Bangalore District Court
M S Anupama Wine Distributors vs Ms Tilaknagar Industries Ltd on 2 July, 2026
1
COM.O.S.8311/2007
KABC170101162020
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.8311/2007
Dated on this 02nd Day of July 2026
Plaintiff M/s Anupama Wine
Distributors, A registered firm
of Partners, No. 1313, 9th
Cross, 27th Main, 1st Phase,
J.P. Nagar, Bangalore,
represented by its Managing
Partner, Sri.K. Ananda Rao, S/
o late K. Rathaiah, Aged
about 62 years.
(By Sri. Rajesh. S.V -
Advocate)
//versus//
2
COM.O.S.8311/2007
Defendant M/s Tilaknagar Industries
Limited, A company registered
under the Companies Act,
having its Registered Office at
Industrial Assurance Building,
III Floor, Churchgate Mumbai -
400 020, and at No. 24, 12th
Main, Opp to Water Tank, 1st
Stage, BTM Layout, Bangalore,
represented by its Chairman
and Managing Director.
(By M/s Holla and Holla,
Advocates)
(Defendant No.2 to 5 are
struck off as per order dated
12.03.2014).
Date of Institution
27.10.2007
of 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
17.09.2019
recording of
evidence
Date on which 02.07.2026
3
COM.O.S.8311/2007
judgment was
pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
18 08 06
(VIDYADHAR SHIRAHATTI),
LXXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of
amount of Rs. 7,31,10,153/- together with costs and
current interest thereon at 18% per annum from the
date till the date of payment in the interest of justice
and equity.
2. The Brief facts as per Plaint are as follows:-
The 1st Defendant company manufactures and
markets alcoholic beverages under the brand name
“Mansion House”, including whisky, brandy, and other
products, and carries on business throughout
Karnataka, particularly in Bangalore. The plaintiff firm
4
COM.O.S.8311/2007was appointed as distributor in 1986 and claims to have
significantly developed and expanded the 1st
Defendant’s business in Karnataka, increasing sales
substantially. Initially, goods were supplied to bonded
warehouses and excise duties were paid by the plaintiff
for onward marketing. Subsequently, MSIL was
appointed as nodal agency, and later the 4th Defendant
took over the role of nodal agency for collection of
excise duty and distribution. The plaintiff continued to
act as marketing agent, paying excise duties, additional
excise duties, and import fees on behalf of the 1 st
Defendant and raising debit notes for reimbursement
and commission. The system of supply involved
manufacturing and bottling through the 2nd and 3rd
Defendants under tie-up arrangements, with products
routed through the 4th Defendant for sale and
distribution, and payments being ultimately credited to
the 1st Defendant or joint accounts as per arrangements
among the Defendants. The plaintiff also claims
entitlement to commission as per agreements, which
was paid against debit notes, and alleges that with
consent, commission was routed through multiple
firms. The 1st Defendant allegedly sought and received
5
COM.O.S.8311/2007large interest-free refundable deposits from the plaintiff
amounting to crores of rupees through various
transactions, which were financed partly through bank
borrowing from Vijaya Bank. The bank required a letter
of comfort from the 1st Defendant, which was issued
assuring repayment of the borrowed amounts in
instalments. Subsequently, the bank sought
confirmation of authorization from the Board of
Directors for acceptance of such deposits.
2.1. The plaintiff states that the 1st Defendant
manufactures and markets alcoholic beverages under
the brand “Mansion House” and appointed the plaintiff
as its distributor and marketing agent in Karnataka
from 1986, during which the plaintiff significantly
increased the sales of the Defendant’s products in the
State. The plaintiff describes the evolution of the
distribution system through bonded warehouses, MSIL,
and later the 4th Defendant as nodal agency, under
which the plaintiff continued to pay excise duty,
additional excise duty, and import fees on behalf of the
1st Defendant and claim reimbursement and commission
through debit notes. The manufacturing and bottling
6
COM.O.S.8311/2007operations were also carried out through tie-up
arrangements with the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, with
products routed through the 4th Defendant for sale and
distribution, and payments ultimately reaching the 1 st
Defendant or related accounts as per the agreed
arrangement. The plaintiff further claims that the 1 st
Defendant accepted substantial interest-free refundable
deposits from the plaintiff, including a total of Rs.4
crores (and additional proposed deposits up to Rs.5
crores), which were to be repaid after 12 months. A
cheque for an additional Rs.1 crore was allegedly
dishonoured due to the 1st Defendant’s failure to
provide a required board resolution to the bank. The
plaintiff asserts that Rs.4 crores remains due and
repayable, and that the repayment period has expired.
The plaintiff also pleads that the commission structure
was revised by the 1st Defendant in November 2006,
reducing commission rates and linking part of the
commission to receipt of additional deposits, but alleges
that due to the failure of the Defendant to complete
formalities, deductions were made unlawfully, including
a reduction of Rs.25 per case from commission for
Mansion House Brandy from January 2007, despite
7
COM.O.S.8311/2007
entitlement at Rs.100 per case. The plaintiff claims
continued entitlement to full commission and
reimbursement of sales promotion, freight, and other
expenses, supported by multiple debit notes. It is
further alleged that the plaintiff incurred and raised
debit notes for reimbursement of Rs.74,77,639 towards
operational and promotional expenses, and that
substantial amounts remain unpaid despite approval of
certain debit notes by the Defendant’s officials.
2.2. The plaintiff also claims that the 2 nd Defendant
made payments towards excise-related dues which
were adjusted against the 1st Defendant’s liabilities. The
plaintiff contends that despite repeated correspondence
and meetings, the 1st Defendant failed to clear
outstanding dues, and instead abruptly terminated the
plaintiff’s agency through newspaper publication
without notice or settlement of accounts, causing
wrongful termination and loss, for which damages of
Rs.1.5 crores are claimed.
2.3. The total claim is stated to include refund of
8
COM.O.S.8311/2007
deposits, commission and reimbursement dues, excise
duty reimbursements, and damages, amounting to
Rs.9,28,85,153, with Rs.7,31,10,153 stated as due,
along with interest at 18% per annum. The plaintiff
asserts that Defendants 2 to 4 are necessary parties
and that the suit is filed due to wrongful withholding of
payments and attempts to defeat the plaintiff’s claims,
including alleged diversion of funds beyond jurisdiction.
Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file this suit.
3. After service of summons, defendant No.1 has
appeared and filed a written statement stating that,
suit is wholly false, frivolous and vexatious and the
same has been filed with the intention of harassing the
defendant no.1 liable to be dismissed in limine.; The
plaintiff has not produced any registration certificate or
document to show that the plaintiff is a registered
partnership firm, want of registration of the plaintiff
firm in view of Section 69 of the Partnership Act;
leading manufacturer of alcoholic beverages and has its
registered office in Mumbai. The plaintiff was entered
bottling arrangement with the second and the third
defendants for manufacture and bottling of the first
9
COM.O.S.8311/2007
defendant’s IMFL misusing the blank cheques signed by
the Chairman and Managing Director of the first
defendant in fraudulent manner overcharging the first
defendant and fraudulent mis-representations. The 1st
Defendant has tentatively quantified its claims against
the plaintiff at Rs. 16 crores and has made a counter
claim of Rs.16 crores against the Plaintiff. Hence,
prayed to dismiss the suit.
4. The counter claim filed by the defendant No.1
stating that, the plaintiff had been overcharging freight
expenses and had been claiming exorbitant sums of
money as freight charges for transporting the goods of
the 1st Defendant. In several cases, more number of
liquor cases have been shown to have been transported
while only smaller number of liquor cases transported
from one place to another. The plaintiff has also claimed
and obtained amounts from the 1 st Defendant by
fictitious bills of transporters. These was no office of
the transporter at the address shown in the bills
submitted to the first defendant. The plaintiff has also
claimed different charges for transportation of goods
from the same place to the same destination. The
10
COM.O.S.8311/2007
plaintiff has made exaggerated claims on the first
defendant and has obtained payments from the first
defendant to the tune of several crores. Plaintiff has
also made exaggerated claims towards excise duty in
respect of liquor cases which were in fact not paid by
the plaintiff to the fourth defendant. These exaggerated
claims were made by the plaintiff and the plaintiff has
obtained several crores of rupees from the first
defendant by deliberate misrepresentation and fraud.
The plaintiff has collected large sums of money from
the first defendant towards sales promotion expenses
under various schemes floated by the first defendant.
The plaintiff has not given any acknowledgments from
the concerned dealers for having distributed gifts, etc.,
to the first defendant’s dealers. The dealers of the first
defendant have given affidavits in this regard. The
plaintiff and its sister concern/firm have also claimed
and obtained several payments from the first defendant
for the same services rendered to the first defendant.
The plaintiff has submitted several false and fictitious
vouchers and based on that obtained payments from
the first defendant. Plaintiff has also claimed interest at
36% per annum for the advance excise duty that was
11
COM.O.S.8311/2007
payable by the defendants 1, 2 and 3 to the fourth
defendant. The first defendant is also entitled to
recover the excess interest paid by it from the plaintiff.
First defendant is going through its records and is
discovering the losses that the first defendant has
suffered because of the fraudulent acts and deeds of
the plaintiff and its sister concern. So far, the first
defendant has discovered that the plaintiff and its sister
concern have caused loss to the first defendant to the
tune of Rs.16 crores. The plaintiff has caused a loss to
the tune of Rs. 11,93,16,733/-. The 1 st Defendant is
entitled to payment of the said sum of Rs.
11,93,16,733/-. As the transaction between the plaintiff
and the 1st defendant is a commercial transaction, the
1st Defendant is entitled to payment of interest at 18%
per annum.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, my
predecessor have framed the following issues.
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that his
contract was wrongfully terminated by
the Defendant and he is entitled for
damages as prayed ?
2. Whether the Plaintiff proves that it
12
COM.O.S.8311/2007
is entitled for a sum of Rs.
7,31,10,153/- with interest at the rate
of 18% per annum from the Defendant
No.1 ?
3. Whether the 1st Defendant proves it
is entitled for counterclaim of Rs.
11,93,16,733/- with interest at the rate
of 18% per annum ?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that
the other defendants No. 3 to 5 are
necessary parties to this suit ?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
relief sought for ?
6. What Decree or Order ?
6. To prove its case, the plaintiff has examined K.
Ananda Rao as a PW1 and also Plaintiff examined one
witness examined M.L. Prasanna Kumar as a PW.2 and
relied 26 documents marked as Exhibit P1 to P26. On
the other defendant has examined Ashish Choudhury
as a Dw.1 and relied 94 documents marked as Ex.D.1
to Ex.D.94.
7. On perusing the pleadings, issues and oral and
documentary evidence.
13
COM.O.S.8311/2007
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:
1. Issue No.1 :- In the Negative.
2. Issue No.2 :- In the Partly Affirmative.
3. Issue No.3 :- In the Negative.
4. Issue No.4 :- Not survive for
consideration.
5. Issue No.5 :- In the Partly Affirmative.
6. Issue No.6 :- As per the final Order
for the following.
REASONS
9. Issue No.1:- The plaintiff firm filed the suit for
recovery of Rs. 7,31,10,153/- with interest at 18% per
annum from the date of suit till its realization along
with cost of the suit.
10. The plaintiff firm was appointed by the first
defendant company as its distributor for marketing its
products in State of Karnataka in the year 1986. At
the time, the business of the defendant company was
highly negligible in the State of Karnataka. The
14
COM.O.S.8311/2007
defendant company’s sale during the period of 1986
was about 200 cases per month, and at the time of
filing the suit, it was 28,000 cases per month. The first
defendant company used to supply its goods to the
plaintiff firm by raising a bill against it. The said goods
were sent to bonded warehouse of the Excise
Department. The plaintiff firm used to take the delivery
of the goods from the warehouse after paying the
excise duty payable in respect of the goods of which it
is taking delivery from the bonded warehouse. Then it
used to market the goods. Then in the said period, the
first defendant company was appointed by the plaintiff
as a marketing in its product in the state of Karnataka
as procedure prescribed. And the plaintiff firm had to
pay excise duty, additional excise duty, import fee
payable, in respect of alcoholic beverages, in respect of
stock it used to get from the defendant for marketing
in the state of Karnataka. The responsibility to pay the
excise duty in the advance lies with the first defendant.
However, plaintiff firm used to make payment of the
excise duty and also import fees to MSIL on behalf of
the 1st defendant company. The first defendant
company used to supply alcoholic beverages directly to
15
COM.O.S.8311/2007
MSIL, and MSIL in turn used to supply products to
wholesalers at the price fixed and intimated to MSIL by
the first defendant company. The price so fixed
included the excise duty, cost of products etc. The
commission payable to the plaintiff company as
marketing agent. After selling the product as aforesaid
to wholesalers, the MSIL used to reimburse the
plaintiff firm, the Excise duty, additional excise duty
and import fees it paid to MSIL in advance for and on
behalf of the first defendant company. The remaining
amount was sent to the first defendant company
directly in its turn was paying to the plaintiff from the
commission to which it is entitled. The plaintiff firm
used to raise the debit notes against MSIL in respect of
the excise duty, additional excise duty and import fees
paid by it and on behalf of the first defendant company
and another debit note against the first defendant
company for commission as agreed to between the
parties. The first defendant company used to take
payment as against the debit note raised by the
plaintiff company.
16
COM.O.S.8311/2007
11. The government of Karnataka was collecting the
excise duty from defendant and import fee from
plaintiff company by use to sell the alcoholic products
of the first defendant company to wholesale
dealers/retailers. The 4th defendant as in the case of
model agency, sales of first defendant’s product had
astronomically increased the plaintiff firm felt dearth of
products in State of Karnataka, since supplies had
always come from State of Maharashtra. Plaintiff was
raised the debit note in respect of excise duty,
additional excise duty paid and also in respect of
commission to which it is entitled to against the first
defendant company. The first defendant company
called the plaintiff for bottling tie-up agreement with
defendant No. 2 and 3 used to manufacture alcoholic
product for and on behalf of first defendant company.
It was agreed between the parties that whenever
excise duty and additional excise duty is payable by
defendant No. 2 and 3 to the excise department, it
shall be paid in advance by the plaintiff firm to the
credit of defendant No.2 and 3 for and on behalf of first
defendant company and thereafter, defendant No.2 and
3 used to supply the stocks to the Defendant No.4.
17
COM.O.S.8311/2007
The sales includes excise duty, additional excise duty,
duty paid, cost of the product and margin of the
Government of Karnataka, commission payable to the
marketing agent. The plaintiff company has used to
pay excise duty, additional excise duty in advance to
the 2nd and 3rd Defendant on behalf of the first
defendant in respect of products of the first defendant
company supplied to the 4th defendant by defendant
No.2 and 3. The plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement
of this excise duty, additional excise duty paid by it in
advance and also to the commission to which it was
entitled to from the first defendant company. In case,
excise duty paid on behalf of defendant No.3, it used to
remit the excise duty and also cost of product directly
to the first defendant firm. and the first defendant used
to reimburse the plaintiff by cheque in respect of the
excise duty paid by it against the debit note raised by
the plaintiff firm. With the consent of first defendant,
the plaintiff claimed commission in the name of two
firms i.e., Anupama Wine Distributors and Anupama
Distributors with effect from 01.10.2003.
18
COM.O.S.8311/2007
12. The plaintiff has deposited an amount of Rs.
50,00,000/- to the first defendant by means of cheque
bearing No. 073166 dated 11.10.2004 and 078436
dated 09.12.2004 drawn on Vijaya Bank in favour of
the Defendant No.1 where the defendant is in financial
crisis. The plaintiff firm made another deposit with the
first defendant in cheque No. 1416121 dated
22.11.2005 as additional interest free deposit of Rs.
50,00,000/- repayable in 12 months time. The first
defendant company held total deposit of Rs. 1 crore as
interest free refundable deposit from the plaintiff firm
as on 22.11.2005. The Defendant No.1 by its letter
dated 14.06.2006 requested the plaintiff firm for an
additional interest free deposit of Rs. 4 crore to be
refunded within 12 months time. Accordingly, check
bearing No. 005741 dated 19.06.2006, Cheque bearing
No. 005759 dated 01.07.2006 and Cheque Bearing Mo.
007516 dated 04.08.2006 where issued in favor of the
Defendant No.1 company for Rs. 1 crore each.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has deposited 3 crores to the
Defendant No.1.
19
COM.O.S.8311/2007
13. The said deposit was interest free security
deposit refundable. The defendant No.1 has agreed and
promised that he will make repayment of Rs. 4 crore in
48 equated monthly installment of Rs. 8,33,333/-
starting after 12 months from the date of full
disbursement.
14. The plaintiff has requested a letter for refund of
the said amount after expiry of the period. However,
the defendant No.1 has not repaid the 4 crore rupees
was agreed for installment. It is also alleged that the
defendant No.1 reducing the commission charges
payable to the plaintiff in brand name Mansion House
Whisky for Rs. 150 per case, Mansion House Brandy for
Rs. 100/- per case, Courier Napoleon Brandy for Rs.
25/- per case and Sanate Whisky for Rs. 25/- per case.
Defendant No.1 has agreed to pay commission for
products of his company to the plaintiff as per the
wholesale.
15. However, the defendant has not paid the amount,
hence the plaintiff is entitled for commission, sales
promotional expenses, Freight charges and
20
COM.O.S.8311/2007
miscellaneous expenses paid on behalf of defendant in
all amounting to Rs. 90,20,111/-. However, the
defendant has without prior notice or intimation to the
plaintiff issued a public notice dated 24.08.2007
discontinuing the service of plaintiff which is illegal and
arbitrary and without of authority of law. Defendant
No.1 is liable to pay the damages as the sudden
issuance of public notice for terminating the
agreement, the plaintiff has put a loss of Rs.
1,50,00,000/- as a liquidated damages. Therefore, the
plaintiff claims the suit for recovery of Rs.
7,46,52,625/- as balance excise and additional excise
duty of Rs. 3,04,07,514/-, Interest free security
deposit of Rs. 4,00,00,000/-, Commission, Sales
promotion expenses, freight charges and miscellaneous
expenses paid on behalf of defendant at Rs.
90,20,111/-.
16. To substantiate its contention K. Ananda Rao is
examined as Pw.1 and relied 26 documents marked as
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.26. The plaintiff has also examined one
witness by name M.L. Prasanna Kumar as Pw.2. Ex.P.1
is the Certified copy of Form-A issued by the Registrar
21
COM.O.S.8311/2007
of Firm to show plaintiff is Registered partnership firm.
Ex.P.2 is the Ledger extract maintained by the plaintiff
for the period from April 2007 to March 2008 to show
excise duty paid by the plaintiff on behalf of the
Defendant. Ex.P.3 is the Certified account statement
issued by the Bank of Baroda. Ex.P.4 is the 9 statement
of commissions payable as on 01.12.1990, 01.06.1992,
01.04.1993, 12.081993, and w.e.f 01.07.1994
respectively. One. Mr. Arun Danakar, the Chairman of
Defendant had also signed first of these 3 statement.
Ex.P.5 is a letter dated 07.09.2004 sent by the
Defendant to the plaintiff. Ex.P.6 is a letter dated
14.06.2006 sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.
Ex.P.7 is a letter dated 20.06.2006 sent by the
Defendant to the Vijaya Bank. Ex.P.8 is a letter dated
11.12.2006 sent by the Vijaya Bank to the Defendant
with a copy to the plaintiff. Ex.P.9 is a letter dated
10.04.2006 sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.
Ex.P.10 is a letter dated 03.05.2006 sent by the
Defendant to the Plaintiff. Ex.P11 is a letter dated
08.11.2006 sent by the Defendant to the plaintiff.
Ex.P.12 is a letter dated 16.06.2007 sent by the
plaintiff to the Defendant. Ex.P13 is a 38 debit notes on
22
COM.O.S.8311/2007
various dates. Ex.P.14 is a calculation statements
showing outstanding payable by the Defendant to the
plaintiff as per the above noted debit notes. Ex.P.15 is
a letter dated 15.02.2007 sent by the Defendant to the
plaintiff. Ex.P.16 is a letter dated 09.06.2007 sent by
the Defendant to the Nethravathi Distillaries Pvt. Ltd.
Ex.P.17 is a copy of letter dated 30.07.2007 sent by
the plaintiff to the Defendant. Ex.P.18 is a copy of
letter dated 18.08.2007 sent by the plaintiff to the
Defendant. Ex.P.19 is a copy of email printout dated
21.08.2007 sent by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Ex.P.20 is copy of letter dated 22.08.2007 sent by the
plaintiff to the Defendant. Ex.P.21 is a copy of letter
dated 25.08.2007 sent by the plaintiff to the
Defendant. Ex.P.22 is a copy of letter dated 30.08.2007
sent by the defendant to the plaintiff. Ex.P23 is a
statement of claims made on Defendant and
competation of average claim per month. Ex.P.24 is a
certificate U/Sec 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P.25 is
a copy of legal notice dated 21.09.2007 sent by the
plaintiff to the Defendant. Ex.P.26 is a reply notice
dated 12.10.2007 sent by the Defendant to the
plaintiff.
23
COM.O.S.8311/2007
17. Per contra the defendant has taken a contention
that, defendant is a leading manufacturer of alcoholic
beverages and has its registered office at Mumbai.
Defendant has distilleries in Ahmednagar, Maharashtra
and in Karnataka and has requisite licenses and
permission to manufacture Indian made foreign liquors.
The defendant company was not licensed under
Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. Therefore, defendant
entered into bottling arrangements with the 2nd and 3rd
defendant for the purpose of manufacture and bottling
of IMFL belonging to the defendant company. The same
was supplied by the 2nd and 3rd defendants on behalf of
the defendant company. The 4th defendant, which was
the sole entity a that time being authorized to
distribute IMFL within Karnataka. The plaintiff who
being the agent of defendant No.1 for the purpose of
sales on its behalf and in terms of understanding
between them. The plaintiff was made an arrangement
for payment of excise duty and coordinate the work
relating to obtaining the stocks from the 4 th defendants
for being given to dealers, distributors. The said
arrangement also initiated the payment of service
24
COM.O.S.8311/2007
charge to the plaintiff based on the number of liquor
cases sold. The defendant executed an agreement
with the 2nd defendant for bottling of the IMFL and the
sale proceeds therein made by the 2nd defendant to the
4th defendant were remitted to an account that was
held jointly by the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant.
18. It has taken a contention that the defendant has
handed over the blank cheques to the plaintiff. The
plaintiff had been indulging in various irregularities in
the accounts and the defendant has come to know in
the month of August 2007 about the excise duty and
finance charges connected with the same as
overcharging in respect of marketing, promote freight
and advertising expenses, etc. Further, the defendant
company does not have the requisite licenses. But the
defendant has sought a security deposit of Rs. 5 crore.
However, the plaintiff has obtained a security deposit
of Rs. 1crore. The defendant obtained a security
deposit of Rs. 1 crore from plaintiff, and thereafter
insisted upon the plaintiff to give an additional security
deposit of Rs.4 crore. But Plaintiff was failed. The
plaintiff, through the fraudulent manner, withdrew an
25
COM.O.S.8311/2007
amount of Rs. 1,97,75,000/- and 86,10,000/- from
the said joint bank account with defendant No.1,2 and
Plaintiff by signed cheque in the name of chairman and
managing director. Therefore, the plaintiff is not
entitled for the amount.
19. The Plaintiff almost 36% of interest on advance
excise duty that was payable in respect of products of
the defendant company to the 4th defendant. The loan
carried by the defendant was charged by the plaintiff
interest at 36% per annum. Therefore, the defendant
was charging interest at a rate of only 12% per
annum, but interest was mentioned very exorbitant.
The plaintiff made fraudulent misrepresentation to the
defendant and was overcharging the defendant
company with the excise duty payable to the 4 th
defendant, by stating that these amounts had to be
paid by the defendant company to the 4th defendant
company. Therefore, the defendant No.1 one has
initiated the criminal action against the plaintiff and the
said proceedings were pending for consideration.
Hence, the defendant No.1 is not liable to pay the
claimed amount.
26
COM.O.S.8311/2007
20. Further, the defendant has sought for counter
claim of Rs. 11,93,16,733/- as the plaintiff had been
overcharging of freight expenses and had been
claiming exorbitant sum of money as freight charges
for transporting the goods of the 1 st defendant. In
several cases, more number of liquor cases have been
shown to transported, where only a smaller number of
liquor cases were transported from one place to
another place. The bills submitted by the Plaintiff to the
defendant made a different charges for transportation
of the goods for the same place and same distance.
The plaintiff has made exaggerated claims on 1st
defendant on each delivery. It is also claimed the
exorbitant excise duty of the defendant No.1 liquor.
The plaintiff has also claimed the distributed goods to
the dealers which have been charged by the plaintiff,
but not distributed without any acknowledgment of the
defendant No.1. The excise duty and additional duty
was paid by the Defendant No.1 is exorbitant, hence
the Defendant No.1 is entitled to recover the excise
duty with interest from the plaintiff. Therefore, the
defendant is entitled to recover an amount of
27
COM.O.S.8311/2007
11,93,16,733/- Hence, the defendant prays to decree
the counter claim.
21. In support of his claim on behalf of Defendant
No.1 Ashish Choudhury has examined as DW.1 and
relied 94 documents marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D.94. The
Ex.D.1 to E.xD4 and Ex.D.11 and Ex.D.80 are the
photocopies/xerox copies which are marked subject to
objections raised by the other side to prove it as per
law since those are the photocopies. Ex.D.1 is a
certified true copy of board resolution of the defendant
dated 14.11.2019. Ex. D2 is a certified copy of written
statement filed by the defendant in O.S. No.
2766/2009 before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.
Ex. D.3 is a copy of letter dated 16.09.2007 sent by
the defendant to Vijaya Bank regarding the conduct of
the plaintiff. Ex. D.4 is a copy of the letter 01.10.2007
sent by the Vijaya Bank to the defendant. The Ex. D.4
was marked with the subject to objections raised by
the other side to prove it as per law. Ex. D.5 is a copy
of letter dated 16.10.2007 seven sent by the defendant
to the Vijaya Bank. Ex. D.6 is a copy of the letter dated
16.10.2007 sent by the defendant to the Economic
28
COM.O.S.8311/2007
Offences Wing, Mumbai. Ex. D.7 is a true copy of the
letter dated 07.08.2008 sent by the defendant to the
Additional Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. Ex. D8 is a
certified copy of the letter dated 20.10.2008 sent by
the defendant to the Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai.
Ex. D.9 is a certified copy of letter dated 26.306.2009
sent by the defendant to the Office of the Senior
Inspector of Police of the Economic Offences Wing,
Mumbai regarding dispatch blank cheques by the
defendant to the plaintiff. Ex. D.11 is a original audit
report relating to payments to Anupama Wine
Distributors/Anupama Distributors dated 30.08.2008
conducted by the Meghana Dalal and Associates
22. In the Cross-examination of PW.1 the defendant
has taken a contention that, the plaintiff has raised
debit note in this suit as well as in Com.O.S. No.
4232/2010 and taken a contention that both Anupama
Distributors and Anupama Wine Distributors are sister
concern partnership firm. But, the PW.1 admitted that,
the plaintiff and Anupama Distributor are running in
same address. Both partnership firm are doing same
type of business. Both the parties have agreed that
29
COM.O.S.8311/2007
the defendant has not having valid license in Karnataka
to manufacture IMFL. The defendant No.1 was entered
into bottling agreement with deletede Defendant No.2
and 3 for manufacture. It is also admitted by the
defendant that, the plaintiff was entrusted the task of
arranging payment of excise duty. The work of the
plaintiff to co-oridinate for obtaining stock from the
deleted defendant No.4 to be supplied to the retailers.
It is true that, the payment of service charges to the
plaintiff by the Defendant No.1 was on the basis of
number of liquor cases sold.
23. The Defendant No.1 executed agreement with
deleted defendant No.2 for bottling of IMFL. As per the
said agreement the deleted defendant No.2 was
carrying work and supplying IFML to the deleted
defendant No.4 and its sale proceeds were remitted to
the joint accounts of Defendant No.1 and deleted
Defendant No.2. The PW.1 was denied that, the
Defendant No.1 used to handed over signed blank
cheque to the plaintiff and thereafter plaintiff used to
fill the details in cheques and used to present the
cheques for encashment as even required.
30
COM.O.S.8311/2007
24. The Defendant No.1 was demanded to pay Rs. 5
crore as security deposit to expand its business in
Karnataka. The plaintiff has paid security deposit of Rs.
4 crore to the Defendant No.1. Pw.1 has denied that
the plaintiff in connivance with the deleted defendant
No.2 had withdrawn Rs. 1,97,75,000/- and Rs.
86,10,000/- from the joint account of Defendant No.1
and 2 fraudulently by misusing the blank cheques
issued by the defendant No.1 and singed by its
Chairman and Managing Director. The Defendant No.1
had filed complaint against the Plaintiff with Economic
Offences Wing Police Head Quarter, Mumbai. The Pw.1
has also denied that the complained was lodged. The
Defendant has produced the document to show that
there was fraudulent and cheated by PW.1. Hence the
defendant has relied Ex.D.6 to Ex.D.10. However, on
the basis of that Ex.D.6 to Ex.D.10, the Defendant No.1
has lodged a complaint against the plaintiff. For that
reasons the defendant has published notice in paper
and terminated the lease.
31
COM.O.S.8311/2007
25. In Ex.P.25 the plaintiff has issued the legal
notice to the Defendant No.1 for explaining the details
on 21.09.2007 wherein it is taken a contention that,
the Defendant No.1 was liable to pay a excise duty and
additional excise duty of Rs. 3,04,07,514/- interest free
security deposit of Rs. 4 crore and commission, sale
promotion expenses and other miscellaneous expenses
of Rs. 90,20,111/- along with liquidated damages of
Rs. 1,50,00,000/- out of that the amount of Rs.
1,97,75,000/- was paid by the Defendant No.1.
Therefore, after deduction the said amount the
defendant No.1 is liable to pay 7,46,52,625/- and also
stated about without notice the defendant No.1 was
terminated the agreement.
26. For reply to Ex.P.25 the defendant No.1 issued a
reply notice is marked as Ex.P.26 on 12.10.2007,
wherein, defendant has taken a contention that, the
fraud played by the plaintiff, the defendant has made
para-wise allegation and demanding to pay an amount
of Rs. 26,30,03,436/-. Therefore, the contention of the
Defendant is that, the fraudulent was paid by the
defendant. The Defendant No.1 was terminated the
agreement.
32
COM.O.S.8311/2007
27. Before discussion it is relevant to mentioned
about Ex.P.5 letter dated 07.09.2024 issued by the
Defendant No.1 to the Plaintiff, wherein it is mentioned
about, “the abnormal requirement of large working
capital finances for continuing the business operation
to service your requirement in an effective manner.
Hence, the defendant No.1 was requested the plaintiff
for trade deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs and same is interest
free for a period of 12 months and which is
refundable.” As per Ex.P.6 the defendant has also
issued a letter dated 14.06.2006 wherein the
defendant was agreed as under:
The company has also requested you for an
additional interest free deposit of Rs. 4 crore
which will be refunded in 12 months time.
28. Accordingly, the plaintiff has paid the said
amount. Wherein the Defendant No.1 has issued a
letter to the Plaintiff dated 20.06.2006 as referred as
under:
We, M/s Tilaknagar Industries Limited,
Mumbai undertake to refund the interest free
33
COM.O.S.8311/2007deposit of Rs. 4 crore to be deposited with use
of Anupama Wine Distributors, to your Bank
directly, in 48 equated monthly installments of
Rs. 8,33,333/- starting from 12 months after
the date of full disbursement, to the credit of
M/s Anupama wine Distributors, Bangalore.
29. As per the letter marked as Ex.P.7. The Vijaya
Bank has issued letter to the Defendant is marked as
Ex.P8 on 11.12.2006. Accordingly, the certified copy
of the resolution was passed. The Plaintiff has also
issued a letter marked as Ex.P.9 to the Defendant as
under:
“I also put on record, our appreciation of your
sincere efforts, to lift the allocated volume of
cases of our products, in February and March,
2006. Due to your untiring efforts, TIL has
crossed 1 Million cases in the financial year
2005-06. Though this is a landmark
achievement for us, we would like to far exceed
this in the coming year. For this, we continue to
look for your continued unstinted support,
dedication and commitment towards TIL’s
efforts in increasing its sales in Karnataka.”
30. Further, the defendant has also issued a letter
dated 03.05.2006 as Ex.P.10 inviting valuable inputs
34
COM.O.S.8311/2007
during a conference towards strengthening our product
portfolio and growing the business. Accordingly, as per
Ex. P11, the defendant has issued a revised terms of
agreement. The business of the defendant No.1 was
increased due to the efforts made by the plaintiff as
admitted by DW.1 in the above letters. For the above
reasons, defendant No.1 has entered into an
agreement with plaintiff and other defendants.
However, the defendant has not issued any notice and
directly by issuing a paper publication and closed the
agreement between plaintiff and defendant.
31. As admitted by the defendant No.1, the plaintiff
has paid an security deposit of Rs. 4 crore. The
defendant No.1 has also stated that, the said complaint
referred in Ex.D.6 was closed in the year 2010 itself.
The mode of withdrawing the amount as the defendant
No.1 has issued the blank cheque to the plaintiff who
was entitled to withdraw the amounts two types only.
i.e., (1) T tilaknagar Industries for the cost of goods
and (2) to Plaintiff towards reimbursement of excise
duty and additional excise due and apart from this
plaintiff was not entitled to withdraw amounts for any
35
COM.O.S.8311/2007
other purpose and the plaintiff himself has admitted
the defendant question is, defendant No.1 denied
about withdrawal of Rs. 1,97,75,000/- and Rs.
86,10,000/- withdrawn by the plaintiff was towards
excise duty and additional excise duty. The allegation
of defendant that the exorbitant interest was payable
to the plaintiff for 36% per annum. However, defendant
has not produced any iota of documents to
substantiate that the plaintiff raised exorbitant interest.
The Dw.1 was admitted as under:
“It is true that till the year 2004, KSBCL, used
to deduct interest on the excise duty, and it
used to pay remaining amount as advance
excise duty to defendant No.1 one.”
32. The defendant has denied that the plaintiff has
not placed debit notes to the defendant No.1 relating to
the same expenses and charges claimed by the
Anupama Distributors. The mere allegation of the
defendant that the plaintiff obtained several crores of
rupees from the defendant No.1 towards excise duty
paid by mis-representation and fraud. There was no
any clause for that the plaintiff if not paid 5 crore
rupees as advance security deposit, and the
36
COM.O.S.8311/2007
agreement is need to be canceled. However, DW1 was
admitted for payment of Rs.4 crore. As per Ex.D.11
the defendant has filed a complaint against Mr. P.M
Salaskar and Mr. Mahesh Patel. He was not aware any
civil suit filed against those two persons. Ex. D1 was
prepared by the head office at Mumbai on behalf of
defendant No.1 and he has also admitted that, he do
not know who is Mr. Jatin Jhaveri who had singed
Ex.D.11. He has not produced certificate to show that
said Mr. Jatin Jhaveri is Chartered Accountant.
33. He has not filed a certificate in that regard. He
did not know that Meghana Dalal & Associates is a
chartered accountant. He has not aware if it is
suggested that Mr. Jatin Jhaveri is not a chartered
accountant. Ex.D.11 record is falsely created. He was
not aware that the defendant No.1 was handed over the
blank signed check booklet to the plaintiff. When DW1
was not stated anything about the said check, then the
question arose that there is no any evidence to
issuance of blank check to the plaintiff and plaintiff has
issued the said check. In support of the allegations
made by the defendant No.1 that the fraudulently
37
COM.O.S.8311/2007
plaintiff has put exorbitant interest as well as exorbitant
interest @36% per annum and as well as fraud was
claimed against Defendant No.1. However to prove the
said contention, the defendant has relied Ex. D12 to
Ex.D80 documents. Those are as follows:-
(1) Ex.D.12 is 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. (Subject to objection
raised by the other side to prove it as per law
since it is xerox copy). (page Nos. 1 to 5).
(2) Ex.D.13 is 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. (Subject
to objection raised by the other side to prove it
as per law since it is xerox copy). (page Nos.6
to 10).
(3) Ex.D.14 is Copy of the credit note dated
17.05.2004, copy of the debit note dated
17.05.2004, the statement of service charges,
sales promotion, freight inward and outward
charges dated 15.05.2004 of the plaintiff and
38
COM.O.S.8311/2007copy of the credit note and debit note dated
15.05.2004 of Anupama Distributors. Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove it as
per law since it is xerox copy). (page Nos.11 to
15).
(4) Ex.D.15 is Copy of the credit note dated
31.05.2004, copy of the debit note dated
31.05.2004, the statement of service poon
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. Subject to objection raised by the
other side to 4 prove it as per law since it is
xerox copy). (page Nos. 16 to 20).
(5) Ex.D.16 is 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. Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove it as
per law since it is xerox copy). (page Nos.21 to
25).
(6) Ex.D.17 is 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
39
COM.O.S.8311/200712.06.2004 of Anupama Distributors. Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove it as
per law since it is xerox copy). (page Nos.26 to
30).
(7) Ex.D.18 is 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. Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove it as
per law since it is xerox copy). (page Nos.31 to
35).
(8) Ex.D.19 is Copy of the credit note dated
19.06.2004, copy of the debit note dated
19.06.2004, the statement of 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. Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove it as
per law since it is xerox copy). (page Nos.36 to
40).
(9) Ex.D.20 is 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. Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove it as
40
COM.O.S.8311/2007per law since it is xerox copy). (page Nos.41 to
46).
(10) Ex.D.21 is 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. Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove it as
per law since it is xerox copy). (page Nos.47 to
52).
(11) Ex.D.22 is 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. Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove it as
per law since it is xerox copy). (page Nos.53 to
57).
(12) Ex.D.23 is 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. Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove it as
per law since it is xerox copy). (page Nos.58 to
62).
41
COM.O.S.8311/2007
(13) Ex.D.24 is Copy of the credit note dated
13.07.2004, copy of the debit note dated
13.07.2004, the statement of 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. Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove it as
per law since it is xerox copy). (page Nos.63 to
67).
(14) Ex.D.25 is 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. Subject to objection raised by the
other side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (page Nos.68 to 72).
(15) Ex.D.26 is 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. (Subject
to objection raised by the other side to prove it
as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page Nos.73
to 80).
(16) Ex.D.27 is Copies of 2 journal vouchers
42
COM.O.S.8311/2007
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. (Subject to objection raised by the
other side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.81 to 88).
(17) Ex.D.28 is 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 voucher dated 02.07.2005
and copies of 2 debit notes dated 01.07.2005 of
Anupama Distributors. (Subject to objection
raised by the other side to prove it as per law
since it is xerox copy). (Page Nos.89 to 96).
(18) Ex.D.29 is 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. (Subject to objection
raised by the other side to prove it as per law
since it is xerox copy). (Page Nos.97 to 104).
(19) Ex.D.30 is Copies of 2 journal vouchers
dated 18.06.2005 of the defendant, copies of 2
debit notes dated 18.06.2005, copy of the
43
COM.O.S.8311/2007
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. (Subject to objection raised by the
other side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos. 105 to 112).
(20) Ex.D.31 is 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. (Subject to objection raised by the
other side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos. 113 to 120).
(21) Ex.D.32 is 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 plaintiff and copy of the
journal voucher of the defendant and copies of
2 debit notes dated 04.06.2005 of Anupama
Distributors. (Subject to objection raised by the
other side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.121 to 128).
(22) Ex.D.33 is Copies of 2 journal vouchers
44
COM.O.S.8311/2007
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. (Subject to objection raised by the
other side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.129 to 136).
(23) Ex.D.34 is 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. (Subject to objection raised by the
other side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.137 to 144).
(24) Ex.D.35 is 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. (Subject to objection raised by the
other side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos. 145 to 152).
45
COM.O.S.8311/2007
(25) Ex.D.36 is 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 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. (Subject to objection raised by the
other side to prove it as per la since it is xerox
copy) (Page Nos. 153 to 160).
(26) Ex.D.37 is 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. (Subject to objection raised by the
other side to prove it as per la since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.161 to 168).
(27) Ex.D.38 is 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. (Subject to objection raised by the
46
COM.O.S.8311/2007
other side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos:169 to 175).
(28) Ex.D.39 is 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 Distributors. (Subject
to objection raised by the other side to prove it
as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page Nos.
176 to 183).
(29) Ex.D.40 is 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. (Subject
to objection raised by the other side to prove it
as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.184 to 191).
(30) Ex.D.41 is 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
47
COM.O.S.8311/2007
journal voucher dated 28.02.2006 of the
defendant and copies of 2 debit notes dated
11.02.2006 of Anupama Distributors. (Subject
to objection raised by the other side to prove it
as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.192 to 198).
(31) Ex.D.42 is 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. (Subject
to objection raised by the other side to prove it
as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.199 to 205).
(32) Ex.D.43 is Copies of 2 journal vouchers
dated 30.04.2005 of the defendant, copies of 2
debit notes dated 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. (Subject
to objection raised by the other side to prove it
as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.206 to 213).
(33) Ex.D.44 is Copies of 4 journal vouchers
dated 24.12.2005 and 17.12.2005 of the
48
COM.O.S.8311/2007
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.
(Subject to objection raised by the other side to
prove it as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.214 to 226).
(34) Ex.D.45 is 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. (Subject
to objection raised by the other side to prove it
as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.227 to 234).
(35) Ex.D.46 is 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 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. (Subject
49
COM.O.S.8311/2007
to objection raised by the other side to prove it
as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.235 to 242).
(36) Ex.D.47 is 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. (Subject
to objection raised by the other side to prove it
as pert since it is xerox copy). (Page Nos.243 to
250).
(37) Ex.D.48 is 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. (Subject
to objection raised by the other side to prove it
as per la since it is xerox copy). (Page Nos. 251
to 258).
(38) Ex.D.49 is 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,
50
COM.O.S.8311/2007
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. (Subject
to objection raised by the other side to prove it
as per law since it is xerox copy) (Page Nos.259
to 266).
(39) Ex.D.50 is 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. (Subject
to objection raised by the other side to prove it
as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.267 to 274).
(40) Ex.D.51 is 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. (Subject
to objection raised by the other side to prove it
as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.275 to 283).
51
COM.O.S.8311/2007
(41) Ex.D.52 is 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. (Subject to objection raised by the
other side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.284 to 306).
(42) Ex.D.53 is Copies of 2 journal vouchers
dated 30.11.2005 of the defendant, copies of 2
debit notes dated 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. (Subject
to objection raised by the other side to prove it
as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.307 to 314).
(43) Ex.D.54 is 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
52
COM.O.S.8311/2007
06.08.2005 of Anupama Distributors. (Subject
to objection raised by the other side to prove it
as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.315 to 323).
(44) Ex.D.55 is 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. (Subject
to objection raised by the other side to prove it
as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.324 to 331).
(45) Ex.D.56 is 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 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.
(Subject to objection raised by the other side to
prove it as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.332 to 342).
(46) Ex.D.57 is Copy of the journal voucher
dated 31.05.2006, copies of 9 debit notes dated
53
COM.O.S.8311/2007
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. (Subject
to objection raised by the other side to prove it
as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.343 to 359).
(47) Ex.D.58 is 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 note
dated 07.03.2007 and copy of the statement of
service charges and reimbursement of expenses
dated 07.03.2007 of Anupama Distributors.
(Subject to objection raised by the other side to
prove it as per law since it is xerox copy) (Page
Nos.360 to 368).
(48) Ex.D.59 is 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. (Subject
to objection raised by the other side to prove it
as per law since it is xerox copy (Page Nos.369
to 383).
(49) Ex.D.60 is Copy of the journal voucher
54
COM.O.S.8311/2007
dated 31.05.2006 of 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. (Subject to objection
raised by the other side to prove it as per law
since it is xerox copy). (Page Nos.384 to 400).
(50) Ex.D.61 is 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.
(Subject to objection raised by the other side to
prove it as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.401 to 411).
(51) Ex.D.62 is 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. (Subject to objection
raised by the other side to prove it as per law
since it is xerox copy). (Page Nos. 412 to 416).
55
COM.O.S.8311/2007
(52) Ex.D.63 is 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 9 and copies of 2 debit notes dated
03.11.2005 and copy of the statement of
service charges and reimbursement of expenses
dated 19.10.2005 of Anupama Distributors.
(Subject to objection raised by the other side to
prove it as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.417 to 439).
(53) Ex.D.64 is 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. (Subject
to objection raised by the other side to prove it
as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.440 to 446).
(54) Ex.D.65 is Copies of 4 invoices raised by
the defendant dated 28.10.2003 towards
KSBCL. (Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.447 to 450).
(55) Ex.D.66 is Copy of the credit note dated
01.03.2004 of the defendant, copy of the debit
56
COM.O.S.8311/2007
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. (Subject
to objection raised by the other side to prove it
as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.451 to 456).
(56) Ex.D.67 is 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. (Subject
to objection raised by the other side to prove it
as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.457 to 462).
(57) Ex.D.68 is Copy of the credit note dated
12.02.2004 of the defendant, copies of 2 debit
notes dated 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. (Subject to objection raised by the
other side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.463 to 468).
(58) Ex.D.69 is Copy of the credit note dated
57
COM.O.S.8311/2007
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. (Subject to objection raised by the
other side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.469 to 474).
(59) Ex.D.70 is 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. (Subject to objection raised by the
other side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Par Nos. 475 to 481).
(60) Ex.D.71 is 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, sale 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. (Subject to raised by the other side
to prove it as per law since it is xerox copy).
( Nos. 482 to 488).
58
COM.O.S.8311/2007
(61) Ex.D.72 is Copies of 4 invoices dated
07.11.2003 and copies of 2 invoices dated
08.11.2003 raised by the defendant towards
KSBCL. (Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.489 494).
(62) Ex.D.73 is 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 (Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove it as
per law since it xerox copy). (Page Nos. 495 to
501).
(63) Ex.D.74 is Copies of 3 invoices dated
17.10.2003, 20.10.2003 and 28.10.2001 raised
by the defendant towards KSBCL. (Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove it as
per law since it is xerox copy). (Page Nos.502 to
504).
(64) Ex.D.75 is 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.
(Subjed to objection raised by the other side to
59
COM.O.S.8311/2007
prove it as per law since it is xerox copy) (Page
Nos.505 to 512).
(65) Ex.D.76 is 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. (Subject to objection raised by the
other side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.513 to 519).
(66) Ex.D.77 is Copy of the invoice dated
05.11.2003 raised by the defendant towards
KSBCL. (Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page No.520).
(67) Ex.P.78 is 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. (Subject to objection raised by
the other side to prove it as per law since it is
xerox copy). (Page Nos.521 to 525).
(68) Ex.D.79 is 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. (Subject to objection raised by the other
60
COM.O.S.8311/2007
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.526 to 532).
(69) Ex.D.80 is 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. (Subject to objection raised by the
other side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.533 to 539).
34. By admittedly, the said document are marked by
this court subject to objection. However, the defendant
has not led any other evidence except the cross-
examination of DW1.
35. 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 defendant 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.12 to 80 are photocopies. Therefore,
61
COM.O.S.8311/2007
the photocopies of the documents are not admissible
under the law. Section 62 of Indian Evidence Act, has
defined the primary evidence and the proof of the
documents should be proved by primary evidence as
required under Section 64. The primary evidence
means the document itself produced for the inspection
of the court. When the defendant has not produced the
primary evidence, other documents are not admissible.
36. Section 64 of the Indian Evidence Act speaks that,
the documents must be proved by primary evidence.
Therefore, the defendant has not produced to prove
the case by relying primary evidence marked as
Ex.D.12 to 80. The Plaintiff has relied the Judgment in
ILR 2006 KAR 169 between Gafarsab @ Sati Gafar
Sab vs. Ameer Ahamede, wherein, Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka held in para 5 as thus:
5. Chapter V of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
(for short “the Act”) deals with documentary
evidence. Section 61 of the Act deals with proof
of contents of documents. The contents of
documents may be proved either by primary or
secondary evidence. Primary evidence means
the document itself produced for inspection of
the Court whereas the secondary evidence
62
COM.O.S.8311/2007means and includes certified copies of public
documents, copies made from the original by
mechanical processes which in themselves
ensure the accuracy of the copy, and copies
compared with such copies, copies made from
or compared with the original; counter parts of
documents as against the parties who did not
execute them and oral accounts of the contents
of a documents given by some person who has
himself seen it. It is clear as a rule documents
must be proved by primary evidence. If the
primary evidence is not available for the
reasons set out in Section 65 of the Act only
then secondary evidence is admissible.
Therefore, before secondary evidence is
adduced, a proper foundation is to be laid for
not producing the primary evidence. Only after
the non-production of the primary evidence is
satisfactorily accounted for, the secondary
evidence would be permitted to be adduced.
37. The defendant has relied Ex. D89 to Ex.D.94
which are annual audit reports of the defendant
company. The DW.1 has admitted that the Botliboi and
Purohit Chartered Accountant were the statutory
auditors of defendant No.1 company in the year 2002-
2008, as per the annual reports marked as Ex. D89 to
Ex.D.94. The DW.1 has admitted that the defendant
No.1 company had audited committee as per the
annual reports at Ex. 89 to Ex.D.94. The said Botliboi
63
COM.O.S.8311/2007
and Purohit Chartered Accountant were highly reputed
firm chartered accountant known for their high quality
and integrity. The Dw.1 was not aware that the report
of statutory auditors of defendant No.1 company was
placed before the audit committee of defendant No.1.
DW.1 has clearly admitted as under:
It is true that audit committee of defendant
No.1 also has not found any wrong committed
by the plaintiff in respect of the debit notes
raised and the excise duty paid by the plaintiff.
It is true that report of statutory auditors of
defendant No.1 company was placed before the
ROC and SEBI.
38. The clear admission of the DW.1 in the cross-
examination dated 11.03.2020 reveals that there was
no exorbitant interest claimed by the plaintiff and also
misappropriation/ fraud played against defendant No.1.
Without there being any report and admission of Dw.1.
The plaintiff cannot put into fraud against the
Defendant. Hence, the plaintiff has relied the Judgment
in 2001 (3) A.P.L.J 36 between Sri. Balaji Traders
Chirala vs. Ponnuri Lakshmaiah, wherein, Hon’ble
Andhra Pradesh Law Journal court held in para 7 as
64
COM.O.S.8311/2007
thus:
It is true that the expert was not subjected to
cross-examination and there is no
corroborative evidence except the opinion
evidence. I see some force in the argument
advanced by the counsel for the petitioner that
in the absence of the expert appearing as a
witness and being subjected to cross-
examination, his report alone cannot be
treated as evidence. The Court below came to
the conclusion that the endorsement made
under Ex.A-7 is forged merely on the basis of
the opinion of the expert. In the judgment
referred to above, the relevant portion of
which is extracted hereunder, a Division Bench
of Allahabad High Court held that the expert’s
opinion is only a piece of evidence and weight
to be given to it has to be judged along with
other evidence and as such it cannot be
admitted without there being corroborative
evidence.
39. The DW.1 has stated that, during the internal
audit, it was found that the many wrong claims were
made by the plaintiff, and as the result of which
contract of the plaintiff was terminated. However, the
DW.1 was himself admitted about the statutory auditors
have not placed any materials to show that, fraud and
exorbitant interest raised. Therefore, DW.1 himself has
65
COM.O.S.8311/2007
admitted about the annual report which was not
mentioned anything about the fraud as well as, the
exorbitant interest claimed by the plaintiff. By looking
to the evidence of DW.1 and documentary evidence, it
is noted point that there is no any exorbitant interest
and the misrepresentation or fraud on part of the
plaintiff. The defendant No.1 has issued the termination
notice by publishing in the daily newspaper. Therefore,
the cancellation of the agreement by issuing publication
itself is against the law.
40. The Counsel for plaintiff has vehemently argued
that the allegation by the Defendant need to be proved
about fraud and exorbitant interest. Hence, the counsel
for Plaintiff relied the judgment in (1963) SCC Online
SC 9 between Badat and Co Bombay vs. East India
Trading Co., weherein, Hon’ble Supreme Court held in
para.11 as thus:
Specifically with each allegation of fact in the
plaint and when a defendant denies any such
fact, he must not do do so evasively, but answer
the point of substance. If his denial of a fact is
not specific but evasive, the said fact shall be
taken to be admitted. In such an event, the
66
COM.O.S.8311/2007admission itself being proof, no other proof is
necessary.
41. In (2013) 2 SCC 606 between Gian Chand and
Brother and Another vs. Rattan Lal, wherein,
Hon’ble Supreme court held in para 22 to 24 as thus:
The present case is not one such case where the
plaintiffs have chosen not to adduce any
evidence. They have examined witnesses,
proven entries in the books of accounts and also
proven the acknowledgements duly signed by
the defendant. The defendant, on the contrary,
except making a bald denial of the averments,
had not stated anything else. That apart,
nothing was put to the witnesses in the cross-
examination when the documents were
exhibited. He only came with a spacious plea in
his evidence which was not pleaded. Thus, we
have no hesitation in holding that the High Court
has fallen into error in holding that it was
obligatory on the part of the plaintiffs to
examine the handwriting expert to prove the
signatures. The finding that the plaintiffs had
failed to discharge the burden is absolutely
misconceived in the facts of the case.
22. The said aspect can be looked from another
angle. Rules 3, 4 and 5 of Order VIII form an
67
COM.O.S.8311/2007integral code dealing with the manner in which
allegations of fact in the plaint should be
traversed and the legal consequences flowing
from its non-compliance. It is obligatory on the
part of the defendant to specifically deal with
each allegation in the plaint and when the
defendant denies any such fact, he must not do
so evasively but answer the point of substance.
It is clearly postulated therein that it shall not
be sufficient for a defendant to deny generally
the grounds alleged by the plaintiffs but he must
be specific with each allegation of fact (see
Badat and Co., Bombay v. East India Trading Co.
[5]).
23. Rule 4 stipulates that a defendant must not
evasively answer the point of substance. It is
alleged that if he receives a certain sum of
money, it shall not be sufficient to deny that he
received that particular amount, but he must
deny that he received that sum or any part
thereof, or else set out how much he received,
and that if an allegation is made with diverse
circumstances, it shall not be sufficient to deny
it along with those circumstances. Rule 5 deals
with specific denial and clearly lays down that
every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not
denied specifically or by necessary implication,
or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of
the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted
against him.
(Defendant) It is well settled principle of law
68
COM.O.S.8311/2007
that a person who asserts a particular fact is
required to affirmatively establish it. In Anil
Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh[1], it has been held that
the burden of proving the facts rests on the
party who substantially asserts the affirmative
issues and not the party who denies it and the
said principle may not be universal in its
application and there may be an exception
thereto. The purpose of referring to the same is
that if the plaintiff asserts that the defendant
had acknowledged the signature, it is obligatory
on his part to substantiate the same. But the
question would be what would be the
consequence in a situation where the signatures
are proven and there is an evasive reply in the
written statement and what should be construed
as substantiating the assertion made by the
plaintiff.
42. In 1951 SCC 447 between Bishnudeo Narain
and Another vs. Seogeni Rai and Another, wherein,
Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para-22 as thus:
We turn next to the questions of undue
influence and coercion. Now it is to be observed
that these have not been separately pleaded. It
is true they may overlap in part in some cases
but they are separate and separable categories
in law and must be separately pleaded.
69
COM.O.S.8311/2007
43. By relying the above judgments, that no proper
particulars have been furnished by the Defendant. Now
if there is one rule which is better established than any
other, it is that in cases of fraud, undue influence and
coercion, the parties pleading it must set forth full
particulars and the case can only be decided on the
particulars as laid. There can be no depar- ture from
them in evidence. General allegations are insuf- ficient
even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any
court ought to take notice however strong the language
in which they are couched may be, and the same
applies to undue influence and coercion. See Order 6,
rule 4, Civil Procedure Code,
44. The plaintiff has submitted that, the wrongful
termination of the agreement by the side of defendant
No.1, the plaintiff is entitled for liquidity damages.
However, the liquidity damages claimed by the plaintiff
without there being a proper evidence. Though the
plaintiff has stated about the rate of commission as per
Ex.P4 to Ex.P11. But the plaintiff has not produced that
after termination of the contract agreement, the actual
loss caused to the plaintiff by defendant No.1 was not
70
COM.O.S.8311/2007
attributed. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the
damages as prayed. Accordingly, I answer Issue
No.1 in Negative.
45. Issue No.2 : The plaintiff has claimed the
balance excise duty and additional excise duty of Rs.
3,04,07,514/-, with interest free security deposit of Rs.
4,00,000/-, commission, sales of promotion,
commercial expenses freight charges and miscellaneous
expenses paid on behalf of defendant for Rs.
90,20,111/- and liquidity damages of Rs.
1,50,00,000/-. In total, plaintiff claimed
Rs.9,44,27,625/-. Out of that, the defendant No.2 has
paid Rs. 1,97,75,000/-, and the balance payable by the
defendant No.1 for Rs. 7,46,52,625/-.
46. However, the plaintiff has claimed the said
amount, and the defendant No.1 has admitted that the
defendant has appointed a plaintiff for distribute the
product of defendant and also paid the excise duty and
additional excise duty to the defendant No.4.
Accordingly, the work were raised by the plaintiff, and
also defendant has received Rs. 4 crore as a security
71
COM.O.S.8311/2007
deposit as per Ex.D7. DW.1 has also admitted in the
cross-examination that, as per the agreement, the
plaintiff was supposed to give Rs.5 crore deposit on
receipt of same, the repayment would start after 12
months on receiving 5 crores. However, the said clause
was not there in the agreement, and it will mentioned
in Ex.P.7 that the plaintiff has paid Rs.4 crore interest-
free deposit of rupees 4 crore, to be deposited with the
Vijaya Bank, and same is refundable in 48 equated in
monthly installments of Rs. 8,33,333/-. When the
defendant himself has issued the notice to the Vijaya
Bank and defendant No.1 has received the amount as
per Ex.P.2. The defendant has liable to repay the
amount of Rs. 4 crore.
47. It is also noted point that, the security deposit of
Rs. 4 crore was deposited as interest free, but the said
amount to be refund after 12 months. However, the
defendant No.1 has not repaid the said amount.
Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 4
crore with the interest at 18% per annum. The interest
claimed by the plaintiff was not in the agreement
between the parties. However, the said interest at 18%
72
COM.O.S.8311/2007
per annum is to be paid as the transaction between the
parties are business transactions and the defendant
has stated that plaintiff has obtained an interest at
36% per annum, though imposing 24% of interest per
annum is exorbitant and the defendant No.1 one is
liable to pay an amount of Rs. 5,81,10,153/- with
interest of 18% per annum from the date of suit till its
realization. Hence, I answer Issue No.2 in Partly
Affirmative.
48. Issue No.3: Defendant No.1 has filed a counter
claim seeking relief of recovery of Rs. 11,93,16,733/-
with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In support
of his claim, the defendant has relied Ex.D.1 to Ex.D94.
Ex. D1 is a Board resolution. Ex. D2 is a suit filed by
the defendant before the High Court of Bombay,
wherein the defendant No.1 was appeared in O.S No.
2766 of 2009. However, the defendant No.1 has not
filed the plaint copy and its order sheet. The order
sheet produced by the defendant is only in respect to
the stage of filing the written statement of defendants.
Therefore, without the complete documents, this court
cannot come to conclusion that the claim of the plaintiff
73
COM.O.S.8311/2007
in the suit filed before Bombay High Court and before
this court are one and the same. It is also noted point
that defendant has relied Ex.D. 5 to Ex.D.10 are letters
filed against the plaintiff as the defendant has lodged a
complaint against the plaintiff. However, these letters
was submitted only, but the defendant has failed to
produce that the actions taken by the investigative
officers and the final judgment of the said cases are not
brought before the court. Therefore, the document
Ex.D.5 to Ex.D10 were not proved about the defendant
No.1 has paid exorbitant interest at 36% per annum to
the plaintiff.
49. The Plaintiff has canversed an arguments on
equitable plea will not be available because the
Defendant filed a counter claim without any basis.
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
74
COM.O.S.8311/2007appellant 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.
50. It is also noted point that the defendant has
categorically stated that the plaintiff has
misrepresented and fraud played to recover the amount
and the defendant No.1 was already paid the exorbitant
interest. Therefore, the plaintiff is liable to pay counter
claim amount. However, the defendant has relied the
audit report and the document Ex.D12 to ExD80 along
with Ex.D81 to Ex.D94 are annual report of a defendant
but which is not disclosed about the when the fraud
was played and how much the exorbitant interest was
paid by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff. Without the
proper document defendant will not entitled the
counter claim amount. In the cross-examination also,
DW.1 has categorically stated that, Defendant No.1 was
not aware of report of statutory auditors of defendant
75
COM.O.S.8311/2007
No.1 company was placed before the audit committee
of defendant No.1. He was also not aware that audit
committee of defendant No.1 also has not found any
wrong committed by the plaintiff in respect of the debit
notes.
51. It is also taken a contention that, plaintiff has
withdrawn the amount as the check was issued by the
defendant No.1. However, the plaintiff has mentioned
about the withdrawal amount from defendant No.2 for
Rs. 1,97,75,000/-. After deducting the said amount,
the plaintiff has claimed for recovery of an amount of
Rs. 7,31,10,153/-. Therefore, without there being any
valid documents, the defendant will not entitle for
recovery of counter claim amount. Accordingly, I
answer Issue No.3 in Negative.
52. Issue No.4 : Defendant No. 3 to 5 are deleted as
per the order dated 12.03.2014. Therefore, this issue
is not survive for consideration.
53. Issue No.5 : The plaintiff has claimed an amount
of Rs. 7,31,10,153/- with interest at 18% per annum
76
COM.O.S.8311/2007
from Defendant No.1 as plaintiff has issued the debit
note and also plaintiff has claimed an amount of Rs. 4
crore as an advance amount. Ex.P13 is a 38 debit
notes reveals about the excise duty was paid and also
ledger extract and Statement of account are is marked
as Ex.P.2 and Ex.P3 clearly reveals about the payment
of excise duty and commission along with advance paid
by the plaintiff as security deposit to the Defendant
No.1 with Defendant No.2 and 3. Therefore, in view of
the observation made in Issue No 1 to 3 the plaintiff is
entitle for recovery of Rs. 5,81,10,153/-. Accordingly,
I answer Issue No.5 in Partly Affirmative.
54. Issue No.6 :- Therefore, I proceed to pass the
following.
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby
decreed in part with cost.
The Defendant No.1 is hereby
directed to pay an amount of
Rs.5,81,10,153/- with interest at the
rate of 18% per annum from the date of
suit till its realization.
The Counter-claim of the Defendant
is hereby dismissed.
77
COM.O.S.8311/2007
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 M.L. Prasanna Kumar
78
COM.O.S.8311/2007
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF
THE PLAINTIFF
Ex.P.1 Copy of Sanction letter dated 18.09.2017.
Ex.P.2 Ledger extract maintained by the plaintiff
for the period from April 2007 to March
2008 to show excise duty paid by the
plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant.
Ex.P.3 Certified account statement issued by the
Bank of Baroda.
Ex.P.4 9 statement of commissions payable as on
01.12.1990, 01.06.1992, 01.04.1993,
12.081993, and w.e.f 01.07.1994
respectively. One. Mr. Arun Danakar, the
Chairman of Defendant had also signed
first of these 3 statement.
Ex.P.5 Letter dated 07.09.2004 sent by the
Defendant to the plaintiff.
Ex.P.6 Letter dated 14.06.2006 sent by the
Defendant to the Plaintiff.
Ex.P.7 Letter dated 20.06.2006 sent by the
Defendant to the Vijaya Bank.
Ex.P.8 Letter dated 11.12.2006 sent by the Vijaya
Bank to the Defendant with a copy to the
plaintiff.
Ex.P.9 Letter dated 10.04.2006 sent by the
Defendant to the Plaintiff.
Ex.P.10 Letter dated 03.05.2006 sent by the
Defendant to the Plaintiff.
Ex.P.11 Letter dated 08.11.2006 sent by the
Defendant to the plaintiff.
79
COM.O.S.8311/2007
Ex.P.12 Letter dated 16.06.2007 sent by the
plaintiff to the Defendant.
Ex.P.13 38 debit notes on 05.02.2007, 05.02.2007,
07.03.2007, 07.03.2007, 31.03.2007,
31.03.2007, 07.05.2007, 07.05.2007,
05.06.2007, 05.06.2007, 10.05.2007,
10.05.2007, 17.05.2007, 22.05.2007,
13.06.2007, 21.06.2007, 21.06.2007,
29.06.2007, 29.06.2007, 29.06.2007,
29.06.2007, 29.06.2007, 29.06.2007,
30.06.2007, 03.07.2007, 05.07.2007,
05.07.2007, 02.08.2007, 02.08.2007,
02.08.2007, 03.08.2007, 31.08.2007,
31.08.2007, 31.08.2007, 31.08.2007,
31.08.2007 and 31.08.2007.
Ex.P.14 Calculation statements showing
outstanding payable by the Defendant to
the plaintiff as per the above noted debit
notes.
Ex.P.15 Letter dated 15.02.2007 sent by the
Defendant to the plaintiff.
Ex.P.16 Letter dated 09.06.2007 sent by the
Defendant to the Nethravathi Distillaries
Pvt. Ltd.
Ex.P.17 Copy of letter dated 30.07.2007 sent by
the plaintiff to the Defendant.
Ex.P.18 Copy of letter dated 18.08.2007 sent by
the plaintiff to the Defendant.
Ex.P.19 Copy of email printout dated 21.08.2007
sent by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Ex.P.20 Copy of letter dated 22.08.2007 sent by
the plaintiff to the Defendant.
80
COM.O.S.8311/2007
Ex.P.21 Copy of letter dated 25.08.2007 sent by
the plaintiff to the Defendant.
Ex.P.22 Copy of letter dated 30.08.2007 sent by
the defendant to the plaintiff.
Ex.P.23 Statement of claims made on Defendant
and competation of average claim per
month.
Ex.P.24 Certificate U/Sec 65B of Indian Evidence
Act.
Ex.P.25 Copy of legal notice dated 21.09.2007 sent
by the plaintiff to the Defendant.
Ex.P.26 Reply notice dated 12.10.2007 sent by the
Defendant to the plaintiff.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
THE DEFENDANT
DW.1 Ashish Choudhury
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF
THE DEFENDANT
Ex.D1 Certified true copy of the Board Resolution
of the defendant dated 14.11.2019.
Ex.D2 Certified copy of the written statement filed
by the defendant in O.S.No.2766/2009
before Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.
Ex.D3 Copy of the letter dated 16.9.2007 sent by
the defendant to Vijaya Bank regarding the
81
COM.O.S.8311/2007
conduct of the plaintiff.
Ex.D4 Copy of the letter dated 1.10.2007 sent by
the Vijaya Bank to the defendant. (Subject
to objection raised by the other side to prove
it as per law).
Ex.D5 Copy of the letter dated 16.10.2007 sent by
the defendant to the Vijaya Bank.
Ex.D6 Copy of the letter dated 16.10.2007 sent by
the defendant to the Economic Offences
Wing, Mumbai.
Ex.D7 True copy of the letter dated 7.8.2008 sent
by the defendant to the Additional
Commissioner of Police, Mumbai.
Ex.D8 Certified copy of the letter dated 20.10.2008
sent by the defendant to the Economic
Offences Wing, Mumbai.
Ex.D9 Certified copy of the letter dated 26.6.2009
sent by the defendant to the Office of Senior
Inspector of Police of the Economic Offences
Wing, Mumbai.
Ex.D10 True copy of the letter dated 26.7.2010 sent
by the defendant to the Office of Senior
Inspector of Police of the Economic Offences
Wing, Mumbai, regarding dispatch blank
Cheques by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Ex.D11 Original audit report relating to payments
to Anupama Wine Distributors/Anupama
Distributors dated 30.8.2008 conducted
by the Meghana Dalal and Associates.
82
COM.O.S.8311/2007
Ex.D12 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. (Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove
it as per law since it is xerox copy). (page
Nos. 1 to 5).
Ex.D13 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. (Subject to objection raised
by the other side to prove it as per law
since it is xerox copy). (page Nos.6 to 10).
Ex.D14 Copy of the credit note dated 17.05.2004,
copy of the debit note dated 17.05.2004,
the statement of 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. Subject to objection raised by
the other side to prove it as per law since
83
COM.O.S.8311/2007
it is xerox copy). (page Nos.11 to 15).
Ex.D15 Copy of the credit note dated 31.05.2004,
copy of the debit note dated 31.05.2004,
the statement of service poon 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. Subject to objection raised by
the other side to 4 prove it as per law
since it is xerox copy). (page Nos. 16 to
20).
Ex.D16 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. Subject to objection raised by
the other side to prove it as per law since
it is xerox copy). (page Nos.21 to 25).
Ex.D17 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
84
COM.O.S.8311/2007
Distributors. Subject to objection raised by
the other side to prove it as per law since
it is xerox copy). (page Nos.26 to 30).
Ex.D18 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. Subject to objection raised by
the other side to prove it as per law since
it is xerox copy). (page Nos.31 to 35).
Ex.D19 Copy of the credit note dated 19.06.2004,
copy of the debit note dated 19.06.2004,
the statement of 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.
Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (page Nos.36 to 40).
Ex.D20 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
85
COM.O.S.8311/2007
dated 22.05.2004 of Anupama
Distributors. Subject to objection raised by
the other side to prove it as per law since
it is xerox copy). (page Nos.41 to 46).
Ex.D21 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. Subject to objection raised by
the other side to prove it as per law since
it is xerox copy). (page Nos.47 to 52).
Ex.D22 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. Subject to objection raised by
the other side to prove it as per law since
it is xerox copy). (page Nos.53 to 57).
Ex.D23 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
86
COM.O.S.8311/2007
and copy of the credit note and debit note
dated 17.07.2004 of Anupama
Distributors. Subject to objection raised by
the other side to prove it as per law since
it is xerox copy). (page Nos.58 to 62).
Ex.D24 Copy of the credit note dated 13.07.2004,
copy of the debit note dated 13.07.2004,
the statement of 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.
Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (page Nos.63 to 67).
Ex.D25 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. Subject to objection raised by
the other side to prove it as per law since it
is xerox copy). (page Nos.68 to 72).
Ex.D26 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
87
COM.O.S.8311/2007
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. (Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove
it as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.73 to 80).
Ex.D27 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.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.81 to 88).
Ex.D28 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
voucher dated 02.07.2005 and copies of 2
debit notes dated 01.07.2005 of Anupama
Distributors. (Subject to objection raised by
the other side to prove it as per law since it
is xerox copy). (Page Nos.89 to 96).
88
COM.O.S.8311/2007
Ex.D29 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. (Subject to objection raised by
the other side to prove it as per law since it
is xerox copy). (Page Nos.97 to 104).
Ex.D30 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.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos. 105 to 112).
Ex.D31 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
89
COM.O.S.8311/2007
and copy of the journal voucher of the
defendant and copies of 2 debit notes
dated 18.06.2005 of Anupama Distributors.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.113 to 120).
Ex.D32 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 plaintiff
and copy of the journal voucher of the
defendant and copies of 2 debit notes
dated 04.06.2005 of Anupama Distributors.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.121 to 128).
Ex.D33 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.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
90
COM.O.S.8311/2007
copy). (Page Nos.129 to 136).
Ex.D34 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.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.137 to 144).
Ex.D35 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.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.145 to 152).
Ex.D36 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 charges, sales
91
COM.O.S.8311/2007
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.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.153 to 160).
Ex.D37 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.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.161 to 168).
Ex.D38 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
92
COM.O.S.8311/2007
the defendant and copies of 2 debit notes
dated 06.02.2006 of Anupama Distributors.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.169 to 175).
Ex.D39 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 Distributors. (Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove
it as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.176 to 183).
Ex.D40 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. (Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove
93
COM.O.S.8311/2007
it as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.184 to 191).
Ex.D41 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. (Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove
it as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.192 to 198).
Ex.D42 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. (Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove
it as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.199 to 205).
94
COM.O.S.8311/2007
Ex.D43 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated
30.04.2005 of the defendant, copies of 2
debit notes dated 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. (Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove
it as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.206 to 213).
Ex.D44 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.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.214 to 226).
Ex.D45 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated
31.12.2005 of the defendant, copies of 2
95
COM.O.S.8311/2007
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. (Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove
it as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.227 to 234).
Ex.D46 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 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. (Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove
it as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.235 to 242).
Ex.D47 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
96
COM.O.S.8311/2007
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.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.243 to 250).
Ex.D48 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. (Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove
it as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.251 to 258).
Ex.D49 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
97
COM.O.S.8311/2007
28.02.2006 of the defendant and copies of
2 debit notes dated 14.11.2005 of
Anupama Distributors. (Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove
it as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.259 to 266).
Ex.D50 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. (Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove
it as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.267 to 274).
Ex.D51 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. (Subject to
98
COM.O.S.8311/2007
objection raised by the other side to prove
it as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.275 to 283).
Ex.D52 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.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.284 to 306).
Ex.D53 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated
30.11.2005 of the defendant, copies of 2
debit notes dated 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. (Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove
99
COM.O.S.8311/2007
it as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.307 to 314).
Ex.D54 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. (Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove
it as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.315 to 323).
Ex.D55 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. (Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove
it as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.324 to 331).
100
COM.O.S.8311/2007
Ex.D56 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
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.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.332 to 342).
Ex.D57 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. (Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove
it as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.343 to 359).
Ex.D58 Copies of 2 journal vouchers dated
28.03.2007 of the defendant, copies of 2
debit notes dated 07.03.2007, statement
101
COM.O.S.8311/2007
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.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.360 to 368).
Ex.D59 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. (Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove
it as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.369 to 383).
Ex.D60 Copy of the journal voucher dated
31.05.2006 of 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
102
COM.O.S.8311/2007
15.05.2006 of Anupama Distributors.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.384 to 400).
Ex.D61 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.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.401 to 411).
Ex.D62 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.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.412 to 416).
103
COM.O.S.8311/2007
Ex.D63 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 of expenses dated
19.10.2005 of Anupama Distributors.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.417 to 439).
Ex.D64 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. (Subject to objection raised
by the other side to prove it as per law
since it is xerox copy). (Page Nos.440 to
446).
Ex.D65 Copies of 4 invoices raised by the
defendant dated 28.10.2003 towards
104
COM.O.S.8311/2007
KSBCL. (Subject to objection raised by the
other side to prove it as per law since it is
xerox copy). (Page Nos.447 to 450).
Ex.D66 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. (Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove
it as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.451 to 456).
Ex.D67 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.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.457 to 462).
Ex.D68 Copy of the credit note dated 12.02.2004
of the defendant, copies of 2 debit notes
105
COM.O.S.8311/2007
dated 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.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.463 to 468).
Ex.D69 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.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.469 to 474).
Ex.D70 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
106
COM.O.S.8311/2007
defendant and copy of the debit note dated
19.01.2004 of Anupama Distributors.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.475 to 481).
Ex.D71 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.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.482 to 488).
Ex.D72 Copies of 4 invoices dated 07.11.2003 and
copies of 2 invoices dated 08.11.2003
raised by the defendant towards KSBCL.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.489 to 494).
Ex.D73 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
107
COM.O.S.8311/2007
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.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.495 to 501).
Ex.D74 Copies of 3 invoices dated 17.10.2003,
20.10.2003 and 28.10.2003 raised by the
defendant towards KSBCL. (Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove
it as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.502 to 504).
Ex.D75 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. (Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove
it as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.505 to 512).
Ex.D76 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
108
COM.O.S.8311/2007
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.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.513 to 519).
Ex.D77 Copy of the invoice dated 05.11.2003
raised by the defendant towards KSBCL.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page No.520).
Ex.D78 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. (Subject to
objection raised by the other side to prove
it as per law since it is xerox copy). (Page
Nos.521 to 525).
Ex.D79 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. (Subject
to objection raised by the other side to
prove it as per law since it is xerox copy).
(Page Nos.526 to 532).
109
COM.O.S.8311/2007
Ex.D80 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.
(Subject to objection raised by the other
side to prove it as per law since it is xerox
copy). (Page Nos.533 to 539).
Ex.D81 Ledger extract maintained by the
defendant for the transactions with the
plaintiff from 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2004.
(Page Nos.540 to 548).
Ex.D82 Ledger extract maintained by the
defendant for the transactions with the
plaintiff from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005.
(Page Nos.549 to 555).
Ex.D83 Ledger extract maintained by the
defendant for the transactions with the
plaintiff from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006.
((Page Nos.556 to 574).
Ex.D84 Ledger extract maintained by the
defendant for the transactions with the
plaintiff from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007.
(Page Nos.575 to 586).
110
COM.O.S.8311/2007
Ex.D85 Ledger extract maintained by the
defendant for the transaction with the
plaintiff from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008.
(Page Nos.587 to 591).
Ex.D86 Ledger extract maintained by the
defendant for the transactions with
Anupama Distributors from 01.04.2004 to
31.03.2005. (Page Nos.592 to 597).
Ex.D87 Ledger extract maintained by the
defendant for the transactions with
Anupama Distributors from 01.04.2005 to
31.03.2006. (Page Nos. 598 to 607).
Ex.D88 Ledger extract maintained by the
defendant for the transactions with
Anupama Distributors from 01.04.2006 to
31.03.2007. (Page Nos. 608 to 615)
Ex.D89 Original Annual Report of the defendant for
2002-03. (Page No.616).
Ex.D90 Original Annual Report of the defendant for
2003-04. (Page No.617).
Ex.D91 Original Annual Report of the defendant for
2004-05. (Page No.618).
Ex.D92 Original Annual Report of the defendant for
2005-06. (Page No.619).
Ex.D93 Original Annual Report of the defendant for
2006-07. (Page No.620).
Ex.D94 Original Annual Report of the defendant for
111
COM.O.S.8311/2007
2007-08. (Page No.621).
(VIDYADHAR SHIRAHATTI),
LXXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
