{"id":256237,"date":"2010-02-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-traders-vs-p-c-abraham-on-25-february-2010"},"modified":"2014-12-23T17:24:57","modified_gmt":"2014-12-23T11:54:57","slug":"premier-traders-vs-p-c-abraham-on-25-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-traders-vs-p-c-abraham-on-25-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Premier Traders vs P.C.Abraham on 25 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Premier Traders vs P.C.Abraham on 25 February, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 76 of 1998()\n\n\n\n1. PREMIER TRADERS\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. P.C.ABRAHAM\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.JOSEPH A.VADAKKEL\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID\n\n Dated :25\/02\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                       HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.\n                  -----------------------------------\n                       A.S.No.76 of 1998 - D\n                    ---------------------------------\n            Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      Defendants 1 to 4 in O.S.No.175 of 1994 on the file of the<\/p>\n
Sub Court, Pala are the appellants. Suit for realisation of money<\/p>\n
filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the court below. The decree<\/p>\n
is passed allowing the plaintiff to realise a sum of Rs.27,194.50\/-<\/p>\n
with future interest. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment,<\/p>\n
defendants had preferred this appeal. The parties are referred to<\/p>\n
hereinafter as plaintiff and the defendants as arrayed in the suit.<\/p>\n
      2.   The first defendant is Premier Traders, a partnership<\/p>\n
firm, dealing in the purchase and sale of raw rubber.            The<\/p>\n
defendants 2 to 4 are the partners.            The principal place of<\/p>\n
business of the first defendant firm is at Poovarani. They had a<\/p>\n
purchasing depot at Thodanal and the depot is managed by an<\/p>\n
employee. Fifth defendant is the said employee in charge of the<\/p>\n
depot at Thodanal.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   According to the plaintiff, he used to sell rubber sheets<\/p>\n
at the depot of the defendants at Thodanal.           On 30.5.1987,<\/p>\n
A.S.No.76 of 1998 – D<\/p>\n
                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
plaintiff sold 1412.700 kilograms of rubber sheets at Rs.19.25\/-<\/p>\n
per kilogram. Price of the sold rubber sheets is Rs.27,194.50\/-<\/p>\n
Practice in the depot is that the price of the rubber sheets<\/p>\n
purchased will be paid then and there or will be paid later. If<\/p>\n
paid later, the person in charge of the depot used to issue chits<\/p>\n
recording the details of the purchase and price payable.       On<\/p>\n
supply of 1412.700 koligrams of rubber sheets at the rate of<\/p>\n
Rs.19.25\/- per kilogram, the fifth defendant issued a chit stating<\/p>\n
the details and the sum payable.      In the plaint it is further<\/p>\n
pleaded that, since the payment got delayed for a few months,<\/p>\n
the fifth defendant issued cheque bearing SB.No.3801 dated<\/p>\n
19.8.1987 drawn on the Poovarani Service Co-operative Bank<\/p>\n
Ltd. in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.27,194.50\/-<\/p>\n
The cheque was signed by the second defendant. The above said<\/p>\n
cheque is produced by the plaintiff and marked as Ext.A2. The<\/p>\n
plaintiff’s case is that the understanding was that when the<\/p>\n
money is paid the cheque should be returned.           Since the<\/p>\n
defendants failed to make the amount payable, a registered<\/p>\n
notice was issued to the defendants 2 to 4. Defendants 1 to 4<\/p>\n
A.S.No.76 of 1998 – D<\/p>\n
                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
send a reply notice denying the transaction and alleged that the<\/p>\n
cheque might have been fraudulently issued by the fifth<\/p>\n
defendant on a cheque leaf lost and which was found out as lost<\/p>\n
on 1.1.1987.\n<\/p>\n
     4.     Defendants 1 to 4 contested the suit denying the<\/p>\n
material averments in the plaint. It is contended in the written<\/p>\n
statement that the present suit was filed by the plaintiff in<\/p>\n
collusion with the fifth defendant after creating false documents.<\/p>\n
