasiya Vs K.P.Ashraf