Mr.Jigar Mahendra Sheth, Vs Sucram Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

¶1

2025:MHC:433

¶2

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.110 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED : 17.02.2025

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶7

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.110 of 2022

¶8

Mr.Jigar Mahendra Sheth Sole Proprietor of M/s.Pyara Intermediate and Chemical Co., having office at No.122/B, Kika Street, Gulal Wadi, Mahavir Mansion, 4^th Floor, Room No.68, Mumbai-400 004. Authorized Mr.G.Padham Chand S/o.Late K.Gowtham Chand, Aged 41 years, Residing at No.7/13a Kamaraj Street, 2^nd Floor, Bharathipuram, Chrompet, Chennai-600 044, to Represent the above suit, vide Power of Attorney dated 29.12.2021 (Amended as per order dt.1511.2022 in Appln No.5074/2022)

¶9

... Plaintiff

¶10

-vs-

¶11

1.Sucram Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director Mr. Thangavel Pravinkumar, Registered Office at No.H-37 J, 2^nd Floor Manthoppu Colony, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600 083.

¶12

1/23

*Exhibits*	*Documents*
Ex.P1	The photocopy of the General Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of his agent dated 29.12.2021. (The counsel for the defendant has agreed to mark this document.)
Ex.P2	The true copy of the invoice between the plaintiff and the defendant dated 21.01.2017.
Ex.P3	The printout of the account statement confirmation dated 22.03.2018.
Ex.P4	The printout of the account statement confirmation dated 31.03.2018.
Ex.P5	The printout of the account statement confirmation dated 29.07.2021.
Ex.P6	The certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is filed for Ex.P3, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5.
Ex.P7	The true copy of the extract of ledger account. (The counsel for the defendant has agreed to mark, subject to objection.)
Ex.P8	The original application to legal services authority for pre- institution mediation dated 19.09.2021.
Ex.P9	The original Non-starter Report given by the legal services authority.
Ex.P10	The photocopy of the invoices for the transaction of the months April & May 2015 and the Lorry receipts for respective deliveryofgoods in connection with the above

*Exhibits*	*Documents*
	invoices. (The counsel for the defendant has objected to mark on the ground that all the lorry receipts attached with the invoices are only xerox copies and the plaintiff is the custodian of original lorry receipts since they only booked the said consignment to Startrek Logistics Pvt. Ltd. The tax invoices are also not an office copy and only xerox copies and not attested by any authorized signatory of theplaintiff) (Marked subject to objection.)
Ex.P11	The photocopy of the invoices for the transaction of the months June & July 2015 and the Lorry receipts for respective delivery of goods in connection with the above invoices. (The counsel for the defendant has objected to mark on the ground that all the lorry receipts attached with the invoices are only xerox copies and the plaintiff is the custodian of original lorry receipts since they only booked the said consignment to Startrek Logistics Pvt. Ltd. The tax invoices are also not an office copy and only xerox copies and not attested by any authorized signatory of theplaintiff) (Marked subject to objection.)
Ex.P12	The photocopy of the invoices for the transaction of the months August & September 2015 and the Lorry receipts for respective delivery of goods in connection with the above invoices. (The counsel for the defendant has objected to mark on the ground that all the lorry receipts attached with the invoices are only xerox copies and the plaintiff is the custodian of original lorry receipts since they only booked the said consignment to Startrek Logistics Pvt. Ltd. The tax invoices are also not an office copy and only xerox copies and not attested by any aut signatoryof theplaintiff) (Marked subject to objection)
Ex.P13	The photocopy of the invoices for the transaction of the months October, November & December 2015 and the

*Exhibits*	*Documents*
	Lorry receipts for respective delivery of goods in connection with the above invoices. (The counsel for the defendant has objected to mark on the ground that all the lorry receipts attached with the invoices are only xerox copies and the plaintiff is the custodian of original lorry receipts since they only booked the said consignment to Startrek Logistics Pvt. Ltd. The tax invoices are also not an office copy and only xerox copies and not attested by any authorized signatory of the plaintiff. Among the invoices, it is specifically denied the invoices of December 2015.) (Marked subject to objection.)
Ex.P14	The printout of the extract of Account Ledger for the period of 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 and same extract drawn on 31.07.2023 duly attested by the PW1 dated 31.07.2023. (The counsel for the Defendant ha objected to mark the document on the ground that it is already been denied in the affidavit of admissions and denial by the defendant since it is the mail send by Marcus Pharma who is not at all apartyto this suit.) (Subject to objection, marked.)
Ex.P15	The photocopy of the invoices for the transaction of the year 2017 and the Lorry receipts for respective delivery of goods in connection with the above invoices. (the counsel for the defendant has objected to mark on the ground that all the lorry receipts attached with the invoices are only xerox copies and the plaintiff is the custodian of original lorry receipts since they only booked the said consignment to Startrek Logistics Pvt. Ltd. The tax invoices are also not an office copy and only xerox copies and not attested by any authorized signatory of the plaintiff) (marked subject to objection.)
Ex.P16	The printout of the corresponding emails and attachments namelythe account confirmation statement dated

*Exhibits*	*Documents*
	27.03.2018. (The counsel for the defendant has objected to mark the document on the ground that it is already been denied in the affidavit of admissions and denial by the defendant since it is the mail send by Marcus pharma who is not at all a party to this suit.) (Subject to objection, marked.)
Ex.P17	The printout of the corresponding emails and attachments namely the account confirmation statement dated 03.08.2021. (The counsel for the defendant has objected to mark the document on the ground that it is already been denied in the affidavit of admissions and denial by the defendant since it is the mail send by Marcus pharma who is not at all a party to this suit.) (Subject to objection, marked.)
Ex.P18	The true copy of the extract of accounts ledger for the period of 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 and same extract drawn on 31.07.2023 duly attested by the PW1. The counsel for the defendant has objected to mark the document on the ground that it is already been denied in the affidavit of admissions and denial by the defendant and it is attested bythe Power
Ex.P19	The certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is filed for Ex.P16 and Ex.P17.
Ex.P20	The certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is filed for Ex.P14 and Ex.P18.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

The Official Liquidator Vs nil

The Official Liquidator, Vs nil

A.Venkat Rao and 7 Others Vs P.Jayaraman and 5 Others

Kishore Kumar Vs Awesome Builders (p) Limited

V Ashok Kumar Vs Awesome Builders (p) Limited

G Saravanan Vs Mr.J.Paramasivam and Anohter