Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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