Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

Plaintiff Failed to Prove Defective Goods Supplied - Claims Dismissed -Defendant’s Counter-Claim Upheld for Unpaid Invoices and Interest – Madras High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment by the Madras High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Quddhose, the claims of the plaintiff, M/s. Kapoor Imaging Private Limited, for damages against the defendant, M/s. Kodak (India) Private Limited, were dismissed. The Court found the plaintiff’s claims for damages due to alleged defective goods supplied by the defendant to be unsubstantiated. Conversely, the defendant's counter-claim for unpaid invoices and interest was upheld.

The suit, initiated by the plaintiff, sought recovery of Rs.1,26,40,648/- for alleged damages resulting from defective goods supplied by the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the goods had various defects, causing payments to be withheld by customers, unsold defective stocks, goods returned by customers, and additional costs like storage charges and non-issuance of E1 forms. The defendant refuted these claims and filed a counter-claim for unpaid invoices totaling Rs.58,00,686/-, plus interest.

The Court meticulously analyzed the claims, evidence, and contractual obligations under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, and the Indian Contract Act. It observed, “The initial burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the suit claim. They have failed to discharge their initial burden in accordance with Section 101 of the Evidence Act.”

The Court further noted, “No evidence has been placed on record by the plaintiff to substantiate that the goods supplied by the defendant had suffered base fog or fingerprints.” It also highlighted the plaintiff’s failure to mitigate losses, a mandatory requirement under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act.

Justice Quddhose remarked, “The suit claim, as stated supra, has to be rejected by this Court, since the plaintiff has not produced any evidence substantiating the said suit claim.”

The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for being unsubstantiated and upheld the defendant’s counter-claim. It directed the plaintiff to pay the defendant Rs.58,00,686/- along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the last invoice till realization. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing concrete evidence to substantiate claims in contractual disputes.

Date of Decision: 16.02.2024

Kapoor Imaging Private Limited Vs. Kodak (India) Private Limited

Latest Legal News