Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 06 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – M/s Sri Devi Ram Enterprises (registered partnership, represented by Partner Karra Mani); Respondent – M/s Firenze Shoes Limited, represented by Managing Director S.B.P. Madan Mohan.
  • Proceedings: Appeal (A.S. No. 243 of 2019) filed under Section 96 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 11 Oct 2018 in O.S. No. 11253 of 2010, which dismissed the original suit for recovery of money.
  • Original Suit History: Initially filed as C.S. No. 737 of 2002, later transferred to the City Civil Court, Chennai and renumbered O.S. No. 11253 of 2010. The plaint (dated 25 Oct 2000) sought recovery of Rs 10,24,264.57 – comprising a principal sum of Rs 7,71,140 (price of moulded insoles supplied between 03 Jan 1996 and 14 Mar 1997), interest at 24 % per annum from the date of filing, freight charges of Rs 7,281, and damages of Rs 2,50,000 for loss of goodwill.
  • Key Evidence Presented by Plaintiff:
  • Invoices (not produced in court) allegedly covering supplies from 03 Jan 1996 to 14 Mar 1997.
  • Fax dated 01 Nov 1997 (Ex.A2) in which the defendant purportedly acknowledged “outstanding dues” and promised payment by 10 Dec 1997.
  • Legal notice dated 08 Sep 1999 returned as “unclaimed”.
  • Statement of account (Ex.A4) showing a total of Rs 5,32,746, certified by Chartered Accountant R. Shivakumar (who was not examined).
  • Defendant’s Contentions:
  • Denied existence of invoices and freight liability; claimed all dues were regularly paid.
  • Asserted that Ex.A2 did not specify the amount or the transactions, therefore not an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
  • Raised limitation defence, treating 14 Mar 1997 (last alleged supply date) as the starting point, rendering the suit time‑barred.
  • Alleged that the company was before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and that civil proceedings should be stayed under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.
  • Trial Court Findings:

1. Plaintiff failed to produce original invoices, delivery challans, transport receipts, or any independent evidence of supply; reliance on the statement of account alone was insufficient under Section 34 of the Evidence Act.

2. Ex.A2 did not expressly link the acknowledgment to the specific sum claimed; therefore it could not shift the burden of proof to the defendant.

3. The suit was barred by limitation, with the limitation period calculated from 14 Mar 1997.

4. Since the plaintiff’s claim on the merits was unproven, the issue of damages was left unanswered.

5. The decree dismissing the suit was passed without costs.

  • Grounds of Appeal:

1. Plaintiff argued that the defendant’s admission of supply in the written statement and the fax constituted a valid acknowledgment, extending the limitation period.

2. Plaintiff contended that once supply was admitted, the burden shifted to the defendant to prove payment.

3. Plaintiff challenged the trial court’s rejection of the statement of account and the non‑examination of the accountant.

4. Plaintiff disputed the limitation calculation and the relevance of the alleged BIFR proceedings.

  • Appellate Court Reasoning:
  • The court held that the plaintiff still bore the primary burden of proving each transaction; the absence of invoices, delivery challans, or transport documents meant the burden never shifted.
  • While acknowledging that Ex.A2 could be viewed as a general acknowledgment of “outstanding dues”, it did not specify the amount or the particular invoices, rendering it insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
  • Consequently, even assuming the limitation period was extended, the plaintiff had not established the quantum of liability.
  • The alleged BIFR/Company Law Board order was not produced; pleadings alone cannot constitute evidence, so the plea of non‑maintainability on that ground was rejected, but it did not aid the plaintiff’s case.
  • The appellate court concluded that the trial court’s dismissal was justified, albeit for reasons slightly different from those originally articulated.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The judgment and decree of the trial court dated 11 Oct 2018 are confirmed.
  • No costs are awarded to either party.
  • Any connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.

Topics: Legal Judgment, Contract Dispute, Limitation Act