The appellant, a company engaged in selling fancy lights, sought to recover ?3,08,343 from the respondent, who allegedly failed to settle payments for goods supplied since December 2013. The appellant contended that the respondent, based in Ernakulam, Kerala, had been purchasing goods through oral orders and that payment was made via cheques in Delhi. After multiple reminders and a formal demand notice, the appellant initiated legal proceedings in Delhi.

The respondent contested the claim, denying any business transactions with the appellant and asserting that all dealings occurred with a sister concern, Jainsons Electronics, in Kerala. He further claimed that the invoices presented were fraudulent and lacked his acknowledgment.

The trial court framed several key issues, focusing on jurisdiction, the authority of the plaint signatory, the applicability of the Partnership Act, the existence of a cause of action, and the appellant’s entitlement to the claimed amount. During the trial, the appellant relied solely on the testimony of one witness, who faced rigorous cross-examination. The witness failed to produce concrete evidence, such as signed documents or records of orders placed in Delhi.

Ultimately, the trial court dismissed the appellant's suit, upholding the respondent’s objections regarding jurisdiction and the lack of evidence.

In the appeal, the appellant’s counsel argued that the trial court overlooked vital evidence, including a ledger account and various invoices, asserting these documents demonstrated the respondent’s liability. Additionally, the counsel cited a courier receipt intended to prove the delivery of goods from Delhi to the respondent.

Conversely, the respondent's counsel maintained that the appeal lacked merit, emphasizing the appellant's failure to establish any business transaction and the lack of evidence to support their claims.

The appeal court noted the intertwined nature of the issues surrounding jurisdiction and the existence of a cause of action. It underscored that the appellant bore the burden of proving that the parties engaged in legitimate business transactions, particularly since the respondent denied any dealings.

The court examined the evidence presented by the appellant, concluding that the bills and invoices lacked the respondent's acknowledgment, making them insufficient to prove the claim. The courier receipt, which the appellant claimed indicated delivery, failed to provide clear evidence of the transaction or complete address details, further weakening the appellant's case.

Moreover, the court referenced relevant legal precedents, clarifying that the burden of proof lies with the party asserting the existence of facts. In this case, the appellant's inability to substantiate their claims meant that the respondent was not required to present counter-evidence.

The appeal court ultimately upheld the trial court's decision, affirming that the appellant did not provide adequate evidence to establish jurisdiction or the existence of a business relationship. This case illustrates the critical importance of clear documentation and evidence in commercial disputes, particularly regarding jurisdictional claims and the burden of proof. The judgment serves as a reminder for parties involved in similar disputes to meticulously prepare their evidence and understand the implications of jurisdictional issues in their legal strategy.