UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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