Bangalore District Court
M/S Anupama Distributors vs M/S Tilaknalgar Industries Ltd on 2 July, 2026
1
COM.O.S.4232/2010
KABC170000012010
IN THE COURT OF LXXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT,
BENGALURU (CCH-83)
PRESENT: SRI. VIDYADHAR SHIRAHATTI, LL.M.,
LXXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Com.O.S.No.4232/2010
Dated on this 02nd Day of July 2026
Plaintiff M/s Anupama Distributors, A
registered Partnership firm,
Registered under the
provisions of the Partnership
Act, 1932, Having its
registered office at "Ananda"
No. 1313, 9th Cross, 27th Main,
J.P. Nagar 1st Phase,
Bangalore - 560 078,
represented by its Managing
Partner, Sri.K. Ananda Rao,
S/o late K. Rathaiah, Aged
about 64 years.
(By Sri. Rajesh. S.V -
Advocate)
2
COM.O.S.4232/2010
//versus//
Defendant M/s Tilaknagar Industries
Limited, Registered office at
P.O. Tilaknagar, TAL,
Shrirampur, District Ahamad
Nagar, Maharashtra - 413 720,
By its Chairman & Managing
Director, Mr. Amith Dhanukar,
Administrative Office at:
Industrial Assurance Building,
III Floor, Churchgate Mumbai -
400 020.
Regional Office at: #5/2
nd
building No. 22, 2 Floor, East
Park Road, Kumara Park East,
Bangalore - 560 001.
(By M/s Holla and Holla,
Advocates)
Date of Institution of
21.06.2010
the suit
Nature of the suit
(suit on pronote, suit
for declaration & Suit for recovery of money
Possession, Suit for
injunction etc.)
Date of
commencement of 20.06.2012
recording of evidence
3
COM.O.S.4232/2010
Date on which
judgment was 02.07.2026
pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
16 00 11
(VIDYADHAR SHIRAHATTI),
LXXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of
amount of Rs. 40,32,669 along with interest at 185 per
annum at Rs. 21,77,640/- from 26.06.2007 the amount
became due till the date of filing of the suit, in all Rs.
62,10,309/-.
2. The Brief facts as per Plaint are as follows:-
The plaintiff is a registered Partnership Firm
carrying on the business of distribution of wine and
liquor in the State of Karnataka, having been converted
from a proprietary concern with effect from 01.04.2009
and registered on 03.08.2009. The defendant is a
company engaged in the manufacture of Indian Made
4
COM.O.S.4232/2010Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and appointed the plaintiff as its
promoter and marketing agent in Karnataka under a
letter of appointment dated 18.09.2003. The plaintiff
accepted the appointment, established the required
infrastructure, and successfully promoted the
defendant’s brands, resulting in substantial sales across
Karnataka. A running account was maintained between
the parties, and the plaintiff regularly raised debit notes
towards service charges, sales promotion expenses,
and reimbursement of expenses, which were verified
and accepted by the defendant. During the accounting
years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, twenty debit notes
remained unpaid, of which sixteen were countersigned
by the defendant. Against the total debit notes of
Rs.1,51,42,263/-, the defendant paid Rs.1,11,09,594/-,
leaving a balance of Rs.40,32,669/- outstanding as on
31.08.2007. The defendant also issued TDS certificates
for earlier assessment years, confirming the accounts
and liability. The last payment was made on
26.06.2007. The plaintiff reflected the outstanding
amount of Rs.40,32,669/- in its income tax returns and
repeatedly demanded payment. Despite the legal notice
dated 15.05.2010, the defendant failed to pay the
5
COM.O.S.4232/2010admitted amount and instead issued an untenable reply
dated 03.06.2010. The defendant is therefore liable to
pay Rs.40,32,669/- together with interest at 18% from
26.06.2007. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file this
suit.
3. After service of summons, defendant has appeared
and filed a written statement stating that, suit is wholly
false, frivolous and vexatious and is not maintainable in
law or on facts. The suit has been filed with the
intention of harassing the Defendant and the suit lacks
bonafides and the same is liable to be dismissed in
limine. The Defendant has filed a suit in Suit no.
2766/2009 against the plaintiff before the Hon’ble High
Court of Mumbai for recovery of Rs. 10 crores in which
Writ of summons is served and the plaintiff has entered
appearance through advocate on or about March 2010.
Despite the said prior suit pending at the Hon’ble High
Court, Mumbai the plaintiff has instead of filing a
counter claim and/or set off in the said suit at Mumbai,
filed the present suit at Bangalore. To avoid multiplicity
of proceedings and in order to save valuable time of
this court, the present suit transferred to Mumbai High
6
COM.O.S.4232/2010
Court for joint trial and be treated as counter claim.
Defendant had engaged M/s Anupama Wine
Distributors, who is the sister concern of the plaintiff
firm herein, as its agents, inter-alia, for the purpose of
sales on behalf of the defendant herein. M/s Anupama
Wine Distributors was entrusted with the task of
making arrangements for payment of excise duty and
co-ordinate the work relating to obtaining stocks from
the Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Ltd.,
Bangalore, for being given to the dealers/distributors.
The said arrangement also envisaged payment of
service charge to the said M/s Anupama Wine
Distributors based on the number of liquor cases sold.
Its sister concern M/s Anupama Wine Distributors are
represented by the same Managing Partner Mr. K.
Ananda Rao and other partners of the said firms are Mr.
Ratan Rao and Mr. Rajendra Rao, sons of Mr. K. Ananda
Rao.
3.1. The plaintiff firm and M/s Anupama Wine
Distributors have been always managed by the said Mr.
K. Ananda Rao and his other partners. The plaintiff and
M/s Anupama Wine Distributors have defrauded the
7
COM.O.S.4232/2010
defendant. The instances of fraud perpetrated by the
said two partnership firms and their partners are
innumerable and these instances were spread over a
period of 4 to 5 years. The said fraud was discovered in
month of August 2007 and, for the first time, the
fraudulent acts and deeds of M/s. Anupama Wine
Distributors surfaced. The defendant discovered that M/
s. Anupama Wine Distributors defrauded the defendant
to the tune of several Crores of Rupees, as was
reported by the team of the special auditors appointed
by the defendant company for carrying out special
investigations in this respect. The defendant craves
leave to refer to and rely upon the report when
produced.
3.2. M/s. Anupama Wine Distributors have filed a
money recovery suit claiming alleged sum of
Rs.7,31,10,153/- against the defendant herein in O.S.
No 8311/2007 which is pending consideration before
this Hon’ble Court (CCH 28), wherein the defendant has
filed its written statement and a counter claim for Rs.
