- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:950-DB RFA No. 100370 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100370 OF 2018 (MON) BETWEEN: M/S. SHALIMAR VALVES PVT. LTD., PLOT NO. R-846/1 MIDC- TTC INDUSTRIAL AREA RABALE, NAVI MUMBAI-400701 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHRI. Y. GURURAJ. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. SUPRIYA PROTOTECH C-43, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI. SHIVAPPA KALLAPPA AWATI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAMESH B KALE, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.07.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.117/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:950-DB RFA No. 100370 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Regular First Appeal is filed, challenging the judgment dated 10.07.2018 passed in O.S. No.117/2013 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant was the defendant, and the respondent was the plaintiff. 3. Brief facts of the case leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as under: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.16,82,960/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 17.05.2012 till realization. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is engaged in the manufacturing of industrial valves, pneumatic actuator saved, its accessories are used in valve manufacturing. The defendant, being engaged in the manufacture of industrial valves, is one of the various valuable customers of the plaintiff and he used to purchase the goods from the plaintiff - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:950-DB RFA No. 100370 of 2018 on a credit basis with an understanding that the plaintiff should supply the goods to the defendant and the defendant should pay the bills in the routine course within the time prescribed and the discounts, and concessions so given by the plaintiff, are based on the payment schedule, which would be decided while making a purchase order. It is stated that, on various terms and conditions, and understanding between the plaintiff and defendant, the defendant placed orders for the supply of the products. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff had supplied its products to the defendant during the period from 26.05.2011 to 16.05.2012 under the bill/invoice and the defendant paid the amount during the routine course which was deducted in its accounts maintained by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has supplied the goods but the defendant did not pay an amount of Rs.16,82,960/- as on 16.05.2012. The plaintiff issued a letter dated 19.07.2012 calling upon the defendant to make payment, at the earliest, but the defendant disputed the quantum of the actual amount due, on the ground that, they have issued debit notes. It is contended that, the reasons - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:950-DB RFA No. 100370 of 2018 assigned by the defendant are contrary to the actual agreement. On 27.08.2012, the plaintiff issued another letter calling upon the defendant to make the payment but the defendant failed to pay a sum of Rs.16,82,960/-. Hence, a cause of action arouse for the plaintiff to file a suit for recovery of money. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 4. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and it is contended that, the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, as the defendant’s address is Mumbai. The defendant has partly admitted para 1 and 2 of the plaint. It is contended that, the plaintiff nowhere in the plaint, has described the goods supplied to the defendant and its description, and other particulars, and cost, etc. It is contended that, the plaintiff has failed to produce the cogent documents, as to what amount of products are supplied by the plaintiff, the particulars of the products, and the amount paid by the defendant. It is contended that, the defendant company has released an Order No.133/2-11-12 dated 21.5.2012 for the supply of valves, and again placed another dated - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:950-DB RFA No. 100370 of 2018 28.06.2011 worth Rs.16.80 lakhs but, the plaintiff, delayed in supplying the goods. It is stated that, the defendant sent a debit note No.126 dated 14.06.2012 to the plaintiff inferring various instance of delay and objection, which resulted the defendant to suffer a loss. It is contended that, the defendant has paid the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 27.4.2011 to the plaintiff’s sister concern i.e. M/s Suprimer Valves and Controllers Private Limited at the instance of the plaintiff. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with compensatory cost. 5. The trial Court based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has supplied a products during the period from 26-5-2011 to 16-5-2012 under bill/ invoices to the defendant for the tune of Rs. 16,82,960/- on 26-5-2012? (2) whether the defendant proves that he was forced to stop the dealing with plaintiff sent a debit note No.126 dt. 14-6-2012 to the plaintiff bringing to their notice various instances of delay, penalty and rejections which resulted defendant to suffer Rs.15,85,323/-? (3) Further the defendant proves that he has paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs vide cheque No.067859 dt.27- 4-2011 drawn on Canara Bank to the plaintiffs sister concern viz., M/s Suprimer Walve and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:950-DB RFA No. 100370 of 2018 Contollers Pvt.Ltd., and paid the amount in various dates as contended in para-15 of written statement? (4) Whether the defendant proves that the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable as it is hit by Section 20 of CPC? (5) Whether the defendant proves that the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in view of non- description of the supply the products as alleged? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.16,82,960/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 17-5-2012 till its realization? (7) What order or decree? 6. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1, and marked 92 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-92. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW.1 and the Director of the defendant company by name Mayur Gururaj was examined as DW.2, and marked 38 documents as Exs.D-1 to D-38. 7. The trial Court, after hearing both the sides, recording the evidence and on the assessment of oral and documentary evidence, answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue Nos.2, 3 and 5 in the negative, issue No.4 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:950-DB RFA No. 100370 of 2018 does not arise, issue No.6 partly in the affirmative, and issue No.7 as per the final order. The trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs vide judgment dated 10.07.2018. The defendant was directed to pay the suit claim of Rs.16,82,960/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the suit till realization and further, directed the defendant to submit C-Form in respect of the transaction to the plaintiff. 