Appeal filed by the first defendant challenging a decree for recovery of money. The court examined evidentiary disputes regarding supply of goods, legality of the transaction under relevant Acts, and interest rates, ultimately dismissing the appeal.
Appeal dismissed in the interest of the respondent/defendant with 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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
A.S.NO.1698 OF 1998
JUDGMENT:
1. The defendant in O.S.No.366 of 1984 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Kakinada, is the appellant herein. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.31,295-35 ps being the amount due on the principal sum of Rs.29,664-15 ps with interest at 36% on the goods supplied.
2. The allegation in the plaint goes to show that the first defendant is a firm carrying on wholesale business in pulses, oils etc., at Kakinada and the second defendant is the undivided son of the first defendant. On 03.09.1984, the defendant purchased edible oils worth Rs.29,664-15 ps on credit basis and took delivery of the same and in spite of several demands, the amount was not paid and hence, the suit.
3. The defendant has filed the written statement denying that the plaintiff is a registered firm and there was no denial about the transaction but it was pleaded that four separate bills were given and the defendant took delivery of the goods is also disputed. The defendant has totally denied the transaction and also contended that the transaction is not enforceable under Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872. The claim for interest at 36% is not valid. Therefore, the defendant pleaded for dismissal of the suit.
4. After considering the rival pleadings, necessary issues have been framed and on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A20 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.B1 and Exs.X1 to X6 were marked. After considering the evidence on record, the Court below has decreed the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.26,355-30 ps. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed.
5. The points that arise for consideration are (1) whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim; and (2) whether the alleged transaction is not
valid.
6. Points:
According to the case of the plaintiff, on 03.09.1984, one barrel of Rice Bran Refined oil was supplied under credit bill for a sum of Rs.3,059/50 ps, four barrels of cotton seed refined oil for a sum of Rs.11,647-90 ps, one barrel of cotton seed refined oil for a sum of Rs.3,115-85 ps and four barrels of cotton seen refined oil worth Rs.11,840-80 ps were supplied. Pertaining to these supplies, credit bills Exs.A6 to A9 were filed. The Court below, after considering the evidence on record, has accepted Exs.A6, A7 and A9 and did not consider the truthfulness of supply under Ex.A8. In fact, to prove the above transactions, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and apart from the above fact, the necessary bills have been filed.
7. According to the case of the plaintiff, the delivery was taken by the second defendant and the second defendant did not contest the suit and did not go into the box to deny the above liability. Therefore, from the above circumstances, the finding of the Court below about the supply of these goods received on behalf of the first defendant by the second defendant cannot be based on any evidence. In fact, no reason was given by the first defendant as to why the plaintiff was resorted to fabrication of these records against the first defendant. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the acceptance of Exs.A6, A7 and A9 by the Court below cannot be faulted.
8. So far as the legality of the transactions is concerned, though there is material evidence on record to show that for illegal trade in sugar, the plaintiff was booked under Essential Commodities Act, 1955, earlier and a criminal case was instituted, so far as dealing in edible oils is concerned, it is the subject matter of the suit. There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff has no licence or any competent authority has found him violating the Control Order. The defendant has not summoned any official to prove the same. Therefore, from the above circumstances, it is not open to the
defendant to contend that the transaction is against public policy as there was no license for the plaintiff to do the business. Though the plaintiff has claimed interest at 36%, the Court below has granted interest at 12% only taking into consideration the nature of the transaction. Therefore, absolutely there are no merits in the appeal calling for interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.
______________________ (N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J)
1st April 2013 RRB
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim.
Whether the alleged transaction is invalid or against public policy.
Whether the trial court's acceptance of evidence and limitation on interest are correct.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Plaintiff/Appellant
First Defendant
Second Defendant
N.R.L.Nageswara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