11,93,16,733/- upon the M/s Anupama Wine
Distributors. After filing of the counter claim in the said
8
COM.O.S.4232/2010
suit the Defendant and its executives extensively
examined the records of the transaction of M/s
Anupama Wine Distributors and the Anupama
Distributors had raised their separate invoices for the
same services and for the same expenses. As per the
said statement, the defendant has paid a sum of
Rs.7,72,96,293/- to M/s Anupama Wine Distributors
and a sum of Rs.3,73,96,908/- to the plaintiff herein on
the same transactions for which debit notes were raised
twice with respect to the distribution of the same
number of cases and service charges were also claimed
by the plaintiff herein and based upon which the
plaintiff herein obtained payment of Rs. 3,73,96,308/-
from the defendant.
3.3. The defendant has also made an application for
impleading the plaintiff herein in the said suit and the
said application is pending consideration therein. In the
event of the present suit not being transferred to High
Court, Mumbai, the present suit be ordered to be tried
with O.S. suit No. 8311/2007 and counter claim therein
pending before this Court. Some of the debit notes
referred to and produced by the plaintiff in serial no. 7,
9
COM.O.S.4232/2010
8, 9 and 10 of para 9 of the plaint are raised twice
Anupama Wine Distributors and Anupama Distributors
for same claim. The plaintiff has made a bogus claim to
hoodwink the Defendant and mislead this court. The
suit is fraudulent and made with the dishonest intention
of making wrongful gains from the plaintiff and causing
wrongful losses to the Defendant.
3.4. The transactions between the plaintiff and the
defendant were of running account which the plaintiff
has failed and neglected to refer to and/or to produce.
The claims made by the plaintiff are based on the
alleged debit notes which form part of the running
account maintained by the plaintiff and the defendant.
It is submitted that only a claim of the amount due at
the foot of such running account is maintainable. As no
amount at the foot of the running account is alleged to
be due and payable, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
The plaintiff’s claim on a few alleged pick and chosen
debit notes is not maintainable. The claim of the
plaintiff on the alleged debit notes are all hopelessly
barred by the law of limitation and on this ground alone
the above suit is liable to be dismissed.
10
COM.O.S.4232/2010
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, my
predecessor have framed the following issues.
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that the
defendant is due for a sum of Rs.
40,32,669/- towards the service
rendered by it to the Defendant ?
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a
sum of Rs. 62,10,309/- ?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
interest ? If so, at what rate ?
4. Whether the Defendant proves that
the plaintiff and Anupama Wine
Distributors had raised their separate
invoices for the same services and for
the same expenses as alleged in the
written statement ?
5. Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is
barred by time ?
6. Whether the plaintiff has not valued
the suit properly and the court fee paid
is insufficient ?
7. Whether the plaintiff has got no
cause of action to file the suit ?
8. What Decree or Order ?
11
COM.O.S.4232/2010
5. To prove its case, the plaintiff has examined K.
Ananda Rao as a PW1 and also Plaintiff examined one
witness examined R.N. Nagabhushana Choudhury as a
PW.2 and relied 40 documents marked as Exhibit P1 to
P41. On the other defendant has examined Shankar
Pawar as a Dw.1 and relied 71 documents marked as
Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.71.
6. On perusing the pleadings, issues and oral and
documentary evidence.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:
1. Issue No.1 :- In the Negative.
2. Issue No.2 :- In the Negative.
3. Issue No.3 :- In the Negative.
4. Issue No.4 :- In the Negative.
5. Issue No.5 :- In the Negative.
6. Issue No.6 :- In the Negative.
7. Issue No.7 :- In the Negative.
8. Issue No.8 :- As per the final Order
for the following.
12
COM.O.S.4232/2010
REASONS
8. Issue No.1:- The plaintiff has filed this suit for
recovery of an amount of Rs. 40,32,669/- along with
interest at 18% per annum at 21,77,640/- from
26.6.2007 and the said amount due till the date of
filing of the suit and in total the plaintiff has prays to
recovery for Rs. 62,10,309/- along with interest. The
plaintiff has submitted that, the plaintiff has raised
several debit notes for the accounting years 2006-07
and 2007-08. From the amongst the several debit note
raised by the plaintiff. The defendant has remained
unpaid. The following debit notes has not paid:
Sl. Particulars Amount
No.
1 Debit Note No. 32 dated 7,45,600/-
05.10.2006
2 Debit Note No. 33 dated 8,87,075/-
05.10.2006
3 Debit Note No. 34 dated 10,00,000/-
06.11.2006
4 Debit Note No. 35 dated 11,84,990/-
06.11.2006
5 Debit Note No. 40 5,17,655/-
dated05.02.2007
13
COM.O.S.4232/2010
6 Debit Note No. 41 dated 10,45,550/-
05.02.2007
7 Debit Note No. 42 dated 3,95,965/-
07.03.2007
8 Debit Note No. 43 dated 8,04,770/-
07.03.2007
9 Debit Note No. 44 dated 3,99,625/-
31.03.2007
10 Debit Note No. 45 dated 8,28,902/-
31.03.2007
11 Debit Note No. 3 dated 4,86,030/-
07.05.2007
12 Debit Note No.4 dated 10,22,515/-
07.05.2007
13 Debit Note No.5 dated 4,01,715/-
05.06.2007
14 Debit Note No.6 dated 8,41,125/-
05.06.2007
15 Debit Note No.23 dated 4,59,775/-
03.07.2007
16 Debit Note No.24 dated 9,66,095/-
03.070.2007
17 Debit Note No.36 dated 5,81,085/-
02.08.2007
18 Debit Note No.37 dated 12,09,698/-
02.08.2007
19 Debit Note No.58 dated 4,43,860/-
31.08.2007
20 Debit Note No.59 dated 9,20,198/-
31.08.2007
Total 1,51,42,263/-
14
COM.O.S.4232/2010
9. The plaintiff has claimed an amount as prayed
for. To substantiate its contention, the plaintiff has
examined K. Ananda Rao as PW.1 and relied 40
documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.40.
10. The defendant has taken a contention that, in
the present plaintiff is a sister concern of the plaintiff in
Com.O.S.No. 8311/2007 and already claimed recovery
of Rs. 7,31,10,152/- with interest at 18% per annum.
However, the defendant has also filed a counter claim
to recover an amount of Rs. 11,93,16,733/. But the
plaintiff claiming the recovery of amount by way of
debit notes which are same debit notes submitted in
the said suit. Further it is noted that, the claim of the
defendant is barred by law of limitation as this ground
alone the suit is liable to be dismissed.
11. It is also noted point that, the defendant firm
was not existed on the date of cause of action arose to
file the suit and there is no cause of action on the date
of suit. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.
12. In support of the contention the defendant has
examined Shankar Pawar is examined as PW.1 and
15
COM.O.S.4232/2010
relied 71 documents marked as Ex. D1 to D.71. Ex. D3
to Ex.D71 are marked subject to objections raised by
the plaintiff side and those are the photocopies.
13. Though the defendant has categorically stated
about a fraudulent act of the plaintiff. However, the
defendant has not produced any iota of document to
show that the Plaintiff has imposed an exorbitant
interest at 36% per annum as well as fraudulent act.
Therefore, the documents relied by the defendant
marked as Ex.P.3 to 71 are photocopies. Therefore,
the photocopies of the documents are not admissible
under Section 62 of Indian Evidence Act. It has defined
the primary evidence and the proof of the documents
should be proved by primary evidence as required
under Section 62. The primary evidence means the
document itself produced for the inspection of the
court. When the defendant has not produced the
primary evidence, photocopies are not admissible.
Section 64 of the Indian Evidence Act speaks about,
the documents must be proved by primary evidence.
Therefore, the defendant has not produced to prove his
contention the primary evidence marked as Ex.D.3 to
16
COM.O.S.4232/2010
71. The defendant has not made any effort to construct
the secondary documents to rely on behalf of
defendant. Though the Defendant has not stated
anything about possession of document ExD.3 to
Ex.D71.
14. It is noted point that, the plaintiff has raised the
debit note prior to registration of partnership deed
marked as Ex. P1. As per the plaint, the cause of action
arose on various dates on 26.06.2007, 05.07.2007,
15.04.2007 and also, they submitted the various
invoices which is barred by law. At the time of cause of
action arose the plaintiff partnership firm was not
registered. The service given by the plaintiff not to the
partnership firm. It is noted point that the partnership
firm was registered on 01.04.2009.
15. The plaintiff contention that there is a clause in
Page No.2, whereas the assets and liabilities of the
erstwhile proprietary concern stood at 1st day of April
2009 shall be the assets and liabilities of this
partnership firm. However, the assets and liabilities are
to be considered as an agreement. But the cause of
17
COM.O.S.4232/2010
action cannot be shift by way of registering the
partnership firm in the name of entity. Therefore, the
plaintiff is not having any authority to sue against the
partnership firm, as there is no cause of action on the
date of registration of the firm. Pw.1 categorically
admitted that, Ex.P.18 and 19 are the personal income
tax returns of PW.1. It is also mentioned that, the
defendant has filed a suit in O.S.No.2766/2009 against
the plaintiff before the Bombay High Court for recovery
of Rs. 10 crores. In the said suit, he has appeared
through his counsel but not claimed the amount.
Though he has appeared in March 2010.
16. PW.2 has admitted that, the plaintiff firm was
looking after the marketing promotion of the defendant
firm. He knows the Anupama Wine Distributors have
filed Com.OS No.8311/2007. Further, he has admitted
that Ex. P.2, debit note No. 721 and Ex.P26 are raised
on the same day and mentioning the same quantity of
product MHW and MHB. The answer was given or
rendered by Anupama Wine Distributors and plaintiff
firm are different. However, the debit notes raised by
the defendant firm are containing all details.
18
COM.O.S.4232/2010
17. In the course of argument the plaintiff has
submitted that while adjudicating the suit the court
must consider the equitable accept of the matter.
Hence, the Advocate for the plaintiff has relied the
Judgment in (1974) 1 SCC 242 between Nagindas
Ramdas vs. Dalpatram Ichharam and Others,
wherein, Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para 10 as
thus:
At the stage of the final hearing of the
appeal, especially after the learned Counsel for
the appellant had addressed us on merits, we
do not propose to go into the preliminary
ground urged by Mr. Parekh. If the decree turns
out to be without jurisdiction, this equitable
plea will be of no avail; because equity cannot
operate to annul a statute. If the decree is
found to be in conformity with the statute, the
appeal will fail on that ground, alone, and it will
be wholly unnecessary to consider the equitable
aspect of the matter.
18. In the course of argument the defendant has
stated that, the ledger was produced by the plaintiff
and also without the proper relevant document to
substantiate to prove the document and without books
19
COM.O.S.4232/2010
of accounts the said ledger account cannot be taken
into consideration. IT is also submitted that, the tax
invoice without the signature of the other side is not
admissible. Hence, the Advocate for the Defendant has
relied the Judgments in ILR 1977 KAR 756 between
B. Siddalingappa vs. M.C. Mohan, wherein Indian
Law reports held in para 10 and 11 as thus:
The conclusion of the learned Civil Judge
was primarily based on the entries in the
account book and the ledger book of the Vijaya
Textiles of the plaintiff. It is relevant to state
that an entry in an account book is an
admission by the maker thereof in his own
favour requirements of being kept regularly
and in the ordinary course of complies
business. If the account books and the entries
made therein are of suspicious character, or do
not inspire confidence in a court of justice, they
should not be relied upon.
11. Now, turning to the Day Book or the Ledger
Book produced by the plaintiff, it strikes to any
one that they have not been kept regularly and
in the ordinary course of business. Ext. P-2(a)
is undoubtedly of a suspicious character for
more than The entry under one reason. Firstly,
it has been entered in a different ink; secondly,
the said entry was written in between the two
regular lines in a cramped style although it
could have been written neatly one below the
20
COM.O.S.4232/2010other on the lines clearly drawn on the said
page. Likewise, Ext. P-1, the Day Book entry
also shows that the writing therein is also in a
different ink. All the rest of the entries made
on that particular day, are in a marked contrast
with the entry under Ext. P-1(a), besides it is
at the end of that page. These circumstances,
in my opinion, detract from the value of the
entries and no court of law would be justified in
accepting them.
In Kurapati Venkata Mallayya and another vs.
Thondepu Ramaswamy and Company and
another (4), the Supreme Court, while dealing
with the scope of Section 34 of the Evidence
Act, observed that the cumulative effect of the
circumstances like a debit entry at the end of a
page in an account book, that the description
of the goods so closely written in a cramped
style on the same page though it could have
been written on the next page and the total
amount debited being written in different ink
detracted from the value of the entry. It is
necessary to point out, even where books of
account have been kept in the regular course
of business, no person can be charged with the
liability merely on the basis of entries in such
books and there has to be further evidence to
prove the alleged payment. In Chandradhar
Goswami and others vs. Gauhati Bank Ltd., (5)
while dealing with the scope of Section 34 of
the Evidence Act, the Supreme Court observed
at page 1061 thus:
“Section 34 says that such entry alone shall not
21
COM.O.S.4232/2010be sufficient evidence, and so, some
independent evidence had to be given by the
bank to show that this sum was advanced.
What would be the nature of such independent
evidence would certainly depend upon the facts
of each case, but there can be no doubt that
some independent evidence to show that
advance had been made has to be
19. In 2020 SCC Online Kar 628 between Arihant
Enterprises, represented by its Proprietor vs. Anil
Kumar and Others, wherein Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka held in para No.8 as thus :
After considering the ledger statement
carefully, I am of the opinion that a Ledger by
itself, could not be a Books of Account. It is
settled principle of law that when a document is
to be proved and relied upon in evidence, there
are three aspects to be considered by the
Court, viz. (i) the proof of execution of
document; (ii) proof of contents of document;
and (iii) the evidentiary value of the document
as a whole. Section 34 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 mandates that the Books of Account
regularly maintained in the course of business
is required to be looked into and the Ledger, by
itself, could not be a Books of Account of the
character contemplated under Section 34 of the
Act. Even in respect of the Books of Account is
concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of CHANDRADHAR GOSWAMI v. THE GAUHATI
22
COM.O.S.4232/2010BANK LTD. reported in AIR 1967 SC 1058 has
held that “no person can be charged with
liability merely on the entries in Books of
account, even where such books of account are
kept in the regular course of business. There
has to be further evidence to prove payment of
the money which may appear in the books of
account in order that a person may be charged
with liability thereunder, except where the
person to be charged accepts the correctness of
the books of account and does not challenge
them. The original entries alone under Section
34 of the Act would not be sufficient to charge
any person for liability.” Having considered the
aforesaid dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
and the finding recorded by the Trial Court that
a ledger by itself is not a proof insofar as the
transaction between the parties and as such,
the said finding cannot be found fault with
thereto as the entries relating to the payment
or not cannot be is sufficient to hold against the
defendants. The plaintiff herein has failed to
establish the transaction as stated in Exhibit P4
by way of producing certain other materials as
corroborative evidence and therefore, Exhibit
P4 cannot be treated as conclusive. In view of
the foregoing discussions, the ledger by itself
cannot be a proof of transaction and no liability
be fastened on the basis of an entry in the
ledger alone unless it is corroborated by some
other evidence, the finding recorded by the Trial
Court against the plaintiff is to be founded as a
reasoned conclusion arrived at by the learned
Judge of the Trial Court.
23
COM.O.S.4232/2010
20. In MANU/KA/3257/2020 between Sunrise
Sales Corporation vs. B.S. Kumar, wherein, Hon’ble
High court of Karnataka held in para No. 4 and 6 as
thus:
It is seen from the records that the petitioner
initially filed a suit against one Mr. Raghu by
showing him as Proprietor for M/s. Mathru
Builders. However, subsequently, he has
substituted the said Mr. Raghu with one Mr. B.S.
Kumar as the owner of M/s. Mathru Builders. To
prove his case, the petitioner has produced
certain tax invoices and statement of accounts.
However, the said tax invoices and the
statement of accounts are denied by the
respondent. Nothing is elicited in the cross-
examination of DW.1. The tax invoices and the
statement of accounts are the documents of the
petitioner. There is nothing on record to show
apart from the allegation made by the petitioner
and the said tax invoices and the statement of
accounts that the respondent is due any money
to the petitioner. The respondent categorically
denied that he has put his signature on the said
tax invoices or statement of accounts. The
petitioner has not been able to prove otherwise.
Thus, in any way, production of statement of
accounts and tax invoices does not amount to
proving his case. Accordingly, the trial Court has
rightly dismissed the small causes suit
24
COM.O.S.4232/2010
21. In the cross examination of PW1 has stated that
there is no agreement between the defendant and
plaintiff to recover the amount, the plaintiff cannot say
exactly a period of service the plaintiff has rendered to
the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff. The
transaction was between the period up to 2005-2007.
The plaintiff has sought the claim amount on the basis
of sales promotion expenses pertains to the sales
promotion activities incurred by the plaintiff company
and reimbursement expenses, which means the
expenses incurred by the plaintiff company. Though the
plaintiff has raised the debit notes as referred above.
From that table, Sl.No. 1 to 14 were already barred by
law of limitation as the debit note No. 6 was raised on
05.06.2007 and the plaintiff has filed the suit on
21.06.2010. Therefore, the Sl.No. 1 to 14 debit notes
are already barred by law of limitation. The debit No
Sl.No. 15 to 20 referred in the above are within the law
of limitation. However, the plaintiff has stated in para
No. 9 of his pleadings that the defendant has already
paid Rs. 1,11,09,594/- and only a balance of Rs.
40,32,669/- including the TDS certificate which referred
25
COM.O.S.4232/2010
about the balance. However, the plaintiff has not
mentioned a details about which amount of debit note
was not paid by the defendant. Therefore, the claim of
the Plaintiff for Rs. 40,32,669/- was not sufficiently
proved. Therefore, looking to the materials and Ex. P.1
to Ex.P.23, the plaintiff has not proved his case. Hence,
plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of an amount of Rs.
40,32,669/-. Accordingly, I answer Issue No. 1 in
Negative.
22. Issue No.2 and 3: Since both the issues are
interlinked with each other, they are taken together for
discussion, to avoid repetition.
23. The plaintiff has claimed Rs. 62,10,309/- from
the defendant, as the defendant was due an amount of
Rs. 40,32,000/- and the interest of the due amount
from date of due till filing of the suit is come to Rs.
21,77,640/-. Therefore, defendant is liable to pay the
said amount. However, this court has come to
conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove a
recovery of Rs. 40,32,669/- as the claim of the plaintiff
is barred by law of limitation as well as there was no
26
COM.O.S.4232/2010
cause of action. Therefore, this court answer Issue No.1
in negative. Accordingly, the question of payment of
interest at 21,77,640/-is not arose. Hence, I answer
Issue No. 2 and 3 are the Negative.
24. Issue No.4:- The defendant has taken a
contention that, the plaintiff and Anupama Wine
Distributors had a sister concern have raised separate
invoices for the same services and for the same
expenses. However, this defendant partnership firm was
registered in the year 2009, but the Anupama Wine
Distributors was in the proprietorship concern,
registered prior to the plaintiff. As per Ex. D1, the
plaintiff has filed another suit in com.O.S.No.
8311/2007. So except the order sheet in com.O.S.No.
8311/2007 the defendant has not produced any other
documents to establish that both are sister concern.
But when the 2 firms are registered, it is the duty of
the Defendant to establish that the, business of two
establishments are one and the same, and the plaintiff
has raised the debit notes and invoices for the same
works. Though there is no proper documents to
establish that the plaintiff is sister concern of Anupama
27
COM.O.S.4232/2010
Wine Distributor. Therefore, I answer Issue No. 4 in
Negative.
25. Issue No. 5 and 7:- Since both the issues are
interlinked with each other, they are taken together for
discussion, to avoid repetition.
26. The defendant has taken a contention that suit
of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation. Though the
plaintiff has claimed the amount on the basis of invoice
raised, and the said invoice was referred in Issue No.1.
