JOTHI CHEMICALS Vs. MADURA SUGARS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S.No.146 of 2003 on the file of Sub-Court, Tuticorin is the appellant.

(2.) AS per Ex.B.3 tender, plaintiff firm (appellant) supplied burnt lime to the defendant Sugar Mills (respondent). The transactions were entered and payments were recorded in the books of accounts. Subsequently, plaintiff firm was dissolved and P.W.1 Nagoor Mohideen, became its sole proprietor owner (See Ex.A.1 release deed). Sailanathan, Manager, plaintiff's firm, due to his misappropriation was sacked. On 18/6/1999, plaintiff sent Ex.A.9 letter and Ex.A.10 telegram to the defendant that hereafter not to pay any amount to Sailanathan. The receipt was acknowledged by the defendant under postal acknowledgment. On verification of the statement of accounts, Rs.1,04,412.86 and Rs.83,874.16 were shown to have been paid, but not created into plaintiff's bank account. Further, as per the statement of accounts, as on 27.8.1999, Rs.13,802.40 is also due, thus, totally, Rs.2,02,089.42 is due. Ex.A.7 Lawyer's notice was issued demanding the amount. It was received under postal acknowledgment. But, the amount remained unpaid. In the circumstances, plaintiff sued the defendant for the said amount with 12% interest p.a from the date of suit notice, namely, 23.12.2000 till the date of the suit, totalling Rs.2,42,018/-.

(3.) APPRECIATING the arguments of both sides and analysing the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that by proper evidence and accounts, plaintiff had not established its entitlement to the suit claim and there was no contract to pay interest, however, it found that the defendant is liable to pay Rs.33,530.90, thus decreed the suit partly with pro-costs.