RSA No. 2347 of 2006 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 2347 of 2006 Date of decision: November 10,2008 M/s Delhi Wine Traders and others ..Appellant. Versus M/s Jagatjit Industries Ltd, Hamira ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Samir Rathore, Advocate for the Appellants. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is defendants second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff- respondent has been decreed and the defendants, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to pay the principle amount to the plaintiff, in the sum of Rs.3,20,458/- with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of the last payment made by the defendant and amount showing outstanding as on 30.6.1995 in the statement of account Ex.P7 till the date of the judgment today and with future interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of judgment today till the realization of the whole amount, along with costs of the proceedings of the case. The plaintiff-respondent is a public limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Hamira, District Kapurthala, State of Punjab. The defendant firm was having a licence of L-1 from the State of Haryana and they used to get supply of English Wine and Whisky from the plaintiff-company on credit. The defendants used to make the payment of supplies through cheques as per the averments made by the counsel. The defendants issued Cheque No.996024 for Rs.1,50,613/- and RSA No. 2347 of 2006 2 another Cheque No.996025 for Rs.1,28,848/- dated 9.6.94 and 11.6.94 respectively against the balance amount but when those Cheques were produced for encashment, the same were received back dishonoured on 1.7.94 due to paucity of funds in the account of the defendants. It is further averred that an amount of Rs.3,20,458/- was outstanding against the defendants as on 30.6.95. As the defendants did not make payment of the aforesaid balance amount, they were liable to pay market rate of interest at the rate of 18 % per annum. They were served with a legal notice dated 19.11.96 but the defendants did not make any payment. Ultimately, the plaintiff company filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4,15.674/- on account of principle and interest The defendants in their written statement raised various preliminary objections. On merits, it was admitted that the liquor was being supplied to defendant No.1 but the blank cheques were given to the plaintiff which used to be utilized by the plaintiff against the delivery of liquor. It was specifically denied that any amount was due against the defendant. It was further pleaded that defendants were not given the incentives for the supply of the previous year of 1993-94 for purchase of about 11000 cases of liquor and if the credit thereof had been given to defendant No.1, the accounts would have been completely squared up. The plaintiff-company stopped supply of liquor in the month of May, 1995 . Just to create liability upon the defendant. neither the previous incentives were adjusted nor accounts were settled. The plaintiff company also mis-utilized the blank cheques and falsified the accounts to substantiate their suit for recovery. It was also averred that there was no question of payment of interest and even otherwise, there was no agreement between the parties for charging of any interest from the defendants with regard to the amount of liquor. The trial Court held that the principle amount of Rs.3,20,458/- was outstanding against the defendants at the time of institution of the suit but the plaintiff company was entitled to interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of last payment made by the defendants and the amount shown outstanding as on 30.6.95 in the statement of account till the date of judgment RSA No. 2347 of 2006 3 and future interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of judgment till realization. Consequently, suit of the plaintiff was decreed for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,20,458/- with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date as already mentioned above. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal which was dismsised by the District Judge, Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated 31.1.2006. Still not satisfied, the defendants have filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below. At the time of preliminary hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant had contended that the case of the respondents is based only on the invoices in the account books and there are discrepancies in the amount shown in the invoices and therefore, the judgment and decrees of the courts below are erroneous. Inspite of service, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that figures shown in Ex.P4 and Ex.P7do not tally, therefore suit cannot be decreed on the basis of entries in the account books which are inconsistent with the record. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that scribes of both the documents have not been examined by the plaintiff- respondent and therefore, the appellant cannot be charged with liability merely on the basis of entries in the book of accounts. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chandradhar Goswami and others Vs. Gauhati Bank Ltd. AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1058. From the record of the case, it is established that PW1 has stated RSA No. 2347 of 2006 4 in his affidavit that he is acquainted with the facts of the case and has been duly authorized by the plaintiff-company to file the present suit. This witness has proved the invoices of the supply of liquor to the defendants being Exhs.P3 to Ex.P6, the total of which comes to Rs.3,20,458/-. The statement of accounts Ex.P7has also been proved by this witness. Even DW1 has admitted in his cross-examination that the plaintiff-company maintains its books of accounts on day to day basis. In his testimony, Ashok Kumar, defendant No.3 has admitted almost the entire claim of the plaintiff-company, which was proved from the statement of Ex. P-7. It may also be mentioned here that the defendant-firm which has been maintaining the accounts as per the statement of DW1 Ashok Kumar has not produced its books of account in support of his stand that no amount was outstanding against the defendant-firm on the date of institution of the suit. The statement of accounts Exh.P7 bears a certificate at the bottom as required under the Evidence Act. The admissibility of this document was not objected to by the appellants. Thus, there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of this statement of accounts when all the entries of the invoices have been made in the statement and in addition to that various other entries regarding payment received from the defendant have also been made. There is no inconsistency in the entries of invoices and the entries in the statement of accounts Ex.P7. Thus the statement of accounts Exh.P7 has been rightly relied upon by the trial Court to ascertain the liability of the defendants. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandradhar Goswami's case (supra) is of no help to the appellant. In the present case, the entries of the statement of accounts has been further proved from the evidence on record. Infact, the invoices Ex.,P3 to Ex.P6 and statement of account Ex.P7 has remained unrebutted as the defendants have not placed on record any evidence to controvert the same. Admittedly, the defendants are maintaining their account books. However, no statement of accounts has been produced by the appellants on record in support of their case that they were entitled to the incentives as alleged and no amount was outstanding against them in their account books. In RSA No. 2347 of 2006 5 fact, adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant for withholding their statement of accounts, on the basis of which, the claim of the plaintiff- respondent could have been rebutted. I find no reason to interfere with the judgment and decrees of the courts below. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. November 10, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE