Madras High Court
M/S.Sri Devi Ram Enterprises vs M/S.Firenze Shoes Ltd on 6 July, 2026
A.S.No.243 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 07.01.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 06.07.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
A.S. No. 243 of 2019
M/s.Sri Devi Ram Enterprises
Rep., by its Partner,
Mr.Karra Mani
At No.B-4, Brindavan Apartments,
No.6, Brindavan Street,
Mylapore, Chennai – 4. ...Appellant/Plaintiff
Versus
M/s.Firenze Shoes Limited,
Rep., by its Managing Director,
Mr.S.B.P.Madan Mohan,
No.38, Mount Road, Guindy,
Chennai – 32.
Also at
No.49/2, 3rd Main Road,
Gandhi Nagar, Adyar,
Chennai – 20. ...Respondent/Defendant
PRAYER:
Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 against the Judgment and decree dated 11.10.2018 made in
O.S.No.11253 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional City Civil Court,
Chennai.
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.243 of 2019
For Appellant : Mr.S.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.N.Kumar Rajan, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
This Appeal Suit has been filed by the plaintiff, challenging the judgment
and decree dated 11.10.2018 in O.S.No.11253 of 2010 passed by the
learned II Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai, dismissing the suit for
recovery of money.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff. The respondent is the defendant. For
convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before
the trial Court.
3. The plaintiff filed the suit originally on the Original Side of this
Court as C.S.No.737 of 2002. Later, on account of change in pecuniary
jurisdiction, the suit was transferred to the City Civil Court, Chennai, and
renumbered as O.S.No.11253 of 2010. The suit was for recovery of a sum
of Rs.10,24,264.57 together with interest at 24% per annum on
Rs.7,71,140/- from the date of plaint till realisation and for costs. The
plaint was presented on 25.10.2000.
2/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.243 of 2019
4. The trial Court dismissed the suit without costs by judgment dated
11.10.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred the present
appeal.
5. Plaint in brief: The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm carrying
on business in moulded components for shoes. The defendant is a
company represented by its Managing Director.
6. According to the plaintiff, in the course of business, the defendant
requested the plaintiff to supply moulded insoles. Pursuant to such
request, the plaintiff supplied moulded insoles to the defendant under
various invoices from 03.01.1996 to 14.03.1997. The plaintiff pleaded
that a sum of Rs.7,63,859/- remained due towards the price of goods
supplied. It further pleaded that freight charges of Rs.7,281/- were also
payable by the defendant. Thus, according to the plaintiff, a total sum of
Rs.7,71,140/- was due and payable by the defendant.
3/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.243 of 2019
7. The plaintiff further pleaded that the amounts due were debited from
time to time and the amounts received on account were credited. Despite
repeated demands and personal follow-up by the plaintiff’s executives,
the defendant did not clear the dues.
8. The plaintiff relied strongly on the defendant’s communication dated
01.11.1997. According to the plaintiff, by that communication, the
defendant admitted its liability and promised to clear the outstanding
amount. The plaintiff pleaded that even after the said communication, no
payment was made.
9. The plaintiff thereafter caused a legal notice dated 08.09.1999 to be
issued through counsel by registered post with acknowledgment due. The
notice was returned with the postal endorsement “unclaimed”. The
plaintiff therefore filed the suit.
10. The plaintiff also claimed damages of Rs.2,50,000/- towards loss of
goodwill. The case of the plaintiff was that non-payment by the defendant
4/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.243 of 2019
placed the plaintiff in difficulty in meeting its own obligations and in
taking further orders, and thereby caused loss of goodwill in the market.
11. On these averments, the plaintiff prayed for a decree directing the
defendant to pay Rs.10,21,140/- together with interest at 24% per annum
from the date of plaint till realisation and costs.
12. Written Statement in brief: The defendant admitted that the plaintiff
had supplied moulded insoles. But the defendant pleaded that the dues
were paid regularly. The defendant specifically contended that the
plaintiff had not produced invoices in support of the suit claim and that
the plaintiff had filed only a statement of accounts.
13. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s claim that goods were supplied
between January 1996 and March 1997 in the manner stated in the plaint.
The defendant also denied the claim for freight charges. According to the
defendant, there was no agreement that freight charges should be borne
by the defendant; ordinarily, the supplier would bear such charges.
5/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.243 of 2019
14. The defendant denied that it had sent any letter acknowledging
liability. It pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation, since the last
date of supply pleaded by the plaintiff was 14.03.1997 and the suit was
filed only in October 2000.
15. The defendant also denied the claim for damages of Rs.2,50,000/-
towards loss of goodwill. According to the defendant, the claim for
damages was added only to bring the suit before this Court by inflating
the valuation. The defendant contended that there was neither pleading
nor proof of actual loss of goodwill.
16. The defendant further pleaded that the defendant’s company was
before the BIFR and that civil proceedings were liable to be stayed under
Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act,
1985.
6/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.243 of 2019
17. Plaintiff’s Reply statement: The plaintiff stated that the defendant’s
written statement was self-contradictory because, while admitting supply
in one paragraph, the defendant denied supply in another.
18. The plaintiff also stated that supplies were made on various dates
under invoices detailed in the annexure to the reply statement. It was
further stated that the defendant had issued necessary ‘C’ Forms bearing
No.TN/F 736/20 after receiving confirmation of the invoice amounts
from the plaintiff.
19. The plaintiff reiterated that the defendant had acknowledged liability
by fax message dated 01.11.1997 and requested time to pay the entire
amount by 10.12.1997. The plaintiff therefore contended that the suit was
within limitation.
20. The annexure to the reply statement contains a list of invoice
numbers, dates and amounts, stated to be connected with Form ‘C’ for
1996-1997. The total shown in the annexure is Rs.5,32,746/-.
7/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.243 of 2019
21. The trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim along with interest
as prayed for?
2. Whether the suit is based on supply of goods between January
1996 to March 1997 is true?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to freight charges as against the
defendant?
4. Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation?
5. Whether the suit is having cause of action for the damages as
claimed by the plaintiff?
6. To what other reliefs?
22. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1, namely,
Thiru Karra Mani, Partner of the plaintiff firm, was examined. Exs.A1 to
A4 were marked. Ex.A1 dated 24.09.1997 – Fax sent by the plaintiff to
the defendant; Ex.A2 dated 01.11.1997 – Reply fax sent by the defendant
to the plaintiff; Ex.A3 dated 08.09.1999 – Legal notice issued by the
plaintiff’s counsel to the defendant; Ex.A4 for 1995-1996 – Statement of
account of the plaintiff’s company.On the side of the defendant, D.W.1,
namely, Thiru S.Rajasekaran, was examined and marked Ex.B1 an
authorisation letter dated 30.06.2017given to D.W.1.
8/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.243 of 2019
23. The trial Court held that Ex.A2 did not state that the amount was due
for purchase of moulded insoles from 03.01.1996 to 14.03.1997. It
therefore held that Ex.A2 would not prove the plaintiff’s entitlement to
Rs.7,63,859/- for supply of moulded insoles during the pleaded period.
The trial Court then considered Ex.A4, the statement of account. It noted
that Ex.A4 was certified by one R.Shivakumar, Chartered Accountant, but
that he was not examined. It further held that Ex.A4 was marked through
P.W.1 and that the defendant had not admitted it. The trial Court relied on
the cross-examination of P.W.1. P.W.1 had stated that he came to the
conclusion about the amount due from the defendant because the
defendant was aware of the due amount. The trial Court observed that
P.W.1 did not state the details of the amount due to the plaintiff and that,
though the plaint pleaded supply under various invoices, no invoice was
produced. The trial Court further held that only if supply of goods was
proved would the burden shift to the defendant to prove payment. It held
that the plaintiff had not proved supply of goods in the manner pleaded.
On Ex.A4, the trial Court invoked Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act.
It held that books of account must be regularly kept in the course of
business and must conform to a known system of accounting. It held that
Ex.A4 was merely a statement of account and was not supported by other
documents kept in the ordinary course of business. On this reasoning,
9/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.243 of 2019
the trial Court held that the plaintiff had failed to discharge its initial
burden of proof. It also held that non-examination or non-cross-
examination of the defendant would be immaterial where no onus had
shifted to the defendant.
24. On Issue of limitation, the trial Court held that the suit was for
goods purchased by the defendant during the period 03.01.1996 to
14.03.1997. It held that since Ex.A2 did not mention the period of
liability, Ex.A2 could not be connected to the suit transaction. The trial
Court therefore treated 14.03.1997 as the starting point of limitation and
held that the suit filed on 25.10.2000 was barred by limitation. On Issue
of damages, the trial Court held that in view of its findings on Issues 1 to
3, the issue relating to damages need not be answered. In the result, the
trial Court dismissed the suit without costs.
25. Grounds of appeal: The plaintiff has challenged the judgment mainly
on the following grounds: The trial Court failed to consider that the
defendant admitted supply of moulded insoles in the written statement.
The trial Court wrongly held that supply was not proved, though admitted
10/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.243 of 2019
facts need not be proved. The trial Court failed to give proper effect to
Ex.A2, which, according to the plaintiff, was an admission of liability and
a promise to clear the amount by 10.12.1997.The trial Court wrongly
treated the suit as barred by limitation by calculating limitation from the
last date of supply, instead of from Ex.A2 dated 01.11.1997. The trial
Court failed to note that once supply was admitted and payment was
pleaded, the burden was on the defendant to prove payment. The trial
Court erred in rejecting Ex.A4 merely because the auditor was not
examined. The trial Court failed to consider that D.W.1 did not subject
himself to proper cross-examination and therefore his evidence could not
be acted upon.
26. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, apart from narrating the
facts, submitted that the defendant had admitted the supply of moulded
insoles and had also acknowledged the liability under Ex.A2 dated
01.11.1997. According to him, in Ex.A2, the defendant had stated that it
could not keep up its earlier commitment to make payment on 20th
October and had further stated that it would clear the dues before
10.12.1997. Therefore, it was contended that Ex.A2 amounts to
acknowledgment of liability and that the suit filed on 25.10.2000 is well
11/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.243 of 2019
within limitation. It was further submitted that, once the defendant
admitted supply and pleaded payment, the burden was on the defendant to
prove that the dues had been discharged. The Trial Court, without
properly appreciating Ex.A2 and the admission in the written statement,
erroneously dismissed the suit. In support of his contention, he relied on
the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Anita Rani v. Ashok
Kumar and others [Civil Appeal Nos.7750–7751 of 2021], wherein
held that when the defendants admitted that the money claimed had either
been paid by the plaintiff or had gone from the plaintiff’s account into
their account, the burden was on the defendants to prove discharge by
settlement of accounts or to prove that the payment was gratuitous.
Relying on the said judgment, learned counsel prayed that the appeal be
allowed and the suit be decreed.
27. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant submitted
that the dues were regularly paid; the plaintiff had not produced proof for
supply of goods for the suit claim between January 1996 and March
1997. The plaintiff had also not proved that the defendant was liable to
pay freight charges. On limitation, learned counsel submitted that they
had not sent letter acknowledging liability and there is no cause of action
12/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.243 of 2019
for filing this suit. It was submitted that that since the defendant has
nowhere acknowledged the debt of the plaintiff before expiry of the
period of limitation, they relied on M/s.Pentax Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v.
Techno Fab Engineering Ltd. [AIR Online 2018 Del 276], wherein it
was held the limitation would not be extended under Section 18 of the
Limitation Act unless the debt is acknowledged before expiry of
limitation. He also relied on Deepak Mehta and another v. Yashi
Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. and others [C.S.(OS) No.869 of 2010, dated
21.04.2014, Delhi High Court], wherein it was held that the admissions
relied upon in that case did not amount to acknowledgment of liability
within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. He further relied
on Keshrimal Devichand Porwal v. Bhuwan Moda Suttar [AIR 1960
MP 272] on the requirements of acknowledgment. Thus, learned counsel
submitted that the suit claim was not proved, that the suit was barred by
limitation, and that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
28. The points for consideration are :
(1) Whether the plaintiff has proved that it supplied the goods to
the defendant and that the sum claimed is legally due and payable
by the defendant?
13/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.243 of 2019
(ii) Whether Ex.A2 constitutes a valid acknowledgement of
liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and whether
the suit is within the period of limitation?
(iii) Whether the defendant has established that the suit is not
maintainable in light of the alleged proceedings before the Board
for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR)/Company Law
Board, as pleaded in the written statement?
(iv) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing
the suit warrant interference?
29. Points No. 1 & 2: The suit is for the recovery of the price of goods
allegedly supplied under several transactions spread over a period. The
burden squarely rested on the plaintiff to prove each transaction giving
rise to the liability.
30. Although the plaintiff pleaded that moulded insoles were supplied
from time to time, none of the original invoices, delivery challans,
transport receipts, or acknowledgements of delivery has been produced.
No explanation has been offered for withholding these primary
documents.
14/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.243 of 2019
31. In paragraph 3 of the written statement, the defendant admitted that
there had been business dealings between the parties but specifically
disputed the plaintiff’s monetary claim, pleading that all dues had been
paid and further asserting that the plaintiff had produced only a statement
of account without any invoices. In paragraph 4, the defendant
specifically denied proof of the alleged supplies. Therefore, the burden
never shifted from the plaintiff.
32. The statement of account kept by the plaintiff is merely an entry in
its own books. Under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, entries in
books of account are relevant but cannot, by themselves, fasten liability
unless supported by independent evidence.
33. Ex. A2, dated 01.11.1997, undoubtedly refers to “outstanding dues”
and “pending payments”. However, the document neither specifies the
amount due nor identifies the invoices or transactions to which it relates.
It also does not enable the Court to correlate the alleged
acknowledgement with the exact sum claimed in the suit. At best, Ex. A2
establishes that there were commercial dealings between the parties and
that some amount remained payable. It does not prove that the specific
amount claimed in the plaint represents the legally recoverable balance.
15/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.243 of 2019
34. In an action for the price of goods sold and delivered, the plaintiff
cannot succeed merely by relying on a general acknowledgement of
outstanding dues. The Court must be satisfied that the individual
transactions and the quantum claimed are proved by acceptable evidence.
That foundational evidence is absent in the present case.
35. Consequently, even assuming that Ex. A2 extends the period of
limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, the plaintiff has failed
to prove the suit on the merits. The dismissal of the suit is therefore liable
to be upheld, though for reasons partly different from those assigned by
the trial Court.
36. Although this Court is inclined to hold that Ex. A2 can constitute
an acknowledgement within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation
Act, the plaintiff has failed to establish the supply of goods and the
precise outstanding liability by producing the best available evidence,
namely the invoices, delivery challans, or other contemporaneous
records. The statement of account, standing alone, is insufficient in law to
fasten liability. Ex. A2, being a general acknowledgement of outstanding
dues, cannot dispense with proof of the individual transactions
16/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.243 of 2019
constituting the suit claim. Hence, the decree of dismissal passed by the
trial Court does not warrant interference. Thus, these points are
answered.
37. Point No. 3: The defendant has pleaded that the suit is not
maintainable in view of an order alleged to have been passed by the
Company Law Board. However, apart from raising this plea in the written
statement, no material whatsoever has been placed before the Court. The
alleged order of the Company Law Board has neither been produced nor
marked in evidence. No witness has spoken to the nature, scope or legal
effect of the said order. It is a settled principle that pleadings are not
evidence. A party who asserts a particular fact bears the burden of
proving it. In the absence of the order itself, this Court is unable to
ascertain whether the proceedings before the Company Law Board
pertained to the present transaction or whether any injunction or statutory
bar operated against the institution of the present suit. Consequently, the
plea regarding the maintainability of the suit on the basis of the alleged
Company Law Board proceedings is liable to be rejected for want of
proof.
17/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.243 of 2019
38. However, the rejection of the above plea does not advance the
plaintiff’s case. The plaintiff must still independently establish the supply
of goods and the outstanding liability. For the reasons already discussed,
the plaintiff has failed to prove the individual transactions and the amount
claimed by producing the best evidence, namely the invoices, delivery
challans, or other contemporaneous documents. Therefore,
notwithstanding the defendant’s failure to prove the plea founded on the
alleged Company Law Board order, the plaintiff is not entitled to a
decree.
39. Point No.4: In view of the answers arrived at in Points No.1 to 3,
the appeal fails. The judgment and decree of the trial court passed in
O.S.No.11253 of 2010, dated 11.10.2018, are confirmed. Consequently,
the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions, if any, are closed.
06.07.2026
ay
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order /Non-speaking order
Neutral citation:Yes/No
18/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.243 of 2019
To
1.The II Additional City Civil Court,
Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Records,
Madras High Court.
19/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.243 of 2019
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT IN
A.S. No. 243 of 2019
06.07.2026
20/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
