In an original side appeal against a suit for recovery of money, the High Court of Madras dismissed the appeal, holding that the Single Judge's findings on limitation and the lack of evidence for cash payments were well-founded.
The original side appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
O.S.A.No.103 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
O.S.A.No.103 of 2019
R.Sathyamoorthy Proprietor, M/s R.S.Enterprises No.23, Gandhi Street Athipattu, Chennai 600 120
.. Appellant
v.
Vijaykumar Sharma Proprietor, M/s Pradeep Suppliers No.162, Broadway Chennai 600 108
.. Respondent
Memorandum of Grounds of Original Side Appeal under Order XXXVI, Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge dated 12.07.2017 passed in C.S.No.537 of 2014 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant :: Mr.AR.Karthik Lakshmanan for Mr.L.Palanimuthu
For Respondent :: Mr.V.P.Sreedharan JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 7
O.S.A.No.103 of 2019
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR,J.)
This original side appeal is directed against the judgment and decree
of the learned single Judge in the suit in C.S.No.537 of 2014 dated 12.07.2017.
Page 2 of 7
O.S.A.No.103 of 2019
Rs.66,24,965/- as per the running account maintained by the defendant with the plaintiff and that the defendant, though paid a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- on various occasions, has to pay the balance of Rs.44,24,965/-. The last payment made by the defendant was on 26.07.2011 towards the running account maintained with the plaintiff.
_____________ Page 3 of 7_
O.S.A.No.103 of 2019
Page 4 of 7
O.S.A.No.103 of 2019
for making the payment and the actual mode of payment and time has not been established by the defendant by leading cogent evidence. Therefore, the said contention also cannot be accepted and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned single Judge on the issues of limitation and cash payment.
_____________ Page 5 of 7_
O.S.A.No.103 of 2019
for the first time in the written statement cannot be countenanced.
interfere with the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the original side appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Index : yes/no (S.S.S.R.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) Neutral citation : yes/no 07.08.2024 ss To
The Sub Assistant Registrar (O.S.) High Court, Madras
Page 6 of 7
O.S.A.No.103 of 2019
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
AND K.RAJASEKAR,J.
ss
O.S.A.No.103 of 2019
07.08.2024
_____________ Page 7 of 7_
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the original side appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge in a suit for money recovery should be allowed.
Whether there is sufficient evidence to interfere with the findings regarding the limitation period and cash payments.
Whether the allegation regarding defective machinery supplied has a basis in evidence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R. Sathyamoorthy Proprietor, M/s R.S. Enterprises
Vijaykumar Sharma Proprietor, M/s Pradeep Suppliers
S. S. Sundar
K. Rajasekar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
