M RAMASAMY AND COMPANY Vs. JAVADHU HILLS HILL TRIBES LARGE SIZED MULTI PURPOSE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. THE plaintiff is a registered firm, dealing inter alia in botanical crude drugs. According to the plaintiff, the defendant agreed to supply mavali kilangu (dried) of 5 mts before 31.01.1987 and its Special Officer received Rs.22,000/- by way of Demand Draft drawn on Canara Bank, Tirupattur and in acknowledgement of receipt of the same as advance, a letter was given by the Special Officer on 21.01.1987, Ex.A.2. THE plaintiff had handed over 126 empty gunny bags to the defendant to effect the said supply. THE defendant did not supply the products in spite of several letters written by the plaintiff. Because of the non-supply, the plaintiff incurred loss in the business. A legal notice was sent and thereafter, the suit was filed. THE defendant in the written statement submits that there was no contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant society did not receive any Demand Draft for Rs.22,000/-, there was no contract to supply mavali kilangu. It appears that the plaintiff had entered into some dealing with the erstwhile Special Officer of the defendant society one K.P.Muthu. THE Demand Draft was not drawn in favour of the defendant society, nor was it credited in their account, the entire correspondence between the plaintiff and the defendant appears to have been addressed to the aforesaid Muthu at his residence. He was suspended from service on 06.08.1987, the defendant society is not liable to pay the amount. It came to know of all the transactions, only after the suit summons was received. THE 126 gunny bags referred to in the plaint was not received by the defendant society. THE letters mentioned in the plaint has having been addressed to the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant society were not on behalf of the society and therefore, the suit should be dismissed.

(2.) BEFORE the trial court, 12 documents were marked by the plaintiff, who examined himself as P.W.1. On behalf of the defendant 5 documents were marked and the then Secretary was examined as D.W.1.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the defendant had not received the amount, for which Ex.A.2 is said to have been issued. THE Demand Draft was in fact endorsed not in the name of the defendant society, but in the name of the Special Officer, as seen from P.W.1's evidence. Ex.A.5 showing despatch of 126 gunny bags, does not actually prove anything because the way bill receipt does not bear the name of the consignee and it is the admission of P.W.1 that he has not produced the bill for the discharge of 126 gunny bags. THE learned counsel submitted that no adverse inference can be drawn on the ground that the respondent did not produced the account book, since it was never called upon to produce the same and for this purpose, relied on Standard Chartered Bank vs. Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 94.