Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

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