M/S NATRAJ TRADERS vs M/S G RAMESHLAL AND BROS

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10825-DB
COMAP No. 200002 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030023172025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
COMMERCIAL APPEALS NO. 200002 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. M/S NATRAJ TRADERS
PLOT NO.80/1, APMC MARKET YARD
KALBURGI DISTRICT SEDAM-585222
PLOT NO.7, APMC MARKET YARD
KALBURGI DISTRICT
SEDAM-585222
REP.BY ITS PROP
SRI. BASWANTHRAO VEERABHADRAPPA PATIL AND
SRI. NAGARAJ PATIL
…APPELANT
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA D
UDAGI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
M/S G RAMESHLAL AND BROS
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF
MRS. SUSHILA BAI DHOKA
W/O LATE RAMESHLAL DHOKA
REPRESENTED BY S.P.A. HOLDER
SRI. MANOJ KUMAR DHOKA
S/O LATE RAMESHLAL DHOKA
AGED BOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT PLOT NO.4, SHOP NO.26,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10825-DB
COMAP No. 200002 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030023172025
RAJENDRA GUNJ, RAICHUR-584102
2.
M/S KARNATAKA TRANSPORT CO.
OPP. STAR TYRE CO
GOWSHALA ROAD, RAICHUR-584101
BY ITS PROP. MR. ABDUL HAMEED
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MANOJKUMAR DAFTARI &
SRI.L.H.SHIVAREDDY, ADVOCATES FOR R1;
R2 D/W V/O DTD 05.10.2026)
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 13 (1A) OF
COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS IN COM O.S.NO.17/2022
ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE
AND COMMERCIAL COURT, RAICHUR AND B) ALLOW THE
APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN COM
O.S.NO. 17/2022 DATED 01.02.2025 BY THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AND COMMERCIAL COURT,
RAICHUR AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE
RESPONDENT AND,C) GRANT ANY OTHER REMEDY THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10825-DB
COMAP No. 200002 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030023172025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 13(1A)
of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, challenging the judgment
dated 01.02.2025 passed in Commercial O.S.No.17 of 2022 by
the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Commercial Court,
Raichur (for short ‘the Tribunal).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to
as per ranking before the Trial Court. Appellant was the
defendant No.1, respondent No.1 was the plaintiff and
respondent No.2 was the defendant No.2.
3. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of money of total
sum of Rs.7,40,000/-. It is the case of the plaintiff that the
plaintiff is a Private Limited Company dealing with pulses and
agricultural produce and defendant is a dealer trading in food
grains and pulses. The defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff
for purchasing CHUNNI on bill to bill spot basis and agreed to
make the payments immediately on receipt of goods. It is
contended that the plaintiff has supplied goods worth

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10825-DB
COMAP No. 200002 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030023172025
Rs.4,44,000/- to defendant No.1 on 15.05.2019. However,
defendant No.1 failed to pay a sum of Rs.4,44,000/-. The
plaintiff got issued a legal notice calling upon defendant No.1 to
pay the amount with interest. Defendant No.1 did not reply to
the said legal notice. Hence, a cause of action arose for the
plaintiff to file a suit for recovery of money.
4. Notice was issued to the defendant No.2. Despite service
of notice, he remained unrepresented and placed ex-parte.
Defendant No.1 filed written statement denying the averments
made in the plaint and it is contended that there is no privity of
contract between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in regard to
the supply of pulses. It is also contended that defendant No.1
has not received any goods as per the invoice. It is contended
that the defendant No.1 is not liable to answer the claim of the
plaintiff. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit against the defendant
No.1.
5. The Trial Court based on the rival pleadings of the
parties, framed the following issues:

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10825-DB
COMAP No. 200002 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030023172025
“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has supplied
480 bags of Chunni worth of Rs.4,44,000/- to the
defendant?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant
not paid the amount of Rs.4,44,000/-?
3. Whether the defendant proves that the suit of the
plaintiff under valued and court fee paid is
insufficient as contended in WS para No. 11?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs
sought for?
5. What order?”
6. The plaintiff to substantiate its case, examined its official
as PW.1 and got marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. In
rebuttal, the defendant No.1 examined himself as DW.1 and
documents were not marked.
7. The Trial Court after recording the evidence, hearing on
both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence,
answered issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the affirmative, issue No.3 in
the Negative, issue No.5 as per the final order, the suit of the
plaintiff was decreed and held that the plaintiff is entitled to
recover the amount of Rs.7,40,000/- from the defendant No.1
with future interest at the rate of 21% per annum and the suit

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10825-DB
COMAP No. 200002 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030023172025
was dismissed against defendant No.2 by judgment dated
01.02.2025.
8. The defendant No.1 aggrieved by the judgment and
decree passed in Commercial Suit No.17/2022 dated
01.02.2025, filed this Commercial Appeal.
9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
defendant No.1 appearing through video conferencing and
learned counsel for the plaintiff.
10. Learned counsel for defendant No.1 submits that there is
no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant No.1
in regard to the supply of goods. He submits that the plaintiff
has not produced any records to show that the goods were
delivered to the defendant No.1. He submits that Ex.P2 is the
invoice, which does not bear the signature of the defendant
No.1 and he also submits that the plaintiff has produced the
transport bill, even it does not disclose that the goods were
15.05.2019
delivered to the defendant No.1 on . He submitted
that the defendant No.1 had not replied to the legal notice on
the ground that as there is no privity of contract between the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10825-DB
COMAP No. 200002 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030023172025
plaintiff and defendant No.1 in regard to the supply of goods,
hence, for the said reason, the defendant No.1 did not reply to
the legal notice. He also submits that the Commercial Court has
decreed the suit only on the weakness of the defendant. To
buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors.
vs. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. reported in
[(2014) 2 SCC 269].
11. He submits that the Commercial Court has failed to
consider the well established principles of law that, the plaintiff
has filed a suit for recovery of money. It is for the plaintiff to
establish that the plaintiff has supplied the goods to the
defendant No.1. He submits that except producing Exs.P2 to
P4, the plaintiff has not produced any records to show that the
goods were delivered to the defendant No.1. The said aspect
was not properly considered by the Commercial Court, and
committed an error in passing an impugned judgment. Hence,
on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that
the plaintiff had supplied the goods as per Ex.P2 and he also

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10825-DB
COMAP No. 200002 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030023172025
submits that he has produced the weigh bill receipt to show
that the goods were dispatched from the plaintiff's godown and
he also submits that he has produced the records i.e. transport
receipt to show that goods has been delivered to the defendant
No.1. The defendant No.1 was supposed to pay the amount of
Rs.4,40,000/- on the spot, but the defendant No.1 did not pay
the said amount on the spot. He submits that the plaintiff has
issued a legal notice as per Ex.P5. He submits that the
defendant No.1 did not reply to the said legal notice. He
submitted that non-reply to the legal notice, amounts to
admission of contents of the legal notice. He also submits that
during the course of cross-examination, the learned counsel
appearing for the defendant has made a suggestion to PW1
regarding the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant
No.1. Hence, he submits that the judgment and decree passed
by the Commercial Court is just and proper and do not call for
any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he
prays to dismiss the appeal.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10825-DB
COMAP No. 200002 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030023172025
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the documents available on record, the points that
would arise for our consideration are:
(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff
had supplied the goods to the defendant No.1 as per
Ex.P2 and delivered the goods as per Ex.P4?
(ii) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the
judgment and decree passed by the Commercial
Court is arbitrary and erroneous?
(iii) What order or decree?
Regarding Point No.1:
14. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the
proprietary dealing with the pulses and agricultural produce,
and the defendant is the dealer of the plaintiff.
15. Defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff and made a
request for supply of goods. On the request made by the
defendant No.1, the plaintiff had supplied the goods of worth
Rs.4,40,000/- as per invoice dated 15.05.2019 and also that
the goods were loaded in the lorry bearing registration No.KA-

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10825-DB
COMAP No. 200002 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030023172025
19-AA-9846 on 15.05.2019 and it was dispatched on the said
day and the goods were delivered to the defendant No.1 on
15.05.2019. The defendant No.1 has to pay an amount of
Rs.4,44,000/-. The defendant No.1 did not pay the said
amount, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant
No.1 calling upon the defendant No.1 to pay the amount of
Rs.4,44,000/-. Despite service of legal notice to the defendant
No.1, the defendant No.1 did not reply to the legal notice.
Hence, cause of auction arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for
recovery of money.
16. The plaintiff to substantiate his case, examined his power
of attorney holder as PW1. He reiterated the plaint averments
in the examination in-chief and in order to prove the alleged
transaction between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, the
plaintiff has produced the documents as Exs.P1 is the Special
Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of its
representatives to tender evidence on behalf of the plaintiff;
Ex.P2 is the invoice dated 15.05.2019, wherein, it discloses
that the plaintiff has supplied chunni (50 kgs), quantity 480
bags (240.00 quintals) worth Rs.4,44,000/- to the defendant

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10825-DB
COMAP No. 200002 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030023172025
No.1. The plaintiff has also produced the weighbridge receipt
marked as Ex.P3, which discloses that the vehicle bearing
No.KA-19-AA-9846 was weighed on 15.05.2019 and the gross
weight in Kgs is 34775, tare weight in kgs 10810, net weight in
kgs 23965, gross weight time 17:37:05; Ex.P4 is the receipt
issued by the Karnataka Transport Company, which discloses
that the goods were loaded in the lorry bearing No.KA-19-AA-
9846 and the said goods were delivered to the defendant No.1;
Ex.P5 is the office copy of the legal notice got issued by the
plaintiff to the defendant No.1 on 17.01.2022, wherein, the
plaintiff has demanded a sum of Rs.4,44,000/- for having
supplied the alleged chunni; Ex.P6 is the postal under
certificate of posting; ExP7 is the postal track report, which
discloses that the notice was duly served on the defendant
No.1; Ex.P8 is the certificate issued by the plaintiff in regard to
the closing balance of Rs.4,44,000/- pertaining to the
defendant No.1; Ex.P9 is Form No.3, which is issued by the
Member Secretary of District Legal Service Authority, Raichur,
wherein it discloses that the notice was issued to the defendant
by RPAD called out absent. The defendants are not interested

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10825-DB
COMAP No. 200002 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030023172025
in pre-institution mediation. Hence, the matter is closed as
non-starter; Ex.P10 is the copy of the Legal Notice issued by
the plaintiff to defendant No.2 on 04.02.2023 calling upon the
defendant No.2 to furnish proof of delivery of the goods
transported vide lorry receipt captioned above within three
days from the date of receipt of the notice; Ex.P11 is the under
certificate of posting. During the cross-examination of PW1, the
defendant has denied the entire examination in-chief of PW1.
Though one stray suggestion was made to PW1 regarding the
alleged transaction between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1.
17. In rebuttal defendant No.1 was examined as DW1. He has
deposed that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff
and defendant No.1 and the defendant No.1 has not received
the goods as alleged by the plaintiff as per Ex.P2. He has also
deposed that he has not received the goods as per Ex.P4 i.e.,
the lorry receipt for having supplied the goods. It is also stated
that the defendant No.1 is not entitled to pay the said amount
as claimed by the plaintiff as per invoice dated 15.05.2019.
Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10825-DB
COMAP No. 200002 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030023172025
18. During the cross-examination, it was suggested to DW1
that as per the request made by the defendant No.1, the
plaintiff has supplied the goods as per Ex.P2 and goods were
delivered as per Ex.P4. The said suggestion was denied by
DW1.
19. From the perusal of the entire records, the case of the
plaintiff that the plaintiff has supplied the goods to the
defendant No.1 by Ex.P2, which is an invoice, which discloses
that on 15.05.2019 the goods were supplied to the defendant
No.1. The plaintiff also produced the weigh bill to show that
the goods have been loaded in the lorry bearing No.KA-19-AA-
9846 and to show that the vehicle was weighed in Srishakti
Digital Weighbridge, Industrial Area, Raichur, on 15.05.2019.
The plaintiff also produced the receipt issued by the Karnataka
Transport Company, wherein it discloses that the goods were
sent to the address of the defendant No.1 on 15.05.2019.
20. We have perused invoice i.e. Ex.P2, and Ex.P4 i.e.
transporters receipt, does not disclose that the goods were
delivered to the defendant No.1. Further, it does not bear the
signature of the defendant No.1 for having received the goods

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10825-DB
COMAP No. 200002 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030023172025
under the said invoice. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery
of money of Rs.4,44,000/- alleging that the goods were
supplied to the defendant No.1. The burden is on the plaintiff to
establish that the goods were delivered to the defendant No.1.
Except producing Exs.P2 and P4, the plaintiff has not produced
any other records to show that goods were delivered to the
defendant No.1 on 15.05.2019. Further, the plaintiff has issued
a legal notice on 17.01.2022. The alleged transaction is of the
month of May 1999 and the legal notice was issued in the
month of January, 2022. If, really there was a genuine
transaction between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, the
plaintiff could have taken steps to recover the said amount
immediately. Though the notice was issued on 17.01.2022 and
the suit is filed on 01.07.2022.
21. Admittedly, the plaintiff has produced Ex.P4. But the
plaintiff has not examined the author of the document, though
the plaintiff has made the transporter as a defendant No.2.
Defendant No.2 has remained unrepresented and he was
placed ex-parte . The plaintiff could have taken summons to the
defendant No.2 to prove regarding the delivery of the goods.

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10825-DB
COMAP No. 200002 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030023172025
The plaintiff has not taken summons to the defendant No.2 to
prove the proof of delivery of goods to the defendant No.1.
22. In view of the above discussions, we hold that the
plaintiff has failed to prove that the plaintiff has supplied the
goods to the defendant No.1 as per Ex.P2 and P4. In view of
the above discussions, we answer point No.1 in the negative.
Regarding Point No.2:
23. The Commercial Court without considering the entire
evidence on record has recorded its finding that the plaintiff has
delivered the goods to the defendant No.1, and in the absence
of proof regarding the delivery of goods to the defendant No.1,
has decreed the suit only on the ground that the defendant
No.1 has not replied to the legal notice.
24. The Commercial Court, has not properly appreciated the
entire evidence on record. Further, the plaintiff got issued a
legal notice to the defendant No.2 during the pendency of the
suit as per Ex.P10 calling upon the defendant No.2 to furnish
the proof of delivery of the goods transported vide lorry receipt
captioned within three days. When the said steps have been

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10825-DB
COMAP No. 200002 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030023172025
taken by the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit, the
plaintiff ought to have taken witness summons to the defendant
No.2 and could examine the defendant No.2 to prove the
contents of Ex.P4. As observed above, the plaintiff has failed to
establish the delivery of goods and the plaintiff has not taken
any pain to examine the defendant No.2 to prove that the
goods were delivered to the defendant No.1. Thus, the
Commercial Court has committed an error in decreeing the suit
of the plaintiff. In view of the above discussion, we answer
point No.2 in the affirmative.
25. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
allowed
(1) The Appeal is .
(2) The judgment and decree dated 01.02.2025
passed in Commercial O.S.No.17/2022 by the
Principal District & Sessions Judge and
Commercial Court, Raichur is set aside.
Consequently, the Commercial Suit filed by the
plaintiff is dismissed.

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10825-DB
COMAP No. 200002 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030023172025
(3) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE
MSR,SDU
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4