It is admitted that they were running a purchasing depot at<\/p>\n
Thodanal, that the fifth defendant was their employee who was in<\/p>\n
charge of the depot and that the fifth defendant was purchasing<\/p>\n
rubber sheets from agriculturists for an on behalf of defendants 1<\/p>\n
to 4. The defendants also contended that the bill book and stock<\/p>\n
register maintained by the 1st defendant firm shows that there<\/p>\n
was no purchase of rubber sheets from the plaintiff.          The<\/p>\n
defendants denied the allegations in the plaint about the<\/p>\n
purchase of 1412.700 kilograms of rubber sheets and that a chit<\/p>\n
was given to the plaintiff for Rs.27,914.50\/-; that the 5th<\/p>\n
defendant was not authorised to purchase rubber sheets from<\/p>\n
persons without issuing bills; that no bill for the purchase of<\/p>\n
A.S.No.76 of 1998 – D<\/p>\n
                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
rubber from the plaintiff was issued to him nor the bill was sent<\/p>\n
by the 5th defendant to the main shop at Poovarani. It is also<\/p>\n
stated that the chit alleged to have been given to the plaintiff by<\/p>\n
the 5th defendant was created by the 5th defendant for the<\/p>\n
purpose of instituting the suit. In the written statement, it is<\/p>\n
further averred that on 25.9.1987, Thodanal depot was closed<\/p>\n
and service of the 5th defendant was terminated finding that he<\/p>\n
had committed serious irregularities in the account. It is also<\/p>\n
stated that on 1.1.1987, the 2nd defendant came to know that a<\/p>\n
signed blank cheque bearing No.3801 in the SB Account was<\/p>\n
stolen and the said fact was informed on the same day to the<\/p>\n
bank; that the 2nd defendant came to know only later that the 5th<\/p>\n
defendant had committed theft of the signed blank cheque leaf<\/p>\n
and that the 5th defendant is inimical to defendants 2 to 4 after<\/p>\n
he was dismissed from the service.\n<\/p>\n
     5.     The evidence in the case consists of the oral<\/p>\n
testimonies of PWs 1 to 5, DWs 1 & 2, Exts.A1 & A2, Exts.B1 &<\/p>\n
B2 including B1(a) to B1(c) and B2(a) and Exts.X1 to X3 were<\/p>\n
marked as third party exhibits.\n<\/p>\n
A.S.No.76 of 1998 – D<\/p>\n
                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
     6.     Evidence of PW1 is supported by the oral evidence of<\/p>\n
PWs 2 and 3. PW4 is none other than the 5th defendant. He had<\/p>\n
given evidence in support of the plaint claim.      Ext.A2 is the<\/p>\n
cheque bearing No.3801. According to PW4 he collected Ext.A2<\/p>\n
cheque from the head office and the same was given to the<\/p>\n
plaintiff for the value of the rubber sheets purchased.        He<\/p>\n
admitted that the date, name and amount were written by him in<\/p>\n
Ext.A2. Ext.A1 is the chit mentioned in the plaint alleged to have<\/p>\n
been issued by the 5th defendant (PW4) to the plaintiff. Relying<\/p>\n
on the evidence of PW4 court below held that 5th defendant gave<\/p>\n
Ext.A2 cheque to the plaintiff towards purchase price of the<\/p>\n
rubber sheets sold by the plaintiff at Thodanal depot.<\/p>\n
     7.     The court below examined the other contentions of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff and the contesting defendants.      According to PW1,<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 and A2 were given by PW4 for the sale of rubber sheets<\/p>\n
on 30.5.1987 at Thodanal depot by the 5th defendant.          The<\/p>\n
understanding was that when money is paid cheque should be<\/p>\n
returned. The allegation of the defendants 1 to 4 is that Ext.A2<\/p>\n
cheque is a lost cheque which was stolen by the 5th defendant<\/p>\n
and gave to PW1. The second defendant on behalf of defendants<\/p>\n
A.S.No.76 of 1998 – D<\/p>\n
                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
1 to 4 was examined as DW2. He maintained the stand that PW4<\/p>\n
was not authorised by defendants 1 to 4 to obtain rubber without<\/p>\n
bill and to give chits to anybody for the purchase of rubber, that<\/p>\n
whenever rubber is purchased at Thodanal deport purchase bills<\/p>\n
would be written, that corresponding entries will be made in the<\/p>\n
stock register kept at the Thodanal depot and the rubber<\/p>\n
purchased would thereafter sent to the main depot, that on<\/p>\n
30.5.1987 no rubber was purchased from any body is evident<\/p>\n
from Exts.B1, B1(a) to B1(c) and B2. DW2 also testified before<\/p>\n
the court that Ext.A2 cheque which was stolen by the 5th<\/p>\n
defendant and was given to PW1 on account of the animosity of<\/p>\n
the 5th defendant towards defendants 2 to 4 due to the<\/p>\n
termination of his service from the Thodanal depot. According to<\/p>\n
him Ext.A1 chit is created as a result of the collusion between<\/p>\n
the plaintiff and the 5th defendant and Ext.A2 cheque is a stolen<\/p>\n
cheque which was also used for the purpose of raising illegal<\/p>\n
claim. Defendants 1 to 4 contended that they are not liable to<\/p>\n
pay the plaint claim.\n<\/p>\n
      8.    Ext.A1 is the chit showing the name of the purchaser,<\/p>\n
weight and rate of the rubber per kilogram and the price payable<\/p>\n
A.S.No.76 of 1998 – D<\/p>\n
                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
to the plaintiff. The said chit was admittedly issued by PW4. The<\/p>\n
trial court placed reliance on Ext.A1 chit stating that it was signed<\/p>\n
by PW4, who is admittedly the agent of defendants 1 to 4. The<\/p>\n
court below also placed reliance on Ext.A2 cheque admittedly<\/p>\n
given to PW1 by PW4 putting the date 19.8.1987.            The court<\/p>\n
below also relied on the evidence of PWs 2 and 3. PW2 is the<\/p>\n
person who is running a ration shop next to the room wherein the<\/p>\n
Thodanal depot was functioning. He gave evidence to the effect<\/p>\n
that he was also a supplier of rubber at the Thodanal depot and<\/p>\n
on several occasions the 5th defendant gave him chits showing<\/p>\n
the amount, rate, weight etc. PW3 is another witness who is a<\/p>\n
resident of the locality testified before the court that he used to<\/p>\n
sell rubber sheets at the Thodanal depot managed by PW4. The<\/p>\n
court below relied on the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 in support of<\/p>\n
the oral evidence tendered by PW1. The dismissed employee of<\/p>\n
the 1st defendant firm, who is the 5th defendant in the suit was<\/p>\n
examined as PW4. He testified before the court in terms of the<\/p>\n
plaint allegations. The trial court accepted the evidence of PW4<\/p>\n
also and opined that his evidence cannot be discarded on account<\/p>\n
of the wild allegations pointed out by defendants 1 to 4. The trial<\/p>\n
A.S.No.76 of 1998 – D<\/p>\n
                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
court observed that PW4 has admitted issuance of Exts.A1 and<\/p>\n
A2 to PW1 for the sale of rubber sheets at Thodanal depot of the<\/p>\n
1st defendant. The trial court believed the evidence of PW4 to the<\/p>\n
effect that Ext.A2 cheque was given as per the directions of the<\/p>\n
second defendant.\n<\/p>\n
      9.    The court below relied on the evidence of PWs 1 to 4<\/p>\n
and held that in the light of the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 4 the<\/p>\n
case put forward by DW2 is false. Ext.X3 intimation was not<\/p>\n
acted upon by the court stating some technical reasons.           The<\/p>\n
case of the defendants 1 to 4 that Ext.A2 stolen cheque was<\/p>\n
handed over to the plaintiff showing the value of the rubber<\/p>\n
sheets is disbelieved. The trial court also observed that PW1 is a<\/p>\n
retired professor of a College and opined that even according to<\/p>\n
DW2 the professor has no animosity towards defendants 1 to 4 to<\/p>\n
make a false plaint claim. For the above said reasons the court<\/p>\n
below disbelieved the case set up by the defendants 1 to 4 that<\/p>\n
the 5th defendant committed theft of a blank cheque signed by<\/p>\n
the 2nd defendant and gave the same to PW1 and held that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is entitled to realise the plaint claim with future interest<\/p>\n
from defendants 2 to 4 personally, jointly and severally and from<\/p>\n
A.S.No.76 of 1998 – D<\/p>\n
                                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
the assets of the first defendant.\n<\/p>\n
     10. I have examined the oral and documentary evidence<\/p>\n
adduced by the respective parties. I have perused Ext.A1 chit,<\/p>\n
A2 cheque, X3 letter, additional documents and notice issued by<\/p>\n
the plaintiff dated 19.10.1989.      Notice dated 19.10.1989 was<\/p>\n
produced by the appellants\/defendants as additional documents<\/p>\n
with a petition to receive it in evidence. There is reference to the<\/p>\n
said notice in the pleadings and therefore the said document was<\/p>\n
received in evidence and marked as Ext.X3.             I have also<\/p>\n
examined in detail the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 5, DWs 1 and 2.<\/p>\n
At the outset I may say that, I cannot agree with the findings<\/p>\n
recorded by the court below based on the materials on record.<\/p>\n
On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence I am of the<\/p>\n
view that the reasons stated and the findings arrived by the court<\/p>\n
below cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
     11. PW1 spoke in terms of the plaint. The court below<\/p>\n
relied on the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 as corroborative evidence.<\/p>\n
PWs 2 and 3 examined to prove the fact that the chit would be<\/p>\n
given by the 5th defendant when rubber sheets are sold to the<\/p>\n
depot of the first defendant at Thodanal. PWs 2 and 3 are not<\/p>\n
A.S.No.76 of 1998 – D<\/p>\n
                                 10<\/span><\/p>\n
witnesses to the transaction.    They tendered evidence stating<\/p>\n
that they have also sold rubber sheets to the first defendant in<\/p>\n
their depot at Thodalnal. PWs 2 and 3 are residing in the locality<\/p>\n
wherein the depot is situated. Their evidence would show that<\/p>\n
they used to sell rubber sheets in the depot at Thodanal. They<\/p>\n
are not eye witnesses to the transaction alleged by the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
Even with the aid of oral evidence of PWs 2 and 3 it can be<\/p>\n
concluded that the depot at Thodanal was transacting business in<\/p>\n
the purchase of rubber and that some of the residence of the<\/p>\n
locality are selling their rubber sheets in the 1st defendant’s<\/p>\n
depot. PWs 2 and 3 are two among a number of customers of<\/p>\n
the Thodanal depot. They have only tendered evidence that the<\/p>\n
depot is transacting business in rubber and that several persons<\/p>\n
are selling their rubber goods to the depot at Thodanal. So long<\/p>\n
as they have no case that they have witnessed the transaction<\/p>\n
between the first defendant firm through 5th defendant (PW4) and<\/p>\n
the plaintiff, their evidence cannot be taken as corroborative<\/p>\n
piece of evidence in support of the case set up by the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
      12. PW4 was examined by the plaintiff who is none other<\/p>\n
than the 5th defendant. PW4 is the employee in charge of the<\/p>\n
A.S.No.76 of 1998 – D<\/p>\n
                                 11<\/span><\/p>\n
first defendant’s depot at Thodanal.     The case set up by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff has to be appreciated in the light of the contentions<\/p>\n
raised by the contesting defendants that Ext.A1 chit alleged to<\/p>\n
have been given to the plaintiff by the 5th defendant was created<\/p>\n
by the 5th defendant for the purpose of the suit. It has also come<\/p>\n
out in evidence that the depot at Thodanal was closed on<\/p>\n
25.9.1987 and the service of the 5th defendant was terminated<\/p>\n
on charges of misappropriation, irregularity in the account and<\/p>\n
that the 5th defendant is inimical towards defendants 2 to 4 after<\/p>\n
he was dismissed from service.\n<\/p>\n
      13. The transaction alleged in the plaint was             on<\/p>\n
30.5.1987.      The first defendant firm closed the depot on<\/p>\n
25.9.1987 consequent to the dismissal of the 5th defendant on<\/p>\n
charges of serious irregularities in the account. The contesting<\/p>\n
defendants contended that the suit was filed experimentally with<\/p>\n
the connivance of the 5th defendant and it is a collusive suit. 5th<\/p>\n
defendant was examined by the plaintiff as one of his witnesses.<\/p>\n
5th defendant who was formerly an employee of the first<\/p>\n
defendant firm adduced evidence in terms of the allegations in<\/p>\n
the plaint.    He testified before the court that he had issued<\/p>\n
A.S.No.76 of 1998 – D<\/p>\n
                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.A1 chit on the date of alleged sale of rubber, i.e., on<\/p>\n
30.5.1987 and also issued Ext.A2 cheque bearing No.3801 of<\/p>\n
Poovarani Service Co-operative Bank on 19.8.1987. He deposed<\/p>\n
that the quantity of rubber purchased from the plaintiff was not<\/p>\n
accounted, that the cheque was issued as a post dated cheque,<\/p>\n
that the cheque was issued three weeks prior to the date<\/p>\n
mentioned in the cheque and that the stock register and transfer<\/p>\n
bill are not maintained properly and regularly. He admitted that<\/p>\n
Ext.A2 cheque is a personal cheque of the second defendant. In<\/p>\n
this connection it is very relevant to examine the contentions of<\/p>\n
the contesting defendants, that on 1.1.1987 the blank signed<\/p>\n
cheque leaf bearing No.3801 in the SB account of the second<\/p>\n
defendant was missing and the said fact was informed on the<\/p>\n
same date to the bank by the second defendant. Ext.X3 is a<\/p>\n
letter dated 1.1.1987 issued by the second defendant addressed<\/p>\n
to the Secretary, Poovarani Service Co-operative Bank intimating<\/p>\n
the bank that a blank signed cheque leaf bearing No.3801 was<\/p>\n
missing and requested the bank not to honour the cheque.<\/p>\n
Ext.X3 was produced on summons by the Poovarani Service Co-<\/p>\n
operative Bank and marked as third party exhibit.         Ext.X3<\/p>\n
A.S.No.76 of 1998 – D<\/p>\n
                                 13<\/span><\/p>\n
document cannot be sidelined for any reasons.       Ext.X3 shows<\/p>\n
that cheque No.3801, a blank signed cheque was lost as on<\/p>\n
1.1.1987. It is admitted by PW4 that the date written in Ext.A2<\/p>\n
cheque is 19.8.1987. The 5th defendant as PW4 also admitted<\/p>\n
that the said cheque was issued three weeks prior to 19.8.1987.<\/p>\n
If he is to be believed he handed over the cheque during the last<\/p>\n
week of July, 1987 or in the first week of August 1987 putting the<\/p>\n
date 19.8.1987 and handed over the same to the plaintiff. The<\/p>\n
evidence and circumstances shows that there is every chance of<\/p>\n
Ext.A2 cheque leaf stolen by PW4, kept in his custody and was<\/p>\n
handed over to the plaintiff for realising the plaint claim. It is<\/p>\n
also important to note that though Ext.A2 cheque dated<\/p>\n
19.8.1987 was issued to the plaintiff, he has no case that Ext.A2<\/p>\n
cheque was presented at any point of time, instead the plaintiff<\/p>\n
as PW1 testified before the court that he used to enquire as to<\/p>\n
whether funds are available in the account of the second<\/p>\n
defendant. If such enquiries are made as testified by him without<\/p>\n
presenting the cheque the said conduct also shows his deceived<\/p>\n
intention to collect the amount as and when there is funds in the<\/p>\n
account of the second defendant. The very fact that the cheque<\/p>\n
A.S.No.76 of 1998 – D<\/p>\n
                                14<\/span><\/p>\n
was never presented before the bank till the filing of the suit in<\/p>\n
1994, is also a very important circumstance which would go to<\/p>\n
show that Ext.A2 cheque might have been stolen by the 5th<\/p>\n
defendant and handed over to the plaintiff in their attempt to<\/p>\n
encash the plaint claim. The said circumstance also go to show<\/p>\n
that the plaintiff and the 5th defendant colluded and they were<\/p>\n
trying to encash the amount from the bank.\n<\/p>\n
     14. The appellants produced the reply notice send by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff through his lawyer.   I have already marked the said<\/p>\n
document as Ext.B3. In Ext.B3 it is stated that on 19.8.1987 the<\/p>\n
cheque bearing No.3801 dated 19.8.1987 drawn on the<\/p>\n
Poovarani Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. was given to the<\/p>\n
plaintiff signed by the second defendant. The plaintiff’s case is<\/p>\n
that the cheque was handed over on 19.8.1987. At the same<\/p>\n
time PW4 testified before the court that the cheque was issued<\/p>\n
three weeks prior to 19.8.1987.     It is also revealed from the<\/p>\n
above said lawyer notice that the cheque was never presented for<\/p>\n
encashment and it is further stated in the notice that previous<\/p>\n
information has been given by the second defendant to the bank<\/p>\n
stating that the particular cheque was lost. Going by his own<\/p>\n
A.S.No.76 of 1998 – D<\/p>\n
                                  15<\/span><\/p>\n
notice marked as Ext.B3, the plaintiff had prior knowledge about<\/p>\n
the fact of information given by the second defendant to the bank<\/p>\n
that in no circumstance the missing cheque shall be honoured.<\/p>\n
In spite of the said information gathered by the plaintiff from the<\/p>\n
bank, he never chose to file a suit even within a reasonable time.<\/p>\n
The suit was filed on 29.5.1990, i.e., after a period of seven and<\/p>\n
odd months. The suit was filed on the last day of expiry of the<\/p>\n
period of limitation, even after knowing that the cheque will not<\/p>\n
be honoured.      The fact that he did not file the suit within a<\/p>\n
reasonable time nor any action is initiated against the second<\/p>\n
defendant under the Negotiable Instruments Act<\/a>, and further<\/p>\n
failed to file a suit for recovery of amount within a reasonable<\/p>\n
time from the date of supply of rubber, are all circumstances<\/p>\n
which would go to show that the plaintiff and PW4 colluded<\/p>\n
together and conspired to realise the cheque amount by resorting<\/p>\n
to deceptive practice.     It is rather surprising to note that the<\/p>\n
cheque dated 19.8.1987 was never presented and the said<\/p>\n
conduct of the plaintiff is strange and not appealing to reason.<\/p>\n
      15. PW1 deposed before the court that PW4’s father was<\/p>\n
an employee of the plaintiff and admitted that the cheque issued<\/p>\n
A.S.No.76 of 1998 – D<\/p>\n
                               16<\/span><\/p>\n
is a post dated cheque.     X3 letter dated 1.1.1987 send to<\/p>\n
Secreatry, Poovarani Service Co-operative Bank by the second<\/p>\n
defendant was proved by examining the Secretary of the bank.<\/p>\n
DW2 is the second defendant. He denied the sale of rubber to<\/p>\n
the Thodanal depot by the plaintiff.      He testified that the<\/p>\n
handwriting in Ext.B1 chit is that of the 5th defendant, that if<\/p>\n
rubber was purchased on 13.5.1987 there could be entry in the<\/p>\n
bill book. The carbon copies of page numbers 5, 6 & 7 of bill<\/p>\n
book was produced and marked as Exts.B1(a), (b) and (c)<\/p>\n
respectively and Ext.B2 is the stock register of raw rubber.<\/p>\n
Ext.B1 bill book and Ext.B2 stock register produced in the case<\/p>\n
shows that no quantity of rubber was purchased from the plaintiff<\/p>\n
on 30.51987. Ext.B2 register further shows that 97.2 kilograms<\/p>\n
of rubber was purchased from a customer on 27.5.1987, and the<\/p>\n
subsequent purchase was on 1.6.19687.       Bill No.39 relates to<\/p>\n
the purchase on 27.5.1987 and bill nos, 30 and 31 relates to the<\/p>\n
purchase on 1.6.1987.      He testified that if the rubber was<\/p>\n
purchased on 30.5.1987 as alleged by the plaintiff    necessary<\/p>\n
entries would have been made in Ext.B2. DW2 also deposed that<\/p>\n
he never permitted, at any time, to purchase rubber without<\/p>\n
A.S.No.76 of 1998 – D<\/p>\n
                                  17<\/span><\/p>\n
issuing the bill and further he never instructed the 5th defendant<\/p>\n
to collect rubber by issuing chit. DW2 also deposed before the<\/p>\n
court that Ext.A1 chit is a fabricated document created as a result<\/p>\n
of the conspiracy between the plaintiff and the 5th defendant. He<\/p>\n
also stated that the 5th defendant was dismissed from service on<\/p>\n
25.9.1987 for misappropriation of funds and for cheating the<\/p>\n
customers of the firm. Therefore the contention of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
that the 5th defendant had issued cheque bearing No.3801 signed<\/p>\n
by the second defendant to the plaintiff towards purchase price of<\/p>\n
the rubber sheets sold by the plaintiff at the Thodanal depot of<\/p>\n
the first defendant is not proved. The facts and circumstances<\/p>\n
and evidence adduced by the parties was wrongly appreciated<\/p>\n
and the findings are entered overlooking the materials on record.<\/p>\n
The facts and evidence proved shows that there was no<\/p>\n
transaction at all between the parties and further revealed that<\/p>\n
the 5th defendant had committed theft of the blank cheque signed<\/p>\n
by the second defendant and gave the same to PW1 and also<\/p>\n
issued Ext.A1 chit deceitfully. The findings of the court below to<\/p>\n
the contrary cannot be sustained.        The plaintiff is a retired<\/p>\n
professor of St.Thomas College, Pala.          The criminal act<\/p>\n
A.S.No.76 of 1998 – D<\/p>\n
                                 18<\/span><\/p>\n
committed by a professor with the connivance of the 5th<\/p>\n
defendant lead to the filing of the suit and the defendants 1 to 4<\/p>\n
are unnecessarily dragged to prolonged litigation.<\/p>\n
     In the result, the appeal is allowed.       The decree and<\/p>\n
judgment passed by the court below are set aside and the suit<\/p>\n
stands dismissed. The appeal is allowed with cost throughout.<\/p>\n
                                              HARUN-UL-RASHID,
\n                                                    JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
bkn\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Premier Traders vs P.C.Abraham on 25 February, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 76 of 1998() 1. PREMIER TRADERS … Petitioner Vs 1. P.C.ABRAHAM … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI For Respondent :SRI.JOSEPH A.VADAKKEL The Hon’ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID Dated :25\/02\/2010 O R D E R HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-256237","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPremier Traders vs P.C.Abraham on 25 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-traders-vs-p-c-abraham-on-25-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Premier Traders vs P.C.Abraham on 25 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-traders-vs-p-c-abraham-on-25-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-23T11:54:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-traders-vs-p-c-abraham-on-25-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-traders-vs-p-c-abraham-on-25-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Premier Traders vs P.C.Abraham on 25 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-23T11:54:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-traders-vs-p-c-abraham-on-25-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3735,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-traders-vs-p-c-abraham-on-25-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-traders-vs-p-c-abraham-on-25-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-traders-vs-p-c-abraham-on-25-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Premier Traders vs P.C.Abraham on 25 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-23T11:54:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-traders-vs-p-c-abraham-on-25-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-traders-vs-p-c-abraham-on-25-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-traders-vs-p-c-abraham-on-25-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Premier Traders vs P.C.Abraham on 25 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Premier Traders vs P.C.Abraham on 25 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-traders-vs-p-c-abraham-on-25-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Premier Traders vs P.C.Abraham on 25 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-traders-vs-p-c-abraham-on-25-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-23T11:54:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-traders-vs-p-c-abraham-on-25-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-traders-vs-p-c-abraham-on-25-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Premier Traders vs P.C.Abraham on 25 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-23T11:54:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-traders-vs-p-c-abraham-on-25-february-2010"},"wordCount":3735,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-traders-vs-p-c-abraham-on-25-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-traders-vs-p-c-abraham-on-25-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-traders-vs-p-c-abraham-on-25-february-2010","name":"Premier Traders vs P.C.Abraham on 25 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-23T11:54:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-traders-vs-p-c-abraham-on-25-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-traders-vs-p-c-abraham-on-25-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-traders-vs-p-c-abraham-on-25-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Premier Traders vs P.C.Abraham on 25 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256237","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=256237"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256237\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=256237"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=256237"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=256237"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}