Part-Time Workers Serving For Decades Entitled To Regularization; 'Uma Devi' Ruling Cannot Be Weaponized To Deny Legitimate Claims: Rajasthan High Court Order Rejecting Or Allowing To Register FIR U/S Section 156(3) CrPC Application Is Not Interlocutory; Criminal Revision Is Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Default Bail | Failure To Produce Accused During Hearing For Extension Of Remand Time Is Gross Illegality, Violates Article 21: Andhra Pradesh High Court Section 138 NI Act Liability Of Directors Subsists Despite Initiation Of Liquidation Proceedings Against Company: Supreme Court Purchaser Of Property For Valuable Consideration Cannot Be Accused Of Cheating Original Owner If Title Document Is Forged: Supreme Court Appointment Of Minor To Public Post Is Per Se Illegal, Void Ab Initio: Allahabad High Court Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Abdicate Duty To Decide Limitation Objection Merely Because High Court Appointed Arbitrator: Allahabad High Court Deemed Conveyance Cannot Be Restricted To Building Footprint; Must Include Appurtenant Open Spaces Required By Planning Law: Bombay High Court Mere Discovery Of Accused's Presence At A Location Not A 'Fact Discovered' Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Delhi High Court Acquits Official In 1989 Bribe Case Section 307 IPC Is Not A 'Minor Offence' To Section 324 IPC; Accused Cannot Be Convicted For Attempt To Murder If Only Charged With Voluntarily Causing Hurt: Delhi High Court Landowners Under National Highways Act Entitled To 15% Interest On Enhanced Compensation; Denial Is Discriminatory: Punjab & Haryana HC Omission Of Village Name In Gazette Notification No Bar To Laying Transmission Lines If Area Falls 'Around' Notified Route: Orissa High Court NBFCs Cannot Use Force For Vehicle Repossession; Coercive Debt Recovery Violates Right To Livelihood Under Article 21: Uttarakhand High Court Non-Candidates Cannot Be Impleaded As Parties In Election Petitions Even If Allegations Of Impropriety Are Made: J&K&L High Court Lowest Bidder Has No Vested Right To Contract; Budgetary Constraints Valid Ground To Cancel Tender: Jharkhand High Court Confiscation Of Vehicle Under Section 49 Assam Forest Regulation Is Only Temporary; Final Confiscation Requires Conviction Under Section 51: Gauhati High Court Amendment Of Written Statement Cannot Be Allowed After Trial Commences If Facts Were Within Party's Knowledge: Delhi 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