Binary semantics limited bangalore
The above appeal and cross objection arise out of the judgment and decree dated City Civil Judge, Bangalore. By the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. The defendants are the appellants and the plaintiff is the cross objector.
For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to their ranks as before the trial Court. The undisputed facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiff was supplying certain software products to the defendants for marketing and purchasing some software products from the defendants. Both the parties had allowed mutual credit facilities.
Plaintiff supplied software products under invoices annexed to the plaint which came to be marked later in the suit at Exs. Plaintiff issued notices dated To the said notice, defendants issued reply Ex. After exchange of notices, the binary semantics limited bangalore filed the above referred suit claiming that they have supplied software products to the defendants on credit basis and defendants committed default in payment of Rs. The plaintiff further contended that on insisting for payment, the defendants issued 5 cheques for Rs.
Plaintiff contended that they issued notice dated Plaintiff contended that 6 thereafter it served another notice dated The defendants in their written statement contended that the plaintiff or the defendants were buying and selling the software products of each other on mutual cash credit basis.
They contended that the plaintiff was irregular in supplying goods and was not replacing the defective goods nor taking them back. It was contended that due to such attitude of the plaintiff to maintain goodwill with their clients, the defendants had to buy software products from outside and cater to the need of their customers. Further, it was contended that the defendants for their administrative reasons, instead of giving discounts for the goods supplied, were issuing credit notes to make good the price variation.
The defendants contended that on holding series of meetings and negotiations, book of accounts were reconciled and it was agreed that the defendants binary semantics limited bangalore liable to pay only Rs. In the written statement, the said adjustment are shown as follows:. Balance outstanding as on Materials purchased by the Defendants after It was contended that the active trader demo account issued 5 cheques for Rs.
It was contended that the plaintiff without binary semantics limited bangalore its obligation presented the cheques and realized the cheque for Rs.
The defendants contended that suppressing all these facts, the plaintiff got issued the notice dated The issuance and service of notice dated In support of its case, the plaintiff examined one R.
Sathyanarayan as PW1 and got marked Ex. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 binary semantics limited bangalore examined and D. The trial Court after binary semantics limited bangalore the parties, decreed the suit holding that the defendants have admitted the liability of Rs.
The trial Court rejected the claim for interest holding that there is no agreement for payment of interest. Having heard both sides, the question that arises for the consideration of this Court is:. Learned counsel for the defendants relying upon the evidence of PW1 and Ex. He further argued that PW1 in his cross examination has admitted the issuance binary semantics limited bangalore credit notes Exs.
He argues that despite the admission of the said documents that plaintiff did not produce its books of account and in the absence of the production of the books of account, the trial Court is not justified in decreeing the suit. As against that, the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that binary semantics limited bangalore defendants have admitted the liability of Rs.
He argued that without filing the set off or counter claim on paying the due court fee the defendants cannot seek adjustment to the tune of Rs. He further argued that the defendants did not issue reply to the notice at Ex. The plaintiff in the plaint itself states that there used to be mutual cash credit facilities between it and the defendants. Binary semantics limited bangalore defendants claim to have made the adjustment of 15 Rs. The sum sought to be adjusted is binary semantics limited bangalore ascertained amount and not by way of damages.
Having regard to these facts and the judgment in The State Trading Corporation referred supra the claim of defendants for deduction of Rs. Therefore, there is no need of payment of court fee on such defence. In Cofex Exports Limited -Vs- Canara Bank's case it is held that the counter binary semantics limited bangalore can be entertained only if the Court has competence to take cognizance of the same and binary semantics limited bangalore found entertainable that requires to go through all the procedure of a Cross Suit including the payment of the Court binary semantics limited bangalore.
But, in this case Firstly, the defendants in their written statement did not seek any such relief of set off or counter claim in the hands of the Court against the plaintiff. As against that, the defendants in the written statement contend that much prior to the suit they had adjusted the sums due to it on several heads and claimed that after such adjustment it is due to pay Rs.
Secondly, there is no issue of the competence to entertain any set off or counter claim. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. Coming to the merits of the case, the plaintiff claimed that it has supplied the software products worth Rs.
E2 to E27 and the defendants have failed to pay the said amount. In the written statement 17 admitted the supply of the software products under the said invoices but setup the defence that the defendants that the plaintiff were are due to it sum Rs. Therefore, the trial court framed issue Nos. The trial Court held that the defendants have failed to prove the said defence by leading documentary binary semantics limited bangalore and cogent oral evidence. The learned counsel for the appellants binary semantics limited bangalore that the plaintiff has failed to produce the accounts, therefore, the trail court ought to have dismissed the suit.
Order 7 Rule 17 CPC requires the plaintiff to produce the original binary semantics limited bangalore books provided the suit based on such accounts.
In this case, 18 the suit is not binary semantics limited bangalore on the accounts but it is based on the Exs. P2 to P27 the invoices and Exs. P27 to P57 the delivery challans under which the software products are sold to the defendants. The defendants in the written statement do not dispute the supply of binary semantics limited bangalore goods.
DW1 in his cross examination admits that the defendants negotiated for purchase of goods mentioned in Exs. P2 to P27 and P62 and P He admits defendants have not paid the entire amount in binary semantics limited bangalore of those invoices but volunteers that the final settlement was for Rs. Therefore, it is clear that the suit is not based on the accounts but it is based on the invoices Exs.
P2 to P27 and delivery challens Exs. DW1 admits that those delivery challens bear the signatures of the company's representatives. Therefore, there is no binary semantics limited bangalore in the contention that for non- 19 production of the accounts books the suit ought have binary semantics limited bangalore dismissed.
So far as the merits of the claim, DW1 admits that he is aware of the terms and conditions of the negotiations for the purchase of goods mentioned ExP2 to P27, P62 and P He admits that himself and the company have subscribed the signatures on the delivery challens. Though the defendants contend that there were series of meetings to settle the accounts and thereafter the amount payable by the defendants was arrived at Rs. DW1 says binary semantics limited bangalore, that was only an oral agreement.
The plaintiff and the defendants both are the companies incorporated under the Companies Act. It goes difficult to believe that when disputes arouse between them in respect of a binary semantics limited bangalore sum of 20 money, the understanding if any reached between them goes without documentation.
The defendants do not even whisper any particulars like the names and designation of the participants in such meetings on behalf of both the companies, date and binary semantics limited bangalore of such meetings, etc. No worth believing evidence is adduced in proof of such meetings or reconciliation of the accounts.
Therefore, the trial court has rightly disbelieved the theory of such reconciliation or mutual adjustments. To prove the contention that the plaintiff owed Rs. D27 to D customer copy of statement of account. The persons, who are competent to speak about those documents are not examined. DW1 states that a senior officer of their company attended the suit transactions. But he is not 21 examined. DW1 further admits that suit claim is not with regard to the invoices Exs.
D2 to D13 and they relate to some other transactions. The genuineness of Exs. D27 to D32 is disputed. Apparently those documents contain lot of interpolations. Admittedly, the defendants have not issued any notice nor have they filed any suit claming any amount from the plaintiff towards the outstanding amount binary semantics limited bangalore the goods supplied, as damages for any breach of contract or replacement of damaged goods etc.
Then the question is whether the grant of decree for Rs. PW1 admits that Ex. As per those documents, the outstanding balance as on PW1 admits that the last supply was under the invoice dated Dthe certified copy of rejoinder filed by the 22 plaintiff in company petition No.
PW1 admits that under Ex. D the letter of credit dated binary semantics limited bangalore Though plaintiff claims that the suit claim is arrived after deducting all the payments made, still as per its own admission in ExD17 the claim was Rs.
The evidence of PW1 and DW1 show that there were mutual cash credit arrangements between the parties. The plaintiff has not adduced any evidence in proof of there being any agreement for payment of interest on the amount due to each other. Therefore, the claim in excess of Rs. PW1 says the suit claim is arrived at after deducting that sum also.