SUNTEX HANDICRAFTS Vs. PODDAR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS who were successful in the trial court but have been non-suited by the lower appellate court are in second appeal. Plaintiff no. 1 is M/s Suntex Handicrafts (through partner Sudhir Chaudhar) and plaintiff no. 2 is Sita Ram another partner of plaintiff no. 1. Defendant no. 1 Poddar International Limited is a company whereas defendants no. 2 and 3 are Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Director respectively of defendant no. 1 company having head office at New Delhi. Plaitniffs' case is that the defendants after inspecting quality of goods at plaintiffs' premises at Panipat placed orders for supply of handloom goods. Defendants had also a godown at Panipat. The plaintiffs supplied the goods to defendants at Panipat and raised bills. In all the plaintiffs supplied goods worth Rs 10,64,875.44 to the defendants who paid Rs 3,25,000/- in all to the plaintiffs i.e. Rs 3 lacs by three bank drafts of Rs one lac each dated 3.6.1994 and Rs 10,000/- each in cash on 2.2.1995 and 3.2.1995 and Rs 5000/- in cash on 5.2.1995. Accordingly, principal amount of Rs 7,39,875.44 remained due from the defendants to the plaintiffs. Interest @ 21% per annum as agreed and also as per prevalent market custom was also claimed. The plaintiffs alleged that interest amount for pre-suit period comes to more than Rs 4 lacs but the plaintiffs restricted their claim of interest to Rs 60,000/- and odd amount making total suit amount to be Rs 8 lacs for recovery of which suit was filed.

(2.) THE defendants, inter alia, pleaded that they had purchased goods worth Rs 3,25,000/- only from the plaintiffs and the said amount was paid i.e. Rs 3 lacs by way of demand drafts and Rs 25,000/- in cash. THE defendants broadly denied the other plaint averments. It was pleaded that no amount is due from the defendants to the plaintiffs. Territorial jurisdiction of court at Panipat was also disputed. Various other pleas were also raised.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file whereas none has appeared for the respondents. Plaintiffs have produced various inspection notes whereby part of the goods supplied by the plaintiffs were accepted and part of the goods were rejected. Bills regarding accepted goods have been produced. Copy of ledger has also been produced in evidence by the plaintiffs. On the other hand, defendants' only oral testimony is of defendant no. 2. He did not bring account books of the defendants. Defendant no. 1 is a company and is, therefore, supposed to maintain its account books under the law. Withholding of account books by the defendants gives rise to adverse inference against them.