8. The defendant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2018 passed in O.S. No.117/2013, filed this regular first appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the defendant and the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 10. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that, there is no dispute regarding the quantum of amount payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. He submits that, the defendant has paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 27.04.2011 to M/s Suprimer Valves and Controls Private Limited, which is the sister concern of the plaintiff. Hence, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:950-DB RFA No. 100370 of 2018 he submits that, the said aspect was not considered by the trial Court. He also submits that the interest awarded by the trial Court is exorbitant. He also submits that, the goods supplied by the plaintiff are defective. Hence, he pray to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and he has admitted in the course of cross-examination regarding the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants from 26.05.2011 to 16.05.2012 and he also submits that, the defendant has admitted that, the defendant is due to pay an amount of Rs.16 lakhs to the plaintiff. He submits that, in view of the admission of defendant No.1, the trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The points, that arise for our consideration are: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:950-DB RFA No. 100370 of 2018 i) Whether the defendant prove that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is perverse and arbitrary? and ii) What order or decree? 14. Point No.(i): The plaintiff to prove his case examined himself as PW.1 and he reiterated the plaint averments in examination-in-chief, and produced the documents i.e. statement of accounts for the year 2011-12 till 2012-13 marked as Ex.P-81 and statement of accounts from April 2011 to March 2012 marked as Ex.P-82, Ex.P-83 is the letter dated 27.08.2012 addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant requesting the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.16,82,960/-, Ex.P-84 is the Annexure, Ex.P-85 is the acknowledgment, Ex.P-86 is another letter issued by the plaintiff to the defendant calling upon the defendant to pay the amount due, Exs.D-87 to 89 are the debit note and tax invoice, Ex.P-90 is the transaction enquiry and Exs.P-91 and P-92 are the G-mail copies. 15. From the perusal of the documents produced by the plaintiff, it clearly discloses that, the plaintiff has supplied - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:950-DB RFA No. 100370 of 2018 the goods to the defendant and the defendant is due a sum of Rs.16,82,960/-. It was suggested to DW-1 that Gururaj was due to M/s Suprimer Valves and Controllers Private Limited and the said transaction is a different transaction, the said transaction has nothing to do with the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants. Further, DW-1 admitted that, he has not produced any records to show that, the plaintiff company and M/s Suprimer Valves and Controllers Private Limited are one and the same. He admits that, Y. Gururaj resigned from the company in 2014. Further DW-1 has clearly admitted in the course of cross- examination which reads as follows : ” When the goods supplied are not as per our specification we ask the plaintiff company either to rectify the mistake or to replace the goods. We did not return the goods without specification to the plaintiff firm for rectification or replacement, but we call the plaintiff company to cure the defect at our end.” Further, also admitted that, “It is true that Ex.P-87 was sent along with the goods to the plaintiff through Avinash Carrier Pvt. Ltd. The relevant weigh bill issued by the aforesaid - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:950-DB RFA No. 100370 of 2018 carrier is marked as Ex.P-89. It is true that in case of the replacement of rejected goods, it is common practice to send the goods along with tax invoice and weigh bill. It is true that the tax invoice is mandatory to return the goods through the carrier. There is no any specific contract in between the parties to the suit in case of dealing with rejected goods. It is true that except Ex.P-87 to 89 we have no documents to show that the goods supplied by the plaintiff firm were returned as defective.” The defendant has not returned the goods supplied by the plaintiff alleging that it is defective. The defendant accepted the goods supplied by the plaintiff. The defendant to avoid the payment has taken a defendant that goods supplied by the plaintiff is defective. The defence of the defendant is an after thought. 16. From the perusal of the cross-examination of DW- 1, DW.1 has clearly admitted the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the defendant is due to pay Rs.16,82,9060/- and he also admitted in the cross- examination that, the defendant’s company has not made - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:950-DB RFA No. 100370 of 2018 the payment of Rs.16,82,960/- to the plaintiff so far. Admittedly, there is an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant for the supply of goods. The plaintiff has supplied the goods on a credit basis and the defendant has not paid the amount due, to the plaintiff. The trial Court, considering the admission of DW-1 recorded a finding that, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff, the amount, to the tune of Rs.16,82,960/-, and has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 17. Hence, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment. 18. Accordingly, we answer Point No.(i) in the negative. 19. Point No.(ii): In view of the above discussion, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Regular First Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 10.07.2018 passed in O.S. No.117/2013 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:950-DB RFA No. 100370 of 2018 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi, is confirmed No order as to the cost. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that, pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court, the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.12,64,350/- before this Court on 25.10.2018. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the office is directed to transmit the said amount to the trial Court. Liberty is reserved to the plaintiff to withdraw the said amount. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB