RSA-2647-1993 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 108 RSA-2647-1993 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.04.2025 M/s. Televista Electronics and another ...Appellant(s) Vs. M/s. Indiana Electronics ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Shwender, Advocate for the respondent. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. The present second appeal has been filed by the defendants against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.2,43,000/- (Rs.1,61,000/- as principal amount and Rs.82,000/- as interest @ 18% per annum), has been decreed for recovery of Rs.2,15,740/- (Rs.1,61,000/- principal amount and Rs.54,740/- as interest with future interest @ 6% per annum), by both the Courts below. 2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellants are the ‘defendants’; and respondent is the ‘plaintiff’. 3. Brief facts of the case as stated in the plaint are that the defendant No.1 was manufacturing and selling Televista Television. The plaintiff was approached by the representative of the defendants to DIVYANSHI 2025.04.05 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2647-1993 (O&M) - 2 - become their stockist for Faridkot District. For this purpose, on 6.11.1982, defendants took Rs. 16,000/- from the plaintiff. On 6.11.1982, the defendants also obtained from the plaintiff draft for Rs.85,000/- bearing No.43489 dated 5.11.1982 drawn from Bank of India Moga branch. The defendants got another sum of Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff by drafts and in cash. Thus, in all the defendants obtained from the plaintiff Rs.1,61,000/-. The Zonal Manager of the defendants acknowledged the receipt of Rs.1,61,000/- from the plaintiff through his letter dated 6.11.1982. In spite of several letters and notices sent by the plaintiff to the defendants the latter did not return the above said amount. Hence the plaintiff has claimed Rs.82,000/- on account of interest on the said amount at the rate of 18% per annum from 6.11.1982 upto the date of the institution of the suit i.e. 12.09.1985. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that it is not denied that the appellant had duly received the above said payments from the plaintiff. It is however submitted that these payments were amounts due from the plaintiff towards the other dealers of the appellant. It is submitted that it has been categorically pleaded by the appellant in his written statement that the payment was made by the plaintiff to M/s Electronics Distributors, Jalandhar in his running account with that firm and this amount was duly credited by the said firm in the accounts of the plaintiff. As that firm had further to pay amount to the defendant company, they had deposited that draft alongwith some other amount with the defendant company on 10.11.1982 and that DIVYANSHI 2025.04.05 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2647-1993 (O&M) - 3 - amount was duly credited by the defendant company in the account of Electronics Distributor, Jalandhar. The draft was directly purchased in the name of the defendant company by the plaintiff under the instructions of Electronics Distributors Jalandhar only for their convenience and to avoid unnecessary bank charges and to avoid delay. It is contended that accordingly, there was no ground or occasion for the learned Courts below to hold that the amount was owed by the appellant firm to the plaintiff. It is submitted that there are the records that the appellant’s dealers had given credit of this amount to the plaintiff. Even there is no correspondence between the appellant and plaintiff to establish that there was any talk of dealership between them. It is contended that the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below are based on misreading of evidence on record; and are, therefore, unsustainable. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff submits that impugned judgments and decrees suffer from no infirmity and deserve to be upheld. It is stated that the learned Courts below have examined the entire evidence brought on record by the parties in comprehensive detail and have rejected the spurious contention of the appellant. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 6. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in great detail. DIVYANSHI 2025.04.05 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2647-1993 (O&M) - 4 - 8. I find no merit in the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. The record indicates that there is no corroboration to the case as put up by the defendant firm. It was found by the learned lower Appellate Court that there was no evidence on record to indicate that any amount was due to M/s. Electronics Distributor, Jalandhar and S.A.T.V Centre Ferozepore from the plaintiff-company; or that these drafts had been issued by the plaintiff-company to them; and on their instructions, plaintiff- company had got drafts issued straight in the name of the defendant- company. The relevant extract of the judgment dated 28.08.1993 passed by learned lower Appellate Court reads as under: - “21. There is no corroboration to case what has been put in by Mohinder Pal Bholi DW6, Sham Sunder DW7 and Manjit Singh DW8. M/s. Electronics Distributor, Jalandhar, M/s. S.A.T.V. Centre, Ferozepore could have produced evidence to show that amount was due to them from Indiana Electronics and that these drafts had been given by Indiana Electronics to them and on their instructions Indiana Electronics had got the draft issued straight in the name of M/s. Televista Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Jalandhar.” 9. Further, there is voluminous evidence on record to discredit the case put up by the appellant. Ram Partap Gupta, Proprietor of plaintiff as PW1 deposed that he had given 4 drafts for amounts of Rs.85,000/-, Rs.20,000/-, Rs.20,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and sum of Rs.16,000/- in cash to Zonal Manager of defendants. He testified that amount of Rs.16,000/- was paid in cash to Sh. A.S. Paintal on 5.11.1982 at Moga and he had got draft DIVYANSHI 2025.04.05 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2647-1993 (O&M) - 5 - prepared for said amount from SBI Jalandhar on 6.11.1982. A.S. Paintal is the Zonal Manager for the defendant no.1 in Jalandhar. 10. PW2 who is clerk posted in Bank of India, Moga branch stated that on 5.11.1982 plaintiff had got prepared draft for Rs.85,000/- in favour of M/s. Television Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (defendant) payable at New Delhi and that the payment for preparation of draft was made to bank by the plaintiff through cheque. In cross, he stated that this was only draft of Rs.85,000 issued by his Bank for month of November 1982. Similar is his deposition in respect of draft no.2361 for Rs.25,000/- which according to him was got prepared by the plaintiff in favour of Defendant No.1 on 8.6.1982. The plaintiff also got prepared from Punjab National Bank, Moga branch two drafts each for Rs.20,000/- in favour of defendant No.1. According to him, plaintiff has paid the amount in cash for purchasing said drafts. Thus, the Testimony of PW2 and PW3 corroborates and proves the case as put up by the plaintiff. 11. Even further, PW4, who is clerk posted in SBI Jalandhar branch deposed that on 6.11.1982, his bank has issued draft for Rs.16,000/. This proves version of plaintiff that on 6.11.1982. Sh. A.S. Paintal had got draft for Rs.16,000/- prepared from SBI Jalandhar Branch after taking amount from the plaintiff. Nobody from side of defendants has testified that amount of Rs.16,000/- was not received from the plaintiff. It is further established on record that on 5.11.1982 the plaintiff got prepared draft for Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of defendant No.1 and paid Rs.16,000/- to A.S.Paintal, Zonal Manager of defendant No.1 posted at Jalandhar. DIVYANSHI 2025.04.05 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2647-1993 (O&M) - 6 - 12. Even the documentary evidence corroborates the case of the plaintiff. The letters Ex.P1 & P2 are signed by Mr. A.S.Paintal. The letter Ex.P1 acknowledges the receipt of Rs.1,61,000/- from the plaintiff. The record further indicates that vide draft No. 10/2361 a sum of Rs.25,000/- was credited in name of SATV Centre. Another sum of Rs.20,000/- was credited vide bank draft No. 068587 on 06.07.1982. Another sum of Rs.20,000/- was credited in name of SATV Centre vide draft No. 68664 on 15.07.1982. Electronic Distributors had khata of Televista Electronics which shows that on 8.6.1982 a sum of Rs.25,000/-vide draft No.10/2361 was debited. This amount was same amount which was credited in name of S.A.T.V. Centre, Ferozepur. On 6.7.1982 a sum of Rs.20,000/- was debited vide draft No. 068587 in account of defendants. Similarly, on 15.07.1982 a sum of Rs.20,000/- was debited in name of defendants which was received vide draft No. 068664. Ledger of Indian Electronics at Page 254 of the ledger shows that sum of Rs.16,000/- was received vide bank draft No. 287398 on 6.11.1982. On 6.11.1982 a sum of Rs.85,000/- was received by draft No. 43489. At page 64 of cash book a sum of Rs.25,000/- was duly reflected on 8.6.1982 which pertains to bank draft no. 10/2361. Likewise sum of Rs.20,000/-was reflected at page 94 which pertains to draft no. 068587. Another sum of Rs.20,000/- was reflected at Page 102 dated 15.07.1982 which pertains to draft No. 068664. A sum of Rs.85,000/- pertaining to draft No. 43489 was reflected at Page 197 of his cash book. On 6.11.1982, a sum of Rs.16,000/- pertaining to draft No. 287398 was reflected at Page 197. Ex.DW8/A, Ex.DW8/B, Ex.DW8/C and Ex.DW8/E are entries of ledger DIVYANSHI 2025.04.05 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2647-1993 (O&M) - 7 - pertaining to SATV Centre Ferozepur. Ex.DW8/F to Ex.DW8/G are copies of ledger entries pertaining to M/s. Indiana Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Moga; and Ex.DW8/H to Ex.DW8/I. Ex. DW8/K to Ex.DW8/Y are ledger entries pertaining to M/s. Televista Electronics. Ex.DW8/Z and Ex.DW8/Z-1 are ledger entries pertaining to State Bank of India. From the above, it is clear that all the documentary evidence/entries in the ledger books of the various parties tallied with the case as put up by the plaintiff. 13. Moreover, it is the Defendants own case that plaintiff owed money to SATV Centre and SATV Centre further owed money to Electronics Distributor Jalandhar; and at instance of SATV Centre or Electronics Distributor Jalandhar he got these drafts issued in name of defendant company. There can be no doubt that plaintiff got drafts for Rs.85,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs.20,000/-, Rs.20,000/- issued from Bank of India and Punjab National Bank. 14. In view of the discussion above, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below. The present regular second appeal is hereby dismissed. 15. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 02.04.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2025.04.05 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document