Regular First Appeal No. 4094/2013. Case: MKR Poultry Farm and M Krishna Reddy and thers Poultry Farm Vs Tinna Agro Industries Limited and Ors.. High Court of Karnataka (India)
| Case Number | Regular First Appeal No. 4094/2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Harsh Desai, Advocate and For Respondents: S. Sreevatsa, Senior Advocate for M. Sampath Kumar and Hansh S. Maigur, Advocates |
| Judges | Anand Byrareddy and K. Somashekar, JJ. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order VIII Rule 6; Order XLI Rule 27 |
| Judgement Date | Monday March 13, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Karnataka (India) |
Judgment:
Anand Byrareddy, J.
-
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant - defendant No. 1 and the learned Senior Advocate, Shri Sreevatsa S. appearing for the counsel for the respondent No. 1 - plaintiff
-
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The suit was one for recovery of money. The amount claimed was a total sum of Rs. 38,48,761/-. The plaintiff is said to be engaged in procuring oil seeds from growers, traders and to process the same for the manufacture of various kinds of edible oils and was marketing the same. The first defendant used to purchase soya de oiled cake and sunflower seed de oiled cake as per the invoices raised by the plaintiff The first defendant is a partnership firm and so are defendants No. 2 and 3. The partners of these three firms are closely related. The first defendant did not dispute the purchase of goods from the plaintiff The suit was contested only by defendant No. 1 and though defendants 2 and 3 were represented, they did not choose to file any pleadings. The first defendant denied the plaint averments. Apart from admitting that the defendant had infact received supplies of the goods and admitted the exchange of notices making the demand for the amount claimed under the suit, the defendant claimed that he had discharged the liability and had called upon the plaintiff to furnish books of accounts. The plaintiff, however, did not choose to do so. It was the plaintiffs case that though the defendants are shown as independent entities, they were all managed by the Managing Partner of the first defendant and that the transactions between the plaintiff and the defendants dated back to the year 2004 and supplies were made normally on a 30 days' credit basis and any default in payment, attracted interest at the rate of 24% per annum.
-
It was claimed in the plaint that as between the dates 14.08.2010 to 15.10.2010, the plaintiff had supplied goods under 12 invoices, totally worth of Rs. 28,96,986/- and the defendant in discharge of this liability, had paid a sum of Rs. 1,34,529/- and had sought time to settle the remaining amount and in spite of repeated demands, no payments were made. The defendants 2 and 3 had issued cheques as security for due payment in a sum of Rs. 15,31,627/- on a cheque dated 27.12.2010 drawn on the State Bank of India, Munirabad Branch and for a sum of Rs. 12,30,344/-respectively, both of which when presented for realization had been dishonoured. It is in this background that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial