0

SUPREME COURT QUASHED THE JUDGEMENT OF HIGH COURT AND AWARDED THE EXTENSION OF TIME IN FILING THE WRITTEN STATEMENT.

Blog, CIvil Appeal, Indian law, Supreme court , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CASE NAME: ADITYA KHAITAN & ORS. VERSUS IL AND FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

CASE NUMBER: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6411-6418 OF 2023

DATED ON: OCTOBER 03, 2023

QUORUM: HON’BLE JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI & JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN

INTRODUCTION:

The appeals challenge the High Court’s decision to dismiss applications for taking on record their written statements in a civil suit. The court ruled that the 30-day period for filing written statements had expired on 08.03.2020. The court also ruled in Sagufa Ahmed and Others Vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Private Limited and Others (2021) 2 SCC 317, since the orders of this that the order dated 23.03.2020, effective from 15.03.2020, would not benefit the applicants/defendants since the limitation period had expired. The court also ruled that the court’s orders under Article 142 of the Constitution of India only extended the period of limitation, not the period up to which delay can be condoned.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The plaintiff, IL and FS Financial Services Limited, filed a suit for recovery of money and consequential reliefs in C.S. No. 177 of 2019 against nine defendants. The 30-day period for filing written statements expired on 08.03.2020 and the condonable period of 90 days expired on 06.06.2020.

The appellants filed applications for the defendants on 20.01.2021, requesting an extension of the time for the defendants’ written statements. The reasons for this were the declaration of COVID-19 as a pandemic, the Government of India’s advisories, the Disaster Management Act, the lockdown imposed by the Government of West Bengal, and the closure of the answering applicant’s office.

The affidavits relied on the court’s order dated 23.03.2020 and 10.07.2020, which extended the period of limitation until further orders. The plaintiffs opposed these applications, arguing that the orders would not help since the limitation period had expired before 15.03.2020. The plaintiff relied on the judgment of 18.09.2020 in Sagufa Ahmed to support its contention. The High Court accepted the plaintiff’s stand but did not take the written statements on record.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Article-142: Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and unless as to discovery, etc.-

(1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.”

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

ORDER 5 RULE 1(1): Summons.— When a suit has been duly instituted, a summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim and to file the written statement of his defence, if any, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on that defendant. Provided that no such summons shall be issued when a defendant has appeared at the presentation of plaint and admitted the plaintiff’s claim

Order 8 Rule 1:Written statement.- The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence:

Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.”

ORDER 8 RULE 10: Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court.—Where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up.

COMMERCIAL COURT ACT:

Section – 16: Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in its application to commercial disputes-

(1) The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall, in their application to any suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value, stand amended in the manner as specified in the Schedule.

(2) The Commercial Division and Commercial Court shall follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, in the trial of a suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value.

(3) Where any provision of any Rule of the jurisdictional High Court or any amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), by the State Government is in conflict with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by this Act shall prevail.

ISSUES RAISED:

  • Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the application for extension of time dated 20.01.2021 and in not taking the written statements on record.
  • Whether the appellants are allowed to file the written statement after the expiration the limited time period in the special circumstances or not.

CONTENTION OF APPELLANT:

Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Senior Counsel for the appellants, used the judgment in Prakash Corporates vs. Dee Vee Projects Limited, (2022) 5 SCC 112, to argue that extraordinary measures are crucial in extraordinary circumstances. The court noted that orders of 23.03.2020, 06.05.2020, and 10.07.2020 were addressed in the same In re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation. The court distinguished Sagufa Ahmed’s case (supra) in paras 28.1, 28.2 and 33.4 of Prakash Corporates (supra), stating that the period envisaged in the order dated 23.09.2021 should be excluded from computing the period of limitation even for filing the written statement. The court ruled that the decision in Sagufa Ahmed is irrelevant to the present case, as the extended period expired on 06.06.2020.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT:

Mr. Sahil Tagotra, learned Counsel for the Respondent reiterated the findings of the High Court and submitted that the applicants have forfeited their right to file the written statements and the hon’ble High Court justified in rejecting the application for extension of time dated 20.01.2021 and not taking the written statements on record.

COURT’S ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court has extended the deadlines for statutes of limitations in cases related to the pandemic. The court took suo motu cognizance and issued orders under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, protecting parties’ rights and ensuring their remedies and defenses were not barred. The orders of 23.03.2020 and 08.03.2021 were issued in a case involving Sagufa Ahmed (supra), which extended the limitation prescribed under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 until further orders. The court also extended the period between 15.03.2020 and the lifting of lockdown in the jurisdictional area.

The Supreme Court of India has issued directions to address the challenges faced by litigants during the COVID-19 pandemic. The order dated 08.03.2021 extended the period of limitation prescribed under general law or special laws, with effect from 15.03.2020 until further orders. The court believes that the order dated 15.03.2020 has served its purpose and should come to an end.

The court has also excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021, allowing the balance period of limitation remaining as of 15.03.2020 to become available with effect from 15.03.2021. The period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 will also be excluded from computing periods prescribed under various laws. The government is also required to amend guidelines for containment zones, allowing for medical emergencies, essential goods and services, time-bound applications, and educational and job-related requirements.

The Court has directed that the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 will be excluded from computing the period prescribed under various laws, including the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This decision has a significant impact on the current controversy, as it excludes the period for computing outer limits within which the court or tribunal can condone delay.

The Court in Prakash Corporates (supra) also noted that the order of 08.03.2021 and subsequent orders by a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges were not available for the Bench which decided Sagufa Ahmed’s case. The outer limit within which the court or tribunal can condone delay is 120 days from the date of summons.

JUDGEMENT:

As has been set out hereinabove, summons was served on 07.02.2020, but the 30 days period expired on 08.03.2020 and the outer limit of 120 days expired on 06.06.2020. The applicants filed for written statements and extension of time on 20.01.2021, and the High Court’s judgment needs to be set aside. The principle underlying the court’s orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021, and 23.09.2021, in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation would benefit the applicants-defendants.

The Appeals are allowed, and the written statements filed on 20.01.2021, are directed to be taken on record. The suit will proceed with the appeals, and the appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Click here to view the full judgement: ADITYA KHAITAN & ORS. VERSUS IL AND FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY: ABHISHEK SINGH

0

Moratorium Defense Fails Again: Supreme Court Case Highlights Dispute Over Order XXXVII Memo.

Blog , , , ,

CASE TITLE – Anish M. Rawther @ Anees Mohammed Rawther v. Hafeez Ur Rahman & Ors.

CASE NUMBER – Civil Appeal No. 4120 of 2024

DATED ON – 14.06.2024

QUORUM – Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant challenging the Order passed by the High Court of Karnataka on 21st March, 2022 in Writ Petition No. 10975 of 2020 (GM-CPC) whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Order dated 07th March 2020 passed by the Trial Court in Com. OS No. 1026 of 2018 and further directed the Trial Court to accept the memo dated 14th November 2019 which was submitted by the respondents/plaintiffs. The respondents/plaintiffs preferred a suit under Order XXXVII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth ‘CPC’) against the appellants/defendants for recovery of Rs. 1,04,16,576/- with interest. The appellants/defendants entered appearance and filed application seeking leave to defend which was allowed by the Trial Court on 19th June 2019 with a direction to the appellants/defendants to deposit 50% of the suit claim. The said order was challenged before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 28349 of 2019 which was dismissed on 08th August 2019 against which an SLP (C) No. 20626 of 2019 was preferred by the appellants/defendants which came to be dismissed on 06th September 2019. The appellants/defendants had argued that in view of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (henceforth ‘IBC’), the moratorium has become operational, therefore, the suit cannot proceed. This argument was not accepted by the High Court and under the impugned order, the Trial Court was directed to accept the memo and pass appropriate orders.

 

ISSUE

Whether the Trial Court should accept the memo filed by the plaintiffs (respondents) under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), deals with suits filed under the Summary Procedure. It allows plaintiffs to obtain a decree quickly if they have a strong case and the defendant has no real defense.
  2. Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), with the moratorium period that applies when a company is undergoing insolvency resolution.

 

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that they had also passed an order on 01st December, 2023 staying the impugned order, however, much prior to the interim order of the same Court, the suit itself was decided finally by passing a decree on 20th April, 2023. It was not brought to the Court’s notice that the said decree had been challenged any further by the defendants. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that for the present, the suit is not pending, and therefore, the present appeal which arises out of an interim order passed by the Trial Court during pendency of the suit, has now been rendered infructuous. The Civil Appeal was then accordingly, dismissed as infructuous.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

Click here to view full Judgement

0

Wrong Turn on the Legal Road? Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Order in Ex Parte Case.

Blog , , , , ,

CASE TITLE – The Koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society v. Ameena Begum & Anr.

CASE NUMBER – 2023 INSC 1065 (Neutral Citation)

DATED ON – 01.12.2023

QUORUM – Justice B.V. Nagarathna & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the said suit, the respondent(s) herein were set ex-parte. Thereafter, an ex-parte decree was passed on 15.02.1999. It is stated that execution proceedings as against the ex-parte decree are still pending before the Executing Court. However, the first respondent herein filed an application on 07.01.2016 seeking setting aside of ex-parte decree dated 15.02.1999 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of 5767 days delay in filing the said application seeking setting aside of ex-parte decree. By order dated 07.06.2018, the V-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dismissed I.A. No.30/2016 filed for seeking condonation of delay of 5767 days in filing the application seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree under Oder IX Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for the sake of convenience). The said application was considered by the Trial Court and by order dated 07.06.2018, the application seeking condonation of delay was dismissed. Consequently, the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree also stood dismissed. Being aggrieved, the first respondent herein filed a Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the CPC before the High Court contending that Trial Court was not right in dismissing the application seeking condonation of delay of 5767 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 15.02.1999. By the impugned order dated 08.01.2021, the High Court has set aside Order dated 07.06.2018 passed in I.A. No.30/2016 in O.S. No.1144/1988, which also implies that the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC which had also stood dismissed has been allowed. In the Civil Revision Petition, the High Court condoned the delay of 5767 days in filing the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 15.02.1999 by directing the Trial Court to dispose of the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and to complete the trial of the suit expeditiously. Being aggrieved by the said order passed in Civil Revision Petition by the High Court, the plaintiff/appellant has preferred this appeal.

 

ISSUE

Whether a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC is the appropriate remedy to challenge the dismissal of an application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking to set aside an ex-parte decree.

 

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that the filing of an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC as well as the filing of appeal under Section 96(2) of the CPC against the ex-parte decree are concurrent remedies available to a defendant. However, once the appeal preferred by the defendant against the ex-parte decree is dismissed, except when it is withdrawn, the remedy under Order IX Rule 13 CPC cannot be pursued. Conversely, if an application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is rejected, an appeal as against the ex-parte decree can be preferred and continued under Section 96(2) of the CPC. Thus, an appeal against an ex-parte decree even after the dismissal of an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is maintainable. They further stated that the rejection of a petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is an appealable order and, therefore under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) CPC, an appeal ought to have been filed before the High Court rather than a Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the CPC. The hon’ble Supreme Court held that when an application or petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is dismissed, the defendant can avail a remedy by preferring an appeal in terms of Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC. Thus, Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the CPC would not arise when an application/petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is dismissed. Thus, when an alternative and effective appellate remedy is available to a defendant, against an ex-parte decree, it would not be appropriate for the defendant to resort to filing of revision under Section 115 of the CPC challenging the order refusing to set aside the order of setting the defendant ex-parte. In view of the appellate remedy under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) CPC being available, revision under Section 115 of the CPC filed in the instant case was not maintainable. The Court stated that In the circumstances, they have chosen to set aside the impugned order on the ground that the said order was passed in a Civil Revision Petition which was not at all maintainable under Section 115 of the CPC. However, liberty is reserved to the first respondent herein to file an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) CPC, if so advised, on or before 31.12.2023, and If such an appeal is filed before the High Court, the point of limitation ought not to be raised by the High Court.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

Click here to view full Judgement

0

Supreme Court Dismissed the SLP on the Ground of Territorial Jurisdiction

Blog, Supreme court , , , , , , , , , ,

Case Name: ARCADIA SHIPPING LTD. V.  TATA STEEL LIMITED AND OTHERS
Case Number: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.8488 OF 2024
Dated: April 16, 2024
Quorum: Honorable Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta

FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts of the case and pleadings arises in the plaint, Suit No. 458/2000:

Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd is the original plaintiff in a dispute with Tata Steel Limited, TYO Trading Enterprises, Commercial Bank of Ethiopia, Arcadia Shipping Limited, and M.G. Trading Worldwide Pvt. Ltd. as the defendants. Bhushan Steel, a manufacturer of galvanised steel corrugated sheets, was instructed by TYO Trading to place supply orders for the material. The material was dispatched by Bhushan Steel and loaded by shippers Arcadia from Mumbai, India, to Djibouti, Ethiopia.

Bhushan Steel prepaid freight charges to Arcadia, who was directed to deliver the goods to the Bank of Ethiopia. The Bank of Ethiopia refused to encash the Letter of Credit due to discrepancies. Bhushan Steel informed Arcadia that both shipments had been released to TYO Trading, as they had presented a Bill of Lading endorsed by the Bank of Ethiopia. However, the payment was not received by Bhushan Steel, and the material could not be shipped back to Bhushan Steel.

The defendants took a contradictory stand, with TYO Trading stating they paid for the goods, while Arcadia claimed the material was released upon presentation of the Bill of Lading. PNB returned the original documents, including the Bill of Ladings, to Bhushan Steel, stating they had received them without any encashment of the Letter of Credit by the Bank of Ethiopia.

ISSUSES

  1. Whether the defendants are jointly liable for the loss suffered by Bhushan steel of $2,73,510 in the deal of galvanized steel corrugated sheets ?
  2. Whether the Delhi High Court have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit ?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 
  • ARTICLE 136: Special Leave Petition

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

  1. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 
  • Section 20(C): It accords dominus litis to the plaintiff to institute a suit within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Every suit is based upon the cause of action, and the circumstances of the cause of action, even in part, will confer territorial jurisdiction on the court.
  • ORDER 1 RULE 3: Who may be joined as defendants?

All persons may be joined in one suit as defendants where—

(a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist against such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and

(b) if separate suits were brought against such persons, any common question of law or fact would arise.

  • ORDER 1 RULE 7: When plaintiff in doubt from whom redress is to be sought.

Where the plaintiff is in doubt as to the person from whom he is entitled to obtain redress, he may join two or more defendants in order that the question as to which of the defendants is liable and to what extent may be determined as between all parties.

 Contentions of plaintiff

The plaintiff is entitled to $2,76,510 in a bill of lading dispute between Tata Steel Limited and TYO Trading Enterprises. The plaintiff is entitled to the payment if the goods were released by the Bank of Ethiopia after obtaining a duly endorsed bill of lading from TYO Trading Enterprises. If the goods were released without obtaining the endorsement, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for making payment. TYO Trading Enterprises cannot escape its liability under any circumstances, as the irrevocable Letter of Credit would not have been issued in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff would not have supplied the goods, and the Bank of Ethiopia’s liability arises if they delivered the goods without obtaining endorsement from TYO Trading Enterprises. The cause of action arose when the plaintiff was assigned an order by M.G. Trading Worldwide Pvt Ltd, and the defendants were jointly and severally liable. The High Court at Delhi possesses territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit.

Defendant ‘s contention

This Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit. Apparently, no cause of action arose against Arcadia within the jurisdiction of the Court to grant the relief prayed by the plaintiff. It is not a controversy that the goods in question were shipped / loaded at Mumbai; the freight charges were paid there. The goods were to be delivered at Djibouti Port, Ethiopia Apparently, no cause of action whatsoever qua Arcadia arose at Delhi to attract the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and the judgment records that Arcadia had not disclosed who was the ‘Principal’, who was an undisclosed foreign party. Arcadia had not produced document to show if the freight charges were received on behalf of the ‘Principal’ etc.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND Judgment

In the judgment or order dated December 20, 2017, the Single Judge of the High Court at Delhi recorded the following findings:

The goods were released by Arcadia unauthorizedly and have not been accounted for by them. Accordingly, Arcadia is liable to Bhushan Steel for the loss suffered. Arcadia should pay Bhushan Steel the value of the goods without any interest. Despite these findings, the Single Judge directed the return of the complaint on the question of territorial jurisdiction.

A Division Bench of the High Court at Delhi, vide judgment/order 09.01.2024, allowed an appeal against the judgement/order passed by the Single Judge dated December 20, 2017, in an appeal preferred by Tata Steel Limited.

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Arcadia, against the judgment/order of the Division Bench of the High Court at Delhi, dated January 8, 2024.

Arcadia claims two transactions occurred: the sale of goods and a shipment of goods from Mumbai to Djibouti. They claim their involvement was restricted to the second transaction, as supply orders were placed in Delhi. However, the court finds Arcadia’s contentions unfounded as the transactions are intertwined and cannot be compartmentalized into silos. The shipment of goods was linked to the sale of goods by Bhushan Steel through the Bill of Lading. The release of goods by Arcadia hinged on the presentation of the Bill of Lading by TYO Trading at the point of receipt. The Bank of Ethiopia issued the Letter of Credit, and Bhushan Steel remained the owner of the goods. The actions of Arcadia and the transactions were interconnected, and a part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi.

It would be opportune to refer to the provisions of the CPC.

Section 20(c) of the Code accords dominus litis to the plaintiff to institute a suit within local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Every suit is based upon the cause of action, and the circumstances of the cause of action, even in part, will confer territorial jurisdiction on the court. The expression ‘cause of action’ can be given either a restrictive or wide meaning. However, it is judicially read to mean every fact that the plaintiff should prove to support their right to the judgment.

Order I Rule 3 of the Code states that the plaintiff may join as a defendant in one suit all persons against whom the plaintiff claims the right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act, transaction or series of transactions. The claim, viz. the defendants can be joint, several or alternative. Thus, it is permissible to file one civil suit, even when separate suits can be brought against such persons, when common questions of law and fact arise.

Order I Rule 7 of the Code permits a plaintiff who is in doubt as to the person from whom they are entitled to obtain redress to join two or more defendants in order that the question of which of the defendants is liable and to what extent can be decided in one suit.

The supply order was placed in Delhi, and the payment was to be released in Delhi. The cause of action arose in part at Delhi, under Section 20(c) of the Code. Bhushan Steel could enjoin all defendants, including Arcadia, in a single suit under Order I Rules 3 and 7 of the Code. The relief claimed by Bhushan Steel lies against all defendants, albeit to different extents, and was ‘in respect of and arises out of a series of transactions’. The Division Bench of the High Court was right in setting aside the Single Judge’s finding on territorial jurisdiction.

The Single Judge held that no liability could be fastened to TYO Trading and Bank of Ethiopia, but liability could be fastened to Arcadia. In the context of the dispute, the remedy was to file a civil suit against the defendants, which was maintainable in Delhi, a part of the cause of action having arisen in Delhi. Therefore, the Single Judge erred in upholding Arcadia’s contention regarding the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court and absence of any cause of action arising against them in Delhi, based on their businesses being located in Mumbai. For the aforesaid reasons, the present civil appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall be disposed of.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDEMENT REVIEWED BY: ABHISHEK SINGH

Click here to view the full judgement: ARCADIA SHIPPING LTD. V. TATA STEEL LIMITED AND OTHERS

0
hc patna

Patna High Court: reviews the order passed by the lower court filed under Order VI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Blog , ,

CASE TITTLE: Shibjee Pd. Singh @ Shivjee Singh V Manju Devi and ors

CASE NO: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1023 of 2017

ORDER ON: 15-01-2024

QUORUM: JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The said  petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20th of April, 2017, passed by learned Sub Judge, Madhepura in Title Suit No. 93 of 2002, by which learned Sub Judge dismissed the application filed under Order VI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) for amendment of written statement of the petitioner/defendant.

The fact leading to the present case is that, the case, as it appears from the records, is that the plaintiffs/respondents 1st filled a suit, in which defendant no.1/petitioner appeared and filed his written statement. The basis of the suit of the plaintiffs was an agreement of sale dated 5th of March, 1999, which was denied by the defendant no.1/petitioner. It was submitted by the petitioner that while he was being examined as defendant’s witness on 9th of May, 2016, during his cross examination, learned counsel for the plaintiffs put before him an agreement to sale in question and the defendant no.1/petitioner came to know that this document was different from the stamp paper on which he put his signature and gave it to his brother/defendant no.2, which was for sale of 10 Kathas of land only. Since the agreement to sale, put up before him during cross examination, was different from the document that he has executed earlier, the defendant no.1/petitioner moved an application under Order VI Rule 1 of the C.P.C. for amendment of his written statement. A rejoinder to this application was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs and learned Subordinate Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the application of defendant no.1/petitioner. The said order is under challenge before this Court.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Order VI Rule 1 of the C.P.C, deals with pleadings in genral “Pleading”, shall mean plaint or written statement. Every pleading shall contain, and contain only a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:

The petitioner through their counsel submits that in order to decide the real question of dispute between the parties and if the Court feels that amendment is necessary, amendment can be allowed at any stage. If the amendment is not allowed, it will cause irreparable harm to defendant no.1/petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that learned Trial Court did not consider the fact that defendant no.1 filed his written statement submitting that he did not make any agreement to sale in favour of the plaintiffs for sale of the disputed land. It was defendant no.2 who made the agreement of sale with the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs asked him to take signature of defendant no.1, as he was one of the share holders in the ancestral land and on saying of defendant no.2 that he wanted money as he was in need of it, so defendant no.2 wanted to sell his share of 10 kathas of land and for this reason, defendant no.1 put his signature on the agreement to sale on first page only. The said agreement to sale was made with defendant no.2 and not with the plaintiffs. For this reason, defendant no.1 denied the agreement to sale between defendant no.1 and plaintiffs and when the agreement to sale in question was put up before him, the defendant no.1 wanted to clarify the facts and wanted to bring the amendment in his written statement on record. The counsel further contended that the aforesaid facts were not considered by learned Subordinate Court.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court on Having perused the records, especially the impugned order, on finding no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order or improper exercise of jurisdiction. The court further observed that, It is on record that the amendment petition was moved after fifteen years when the evidence of the parties, both the plaintiffs and the defendants have been completed and the matter was at the stage of argument. Further, the court observed that the said amendment was made only on the ground that defendants were asked certain questions and some documents were put up before him for his response then only he has moved before the Court for amendment of the written statement, the court further opined that  If certain document has come during the evidence being recorded for the defendants and the defendants are confronted with the same, it does not give right to the defendants to amend their pleadings in order to fill up the lacunae in his case. Moreover, the amendment has been moved at quite belated stage and proviso to Order VI Rule 1 clearly bars such amendment after commencement of trial and when no due diligence has been shown. Therefore the court, In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, on not finding any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the same being  affirmed. Accordingly, the court dismissed the instant petition.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Click here to view judgement

Judgement reviewed by:Sowmya.R

1 2 3 … 6