The 20 invoices was raised by the plaintiff and out of
that, the 14 invoices were barred by law of limitation as
the plaintiff was filed the suit on 20th June 2007. So, the
plaintiff has to claim his relief as per Article 14 of
Limitation Act within three years. Further, invoice Sl.No.
15 to 20 are claimed. However, the plaintiff has stated
that the defendant has paid an amount of Rs.
1,11,09,594/-, and the balance was only an amount of
Rs. 40,32,669/-. Therefore, the plaintiff has not
explained the account maintained by the plaintiff is a
running account, and defendant has due for the debit
28
COM.O.S.4232/2010
note amount of containing Sl.No. 15 to 20. So without
the proper contentions, the plaintiff has failed to file
suit within law of limitation In the plaint also the
plaintiff has mentioned the cause of action arose on
6/6/2007. Therefore, the suit filed on 21/6/2010.
Therefore, without proper explanation the claim of the
plaintiff is not maintained. Hence the suit of the plaintiff
is bar by limitation.
27. At the time of filing the suit, the defendant firm
was not registered and even their transactions was held
by the plaintiff with the partners of the defendant firm.
The defendant firm was registered on 1/4/2009 as per
Ex. P1 and the transactions/the claim of the plaintiff on
the basis of debit notes has Sl.No. 1 to 20 were the
defendant was not in existence. The partners of the
defendant were they had a business transactions with
the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff has made the
defendant as a party and claimed a relief and a suffer
not with the partners.
28. The Defendant has taken a contention that, the
plaintiff has not proper contention in the pleadings for
29
COM.O.S.4232/2010
recovery of the claim amount and due debit notes
amount was not clearly pleaded. Therefore, the
defendant has relied the Judgment in Sri. Mallappa
and others vs. Sri. Mallappa in R.S.A. No.
725/2025 before the Hon’ble High court of Karnataka
vide Judgment dated 07.09.2017, wherein held in para
No.7 as thus:
Secondly, it has to be stated that if the
plaintiff introduces Ex.Pl at the time of trial, it
cannot be looked into for any purpose. Any
amount of evidence, without pleading has no
value and for this reason, the entire oral
evidence adduced by the plaintiff including
himself and two other witnesses looses its
importance. The plaintiff has produced certain
revenue documents to show that the entries in
the revenue records were made on the basis of
Ex. P1. But, the revenueе records do not
establish the title. Moreover, Ex.P1 is a
partition deed. It has not been registered. It is
not the case of the plaintiff that there took
place an oral partition. He introduces Ex.P1
which is a partition deed and when it is found
that it is an unregistered instrument, it cannot
be acted upon. Section 17 of the Indian
Registration Act, is a bar. Therefore, viewed
from any angle, the title of the plaintiff on the
basis of Ex.P1 cannot be declared. I find that
the First Appellate Court has discussed the
evidence properly to come to a right
30
COM.O.S.4232/2010conclusion. In the result, the appeal fails and it
is dismissed.
29. Looking to the pleadings and documents along
with oral evidence, the plaintiff has not proved his case.
Therefore, the cause of action arose to file a suit on
6/6/2007 was barred by law of limitation as well as
there is no cause of action against partnership firm as
defendant. Hence, I answer Issue No. 5 and 7 are
Negative.
30. Issue No. 6: The plaintiff has claimed a recovery
of Rs. 62,10,309/- with interest at 18% per annum.
However, the plaintiff has paid the Court fee at Rs.
2,25,900/- by through DD. Accordingly, the suit of the
plaintiff is money recovery as per article total value as
per Schedule-1. As per Schedule-1 (XIV), plaintiff is
liable to pay an amount as per the calculation
225280/-. However, the plaintiff has paid a court fee of
rupees 2,25,900/-. Therefore, the plaintiff has paid the
sufficient court fee. Hence, I answer Issue 6 in
Negative.
31
COM.O.S.4232/2010
31. Issue No.8 :- Therefore, I proceed to pass the
following.
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby
dismissed with cost.
Draw Decree accordingly.
The Office is directed to send copy of
this Judgment to Plaintiff and Defendant
to their email ID as required under
Order XX Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure
Code as amended under Section 16 of
the Commercial Courts Act.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, verified
and corrected by me and then pronounced by me in open
Court on this the 02nd day of July, 2026).
(VIDYADHAR SHIRAHATTI),
XXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
THE PLAINTIFF
PW-1 K. Ananda Rao
Pw.2 R.N. Nagabhushana Chowdary
32
COM.O.S.4232/2010
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF
THE PLAINTIFF
Ex.P.1 Deed of Partnership
Ex.P.2 Certificate of Registration of firm.
Ex.P.3 Original resolution. Ex.P.4 Copy of lawyer notice dated 15.05.2010. Ex.P.5 to 7 Postal acknowledgement. Ex.P.8 Reply notice.
Ex.P.9 to 12 and Debit notes and signature of authorised
Ex.P.9(a) to 12 (a) signatory.
Ex.P.13 and 13 Debit note and Signature.
(a)
Ex.P.14 Form No. 16A (TDS) dated 15.04.2005
Ex.P.15 Form No. 16A (TDS) dated 15.04.2005
Ex.P.16 Form No. 16A (TDS) dated 15.04.2005
Ex.P.17 Form No. 16A (TDS) dated 21.05.2007.
Ex.P.18 Income Tax return for the year 2007-08.
Ex.P.19 Income Tax return for the year 2008-09.
Ex.P.20 and 20 Statement of Bank account from 01.07.007 (a) to 31.08.2007.
Ex.P.21 and 21(a) Statement of extract dated 31.03.2008.
Ex.P.22 and 22(a) Ledger extract from 01.07.2007 to
31.03.2008.
Ex.P.23 and 23(a) Ledger extract from 01.04.2006 to
30.03.2007
33
COM.O.S.4232/2010
Ex.P.24 Accountant Statement.
Ex.P.25 Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Ex.P.26 to Ex.P.40 Debit notes
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
THE DEFENDANT
DW.1 Shankar Pawar
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF
THE DEFENDANT
Ex.D.1 C/c of plaint of O.S.No. 8311/2007.
Ex.D.2 38 debit notes raised by Anupama Wine
Distributors.
Ex.D.3 Copy of the credit note dated 05.05.2004, copies
of 2 debit notes dated 05.05.2004, the statement
of service charges, sales promotion, freight
inward and outward charges dated 05.05.2004 of
the plaintiff and copy of debit note dated
05.05.2004 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.4 Copy of the credit note dated 10.05.2004, copy of
debit note dated 10.05.2004, the statement of
service charges, sales promotion, freight inward
and outward charges dated 10.05.2004 of the
plaintiff and copy of the credit note and debit note
dated 10.05.2004 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.5 Copy of the credit note dated 17.05.2004, copy of
the debit note dated 17.05.2004, the statement of
34
COM.O.S.4232/2010
service charges, sales promotion, freight inward
and outward charges dated 15.05.2004 of the
plaintiff and copy of the credit note and debit note
dated 15.05.2004 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.6 Copy of the credit note dated 31.05.2004, copy of
the debit note dated 31.05.2004, the statement of
service charges, sales promotion, freight inward
and outward charges dated 31.05.2004 of the
plaintiff and copy of the credit note and debit note
dated 29.05.2004 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.7 Copy of the credit note dated 05.06.2004, copy of
the debit note dated 05.06.2004, the statement of
service charges, sales promotion, freight inward
and outward charges dated 05.06.2004 of the
plaintiff and copy of the credit note and debit note
dated 05.06.2004 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.8 Copy of the credit note dated 12.06.2004, copy of
the debit note dated 12.06.2004, the statement of
service charges, sales promotion, freight inward
and outward charges dated 12.06.2004 of the
plaintiff and copy of the credit note and debit note
dated 12.06.2004 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.9 Copy of the credit note dated 28.06.2004, copy of
the debit note dated 28.06.2004, the statement of
service charges, sales promotion, freight inward
and outward charges dated 28.06.2004 of the
plaintiff and copy of the credit note and debit note
dated 28.06.2004 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.10 Copy of the credit note dated 19.06.2004, copy of
the debit note dated 19.06.2004, the statement of
35
COM.O.S.4232/2010
service charges, sales promotion, freight inward
and outward charges dated 21.06.2004 of the
plaintiff and copy of the credit note and debit note
dated 19.06.2004 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.11 Copy of the credit note dated 22.05.2004, copy of
the debit note dated 22.05.2004, the statement of
service charges, sales promotion, freight inward
and outward charges dated 22.05.2004 of the
plaintiff and copy of the credit note and debit note
dated 22.05.2004 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.12 Copy of the credit note dated 31.07.2004, copy of
the debit note dated 31.07.2004, the statement of
service charges, sales promotion, freight inward
and outward charges dated 31.07.2004 of the
plaintiff and copy of the credit note and debit note
dated 31.07.2004 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.13 Copy of the credit note dated 26.07.2004, copy of
the debit note dated 26.07.2004, the statement of
service charges, sales promotion, freight inward
and outward charges dated 24.07.2004 of the
plaintiff and copy of the credit note and debit note
dated 24.07.2004 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.14 Copy of the credit note dated 17.07.2004, copy of
the debit note dated 17.07.2004, the statement of
service charges, sales promotion, freight inward
and outward charges dated 17.07.2004 of the
plaintiff and copy of the credit note and debit note
dated 17.07.2004 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.15 Copy of the credit note dated 13.07.2004, copy of
the debit note dated 13.07.2004, the statement of
36
COM.O.S.4232/2010
service charges, sales promotion, freight inward
and outward charges dated 13.07.2004 of the
plaintiff and copy of the credit note and debit note
dated 10.07.2004 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.16 Copy of the credit note dated 05.07.2004, copy of
the debit note dated 05.07.2004 in 2 Nos., the
statement of service charges, sales promotion,
freight inward and outward charges dated
05.07.2004 of the plaintiff and copy of the credit
note and debit note dated 05.07.2004 of
Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.17 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 06.08.2005,
copies of 2 debit notes dated 06.08.2005, the
statement of service charges, sales promotion,
freight inward and outward charges dated
06.08.2005 of the plaintiff and copy of journal
voucher and debit note dated 06.08.2005 of
Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.18 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 09.07.2005,
copies of 2 debit notes dated 09.07.2005, the
statement of service charges, sales promotion,
freight inward and outward charges dated
09.07.2005 of the plaintiff and copy of journal
voucher and copies of 2 debit notes dated
09.07.2005 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.19 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 02.07.2005,
copies of 2 debit notes dated 02.07.2005, the
statement of service charges, sales promotion,
freight inward and outward charges dated
02.07.2005 of the plaintiff and copy of the journal
37
COM.O.S.4232/2010
voucher dated 02.07.2005 and copies of 2 debit
notes dated 01.07.2005 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.20 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 24.06.2005,
copies of 2 debit notes dated 24.06.2005, the
statement of service charges, sales promotion,
freight inward and outward charges dated
24.06.2005 of the plaintiff and copy of the journal
voucher dated 18.06.2005 and copies of 2 debit
notes dated 24.06.2005 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.21 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 18.06.2005 of
the defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
18.06.2005, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inward and
outward charges dated 18.06.2005 of the plaintiff
and copy of the journal voucher of the defendant
and copies of 2 debit notes dated 18.06.2005 of
Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.22 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 18.06.2005 of
the defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
18.06.2005, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inward and
outward charges dated 18.06.2005 of the plaintiff
and copy of the journal voucher of the defendant
and copies of 2 debit notes dated 18.06.2005 of
Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.23 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 04.06.2005 of
the defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
04.06.2005, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inward and
outward charges of dated 04.06.2005 of the
38
COM.O.S.4232/2010
plaintiff and copy of the journal voucher of the
defendant and copies of 2 debit notes dated
04.06.2005 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.24 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 27.05.2005 of
the defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
27.05.2005, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inward and
outward charges of dated 27.05.2005 of the
plaintiff and copy of the journal voucher of the
defendant and copies of 2 debit notes dated
27.05.2005 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.25 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 27.05.2005 of
the defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
27.05.2005, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inward and
outward charges of dated 27.05.2005 of the
plaintiff and copy of the journal voucher of the
defendant and copies of 2 debit notes dated
27.05.2005 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.26 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 16.05.2005 of
the defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
16.05.2005, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inward and
outward charges of dated 16.05.2005 of the
plaintiff and copy of the journal voucher of the
defendant and copies of 2 debit notes dated
16.05.2005 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.27 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 12.05.2005 of
the defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
12.05.2005, copy of the statement of service
39
COM.O.S.4232/2010
charges, sales promotion, freight inward and
outward charges of dated 12.05.2005 of the
plaintiff and copy of the journal voucher of the
defendant and copies of 2 debit notes dated
12.05.2005 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.28 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 26.01.2006
and 28.01.2006 of the defendant, copies of 2
debit notes dated 28.01.2006, copy of the
statement of service charges, sales promotion,
freight inward and outward charges dated
28.01.2006 of the plaintiff and copy of the journal
voucher dated 28.02.2006 of the defendant and
copies of 2 debit notes dated 28.01.2006 of
Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.29 Copy of the journal voucher dated 28.02.2006 of
the defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
06.02.2006, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inward and
outward charges of Anupama Wine Distributors
dated 06.02.2006 of the plaintiff and copy of the
journal voucher dated 28.02.2006 of the
defendant and copies of 2 debit notes dated
06.02.2006 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.30 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 14.01.2006 of
the defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
16.01.2006, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inward and
outward charges dated 16.01.2006 of the plaintiff
and copy of the journal voucher dated
28.02.2006 of the defendant and copies of 2
debit notes dated 16.01.2006 of Anupama
40
COM.O.S.4232/2010
Distributors.
Ex.D.31 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 21.01.2006 of
the defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
23.01.2006, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inward and
outward charges dated 23.01.2006 of the plaintiff
and copy of the journal voucher dated
28.02.2006 of the defendant and copies of 2
debit notes dated 21.01.2006 of Anupama
Distributors.
Ex.D.32 Copy of the journal vouchers dated 28.02.2006
of the defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
11.02.2006, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inward and
outward charges dated 11.02.2006 of the plaintiff
and copy of the journal voucher dated
28.02.2006 of the defendant and copies of 2
debit notes dated 11.02.2006 of Anupama
Distributors.
Ex.D.33 Copy of the journal voucher dated 28.02.2006 of
the defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
18.02.2006, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inward and
outward charges dated 18.02.2006 of the plaintiff
and copy of the journal voucher dated
28.02.2006 of the defendant and copies of 2
debit notes dated 18.02.2006 of Anupama
Distributors.
Ex.D.34 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 30.04.2005 of
the defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
41
COM.O.S.4232/2010
30.04.2005, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inwards and
outwards charges dated 30.04.2005 of the
plaintiff and copy of the journal voucher dated
30.04.2005 of the defendant and copies of 2
debit notes dated 30.04.2005 of Anupama
Distributors.
Ex.D.35 Copies of 4 journal vouchers dated 24.12.2005
and 17.12.2005 of the defendant, copies of 4
debit notes dated 24.12.2005 and 17.12.2005,
copy of 2 statement of service charges, sales
promotion, freight inward and outward charges of
dated 24.12.2005 and 17.12.2005 of the plaintiff
and copy of the journal voucher dated
28.02.2006 of the defendant and copies of 2
debit notes dated 17.12.2005 of Anupama
Distributors.
Ex.D.36 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 31.12.2005 of
the defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
31.12.2005, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inward and
outward charges dated 31.12.2005 of the plaintiff
and copy of the journal voucher dated
28.02.2006 of the defendant and copies of 2
debit notes dated 31.12.2005 of Anupama
Distributors.
Ex.D.37 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 10.12.2005
and 17.12.2005 of the defendant, copies of 2
debit notes dated 10.12.2005 and 17.12.2005,
copy of 2 statement of service charges, sales
promotion, freight inwards and outward charges
42
COM.O.S.4232/2010
dated 10.12.2005 of the plaintiff and copy of the
journal voucher dated 28.02.2006 of the
defendant and copies of 2 debit notes dated
10.12.2005 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.38 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 03.12.2005 of
the defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
03.12.2005 and 17.12.2005, copy of the
statement of service charges sales promotion,
freight inwards and outward charges dated
03.12.2006 of the plaintiff and copy of the journal
voucher dated 28.02.2006 of the defendant and
copies of 2 debit notes dated 03.12.2005 of
Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.39 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 07.11.2005 of
the defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
07.11.2005, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inward and
outward charges of dated 07.11.2005 of the
plaintiff and copy of the journal voucher dated
28.02.2006 of the defendant and copies of 2
debit notes dated 07.11.2005 of Anupama
Distributors.
Ex.D.40 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 30.11.2005 of
the defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
14.11.2005, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inwards and
outward charges dated 14.11.2005 of the plaintiff
and copy of the journal voucher dated
28.02.2006 of the defendant and copies of 2
debit notes dated 14.11.2005 of Anupama
Distributors.
43
COM.O.S.4232/2010
Ex.D.41 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 30.11.2005 of
the defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
19.11.2005, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inwards and
outward charges dated 19.11.2005 of the plaintiff
and copy of the journal voucher dated
28.02.2006 of the defendant and copies of 2
debit notes dated 19.11.2005 of Anupama
Distributors.
Ex.D.42 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 31.08.2005 of
the defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
31.08.2005, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inwards and
outward charges dated 31.08.2005 of the plaintiff
and copy of the journal voucher dated
31.08.2005 of the defendant and copies of 2
debit notes dated 31.08.2005 of Anupama
Distributors.
Ex.D.43 Copies of 8 journal vouchers dated 19.10.2005,
21.10.2005 and 31.10.2005 of the defendant,
copies of 8 debit notes dated 19.10.2005,
21.10.2005 and 31.10.2005, copies of 4
statement of service charges, sales promotion,
freight inwards and outward charges dated
19.10.2005, 21.10.2005 and 31.10.2005 of the
plaintiff and copy of the journal voucher dated
28.02.2006 of the defendant and copies of 2
debit notes dated 03.11.2005 of Anupama
Distributors.
Ex.D.44 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 30.11.2005 of
the defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
44
COM.O.S.4232/2010
26.11.2005, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inwards and
outward charges dated 26.11.2005 of the plaintiff
and copy of the journal voucher dated
28.02.2006 of the defendant and copies of 2
debit notes dated 26.11.2005 of Anupama
Distributors.
Ex.D.45 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 06.08.2005 of
the defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
06.08.2005, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inwards and
outward charges dated 06.08.2005 of the plaintiff
and copy of the journal voucher dated
06.08.2005 of the defendant and copies of 3
debit notes dated 06.08.2005 of Anupama
Distributors.
Ex.D.46 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 06.08.2005 of
the defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
06.08.2005, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inwards and
outward charges dated 06.08.2005 of the plaintiff
and copy of the journal voucher dated
06.08.2005 of the defendant and copies of 2
debit notes dated 06.08.2005 of Anupama
Distributors.
Ex.D.47 Copy of the journal voucher dated 10.01.2007 of
the defendant, copies of 5 debit notes dated
03.01.2007, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inwards and
outward charges dated 03.01.2007 of the plaintiff
and copy of the journal voucher dated
45
COM.O.S.4232/2010
10.01.2007 of the defendant and copies of 2
debit notes dated 03.01.2007 and copy of the
statement of service charges and reimbursement
of expenses dated 03.01.2007 of Anupama
Distributors.
Ex.D.48 Copy of the journal voucher dated 31.05.2006,
copies of 9 debit notes dated 08.05.2006,
02.05.2006, 25.04.2006 of the plaintiff and copy
of the journal voucher dated 31.05.2006 of the
defendant and copies of 8 debit notes dated
08.05.2006, 02.05.2006, 25.04.2006 of Anupama
Distributors.
Ex.D.49 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 28.03.2007 of
the defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
07.03.2007, statement of service charges, sales
promotion, freight inwards and outward charges
dated 05.03.2007 of the plaintiff and copies of 2
journal vouchers of the defendant and copies of 2
debit notes dated 07.03.2007 and copy of the
statement of service charges and reimbursement
of expenses dated 07.03.2007 of Anupama
Distributors.
Ex.D.50 Copies of 3 journal vouchers dated 31.05.2006 of
the defendant, copies of 6 debit notes dated
15.04.2006 and 10.04.2006 of the plaintiff and
copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 31.05.2006 of
the defendant and copies of 4 debit notes dated
10.04.2006 and 15.04.2006 of Anupama
Distributors.
Ex.D.51 Copy of the journal voucher dated 31.05.2006 of
46
COM.O.S.4232/2010
the defendant, copies of 9 debit notes dated
27.05.2006, 22.05.2006 and 15.05.2006 of the
plaintiff and copy of the journal voucher dated
31.05.2006 of the defendant and copies of 6
debit notes dated 27.05.2005, 22.05.2006 and
15.05.2006 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.52 Copies of 3 journal vouchers dated 09.12.2006
and 31.03.2007 of the defendant, copies of 6
debit notes dated 06.12.2006 and 30.11.2006,
copy of the statement of service charges, sales
promotion, freight inwards and outward charges
dated 06.12.2006 of the plaintiff and copy of the
journal voucher dated 09.12.2006 of the
defendant and copies of 2 debit notes dated
06.12.2006 and copy of the statement of service
charges and reimbursement of expenses dated
06.12.2006 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.53 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated 31.03.2007 of
the defendant and copy of the statement of
service charges and reimbursement of expenses
dated 31.03.2007 and copies of 2 debit notes
dated 31.03.2007 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.54 Copies of 8 journal vouchers dated 19.10.2005 of
the defendant, copies of 8 debit notes dated
19.10.2005, copies of 3 statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inwards and
outward charges dated 19.10.2005 of the plaintiff
and copy of the journal voucher dated
28.02.2006 of the defendant and copies of 2
debit notes dated 03.11.2005 and copy of the
statement of service charges and reimbursement
47
COM.O.S.4232/2010
of expenses dated 19.10.2005 of Anupama
Distributors.
Ex.D.55 Copies of 8 credit notes dated 30.11.2013 of the
defendant, copies of 8 debit notes dated
01.03.2004, copies of 3 statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inwards and
outward charges dated 18.11.2003 of the plaintiff
and copy of the credit note of defendant and copy
of the debit note dated 18.11.2003 of Anupama
Distributors.
Ex.D.56 Copies of 4 invoices raised by the defendant
dated 28.10.2003 towards KSBCL.
Ex.D.57 Copy of the credit note dated 01.03.2004 of the
defendant, copy of the debit notes dated
01.03.2004, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inwards and
outward charges dated 01.03.2004 of the plaintiff
and copy of the credit note of the defendant and
copy of the debit note dated 01.03.2004 of
Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.58 Copy of the he credit note dated 14.02.2004 of
the defendant, copy of the debit notes dated
14.02.2004, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inwards and
outward charges dated 14.02.2004 of the plaintiff
and copy of the credit note of the defendant and
copy of the debit note dated 14.02.2004 of
Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.59 Copy of the credit note dated 12.02.2004 of the
defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
48
COM.O.S.4232/2010
09.02.2004, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inwards and
outward charges dated 02.02.2004 of the plaintiff
and copy of the credit note dated 12.02.2004 of
the defendant and copy of the debit note dated
09.02.2004 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.60 Copy of the credit note dated 09.02.0024 of the
defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
02.02.2004, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inwards and
outward charges dated 02.02.2004 of the plaintiff
and copy of the credit note dated 09.02.2004 of
the defendant and copy of the debit note dated
02.02.2004 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.61 Copies of 2 credit notes dated 31.01.2004 of the
defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
19.01.2004, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inwards and
outward charges dated 19.01.2004 of the plaintiff
and copy of the credit note dated 31.01.2004 of
the defendant and copy of the debit note dated
19.01.2004 of Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.62 Copies of 2 credit notes dated 31.12.2003 of the
defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
02.12.2003, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inwards and
outward charges dated 02.12.2003 of the plaintiff
and copy of the credit note dated 02.12.2003 of
the defendant and copy of the debit note dated
02.12.2003 of Anupama Distributors.
49
COM.O.S.4232/2010
Ex.D.63 Copies of 4 invoices dated 07.11.2003 and
copies of 2 invoices dated 08.11.2003 raised by
the defendant towards KSBCL.
Ex.D.64 Copies of the 2 credit notes dated 12.11.2003
and 30.11.2003 of the defendant, copies of 2
debit notes dated 12.11.2003, copy of the
statement of service charges, sales promotion,
freight inwards and outward charges dated
12.11.203 of the plaintiff and copy of the credit
note dated 12.11.2003 of the defendant and copy
of the debit note dated 12.11.2003 of Anupama
Distributors.
Ex.D.65 Copies of 3 invoices dated 17.10.2003,
20.10.2003 and 28.10.2003 raised by the
defendant towards KSBCL.
Ex.D.66 Copies of 2 credit notes dated 05.11.2003 and
30.11.2003 of the defendant, copies of 2 debit
notes dated 05.11.2003 of the plaintiff and copies
of 2 credit notes dated 05.11.2003 and
15.12.2003 of the defendant and copies of 2
debit notes dated 05.11.2003 and 15.12.2003 of
Anupama Distributors.
Ex.D.67 Copies of 2 credit notes dated 30.11.2003 of the
defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
27.11.2003, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inwards and
outward charges dated 27.11.2003 of the plaintiff
and copy of the credit note dated 27.11.2003 of
the defendant and copy of the debit note dated
27.11.2003 of Anupama Distributors.
50
COM.O.S.4232/2010
Ex.D.68 Copy of the invoice dated 05.11.2003 raised by
the defendant towards KSBCL.
Ex.D.69 Copies of 2 credit notes dated 31.12.003 of the
defendant, copies of 2 debit notes dated
15.12.2003, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inwards and
outward charges dated 15.12.2003 of the plaintiff.
Ex.D.70 Copies of 2 invoices dated 22.11.2003, copies of
4 invoices dated 29.11.2003 and copy of 1
invoice dated 01.12.2003 raised by the defendant
towards KSBCL.
Ex.D.71 Copies of 2 credit notes dated 31.12.2003 of the
defendant, copies of 2 debit note dated
29.12.2003, copy of the statement of service
charges, sales promotion, freight inwards and
outward charges dated 29.12.2003 of the plaintiff
and copy of the credit note dated 30.12.2003 of
the defendant and copy of the debit note dated
14.11.2005 of Anupama Distributors.
(VIDYADHAR SHIRAHATTI),
LXXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
