Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a commercial money recovery suit filed by Jinendra Infocom, a proprietary concern through its proprietor Manju Kanwar, against Bhairva Communication, through authorized representative Gopal Bhati. The Commercial Court No.2 Jodhpur, in Civil Suit No.3/2022, decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff and awarded Rs.12,51,880. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated October 24, 2024, the defendant preferred D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.419/2025 under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 before the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. The appeal was heard by a Division Bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Mr. Justice Praveer Bhatnagar, and judgment was pronounced on August 17, 2026. The appellant/defendant challenged the decree on several grounds. It argued that the trial court relied on GST returns that were neither exhibited nor proved, and that Rules 28 and 29 of the General Rules (Civil and Criminal) 2018 were not followed, with no opportunity to cross-examine the documents. Further, the appellant contended that the respondent/plaintiff failed to prove that ledgers Exs.3 and 4 were maintained regularly in the course of business, and no supporting bills or other records were produced. The appellant also invoked the settled legal principle that entries in books of account alone cannot automatically establish liability and serve only as corroborative evidence, not substantive evidence. The respondent/plaintiff defended the decree, contending that during cross-examination the appellant admitted purchasing goods but claimed cash payment, yet failed to produce receipts or proof of such payments. Both parties relied on GST returns submitted pursuant to court directions, and the trial court relied on those documents to confirm transactions. The appellant did not challenge the authenticity of the GST returns and failed to rebut oral and written evidence, including ledger books Exs.3 and 4. The High Court examined the record and found that during cross-examination the appellant admitted purchasing goods but could not produce receipts or proof of cash payment. PW1, the plaintiff-respondent, testified and submitted ledger books Exs.3 and 4, which clearly showed transactions between the parties. The appellant did not counter these documents, and the ledger entries were corroborated by uncontested GST returns. The court reiterated the evidentiary principle that in civil cases a party's admission is substantive evidence and primary evidence against the maker, requiring no further proof. It also noted that entries in books of account are not substantive by themselves but can be corroborated by other evidence. The court held that the appeal and stay application were sans merit and dismissed the appeal. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly. The decree dated October 24, 2024, awarding Rs.12,51,880 in favor of the plaintiff, was upheld.
Headnote
A) Commercial Courts - Appeal Under Section 13 - Dismissal of Appeal - Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Section 13 - The High Court considered an appeal against a Commercial Court decree for Rs.12,51,880 and held that the appeal and stay application lacked merit; the trial court's reliance on ledger entries and GST returns was supported by the appellant's admission and failure to rebut evidence - Held that the appeal deserved dismissal and all pending applications stood disposed of (Paras 1, 8-9). B) Evidence - Documentary Proof and Corroboration - Ledger Entries and GST Returns as Evidence; Rules 28-29 Not Followed - General Rules (Civil and Criminal), 2018, Rules 28-29 - Appellant argued that GST returns were neither exhibited nor proved, Rules 28-29 were not followed, and ledger entries alone could not establish liability; however, PW1 submitted ledger books Exs.3-4 showing transactions, which the appellant did not counter, and GST returns were uncontested; the court held that entries in books of account are corroborative and not substantive evidence, but here they were corroborated by GST returns and admission of purchase, thereby establishing liability - Held that the decree was not liable to be set aside (Paras 2-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commercial Court erred in decreeing the suit based on GST returns that were neither exhibited nor proved and without cross-examination; whether ledger entries alone could establish liability; whether the appellant's admission of purchase and failure to prove cash payment justified the decree.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The stay application was dismissed. All pending applications stood disposed of. The decree and judgment dated 24-10-2024 were upheld.
Law Points
- Admission by party in civil proceedings is substantive evidence and primary evidence against the maker
- entries in books of account are corroborative evidence and require independent proof
- uncontested GST returns and ledger entries can establish liability
- appeal under Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act
- 2015 dismissed
