Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
KRISHNA RAO, J.
Baynee Industries - Plaintiff
Versus
Rajiv Rosha - Defendant
G.A. No. 1 of 2023 In CS No. 232 of 2022
Decided On : 14-08-2024
Rejection - Civil Procedure - Order VII Rule 11 - The court interpreted the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, emphasizing the necessity for a plaint to disclose a cause of action. The court found that the plaintiff's allegations, when read as a whole, did disclose a cause of action, leading to the dismissal of the defendant's application.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for damages against the defendant, alleging wrongful interference with business due to a patent. The defendant sought to reject the plaint on multiple grounds, including lack of cause of action and limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the plaint and determined that, despite not explicitly stating 'cause of action,' the allegations collectively indicated sufficient grounds for the suit, thus rejecting the defendant's application.
Issues: Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action and if it should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a plaint should not be rejected if it discloses some cause of action, even if the plaintiff may not succeed in the end.
Result: The application for rejection of the plaint was dismissed.
Case Identification: High Court at Calcutta, Krishna Rao, J., Baynee Industries (Plaintiff) vs. Rajiv Rosha (Defendant), G.A. No. 1 of 2023 in CS No. 232 of 2022, decided on 14-08-2024. (!) (!)
Plaintiff's Claim: Suit for damages of Rs.19,77,48,220.13/- plus interest at 18% per annum due to defendant's wrongful interference with plaintiff's business via a patent. (!) (!)
Defendant's Application: Filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC seeking rejection of plaint on grounds including: barred by limitation; no cause of action; barred by law; non-joinder of parties; lack of territorial jurisdiction; arbitration clause; plaintiff's admissions; no crystallized claim; technical defects. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Defendant's Arguments on Cause of Action: No pleadings linking defendant's patent or actions to plaintiff's business loss; no explanation of how Tata Motors blocked orders due to defendant; inconsistent pleadings on supply stoppage (end-2019 vs. till Oct 2021); no specifics on damage period or causation. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Plaintiff's Arguments on Cause of Action: Long-term supplier (since 1980/1995) of exhaust brake units to Tata Motors (95% share); learned in 2018 of defendant's rival supply using Tata drawings and patent claim; Tata shifted business to defendant portraying plaintiff as unauthorized; defendant served cease notice 15-01-2019; plaintiff opposed patent, revoked 01-01-2022; Tata blocked orders end-Jan 2019 causing quantified losses; referenced plaint paras 11,12,13,16,17,20,23,31,32. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Court's Consideration: Focused primarily on cause of action despite multiple grounds raised; other grounds not argued. (!)
Relevant CPC Provision: Order VII Rule 11 CPC lists grounds for rejection, including (a) no cause of action, (d) barred by law. (!) (!) (!)
Plaintiff's Factual Narrative in Plaint: Developed/supplied exhaust brake units per Tata specs from 1995; notice from defendant 28-05-2018 claiming patent on Tata-provided drawings; opposed and revoked patent 01-01-2022; Tata blocked orders end-Jan 2019 due to defendant's interference. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Legal Principle Applied: Plaint rejection under O VII R 11 only if no cause of action disclosed on reading plaint as whole (averments taken as true); not based on defendant's statements; cause of action is bundle of material facts; cannot reject if some cause shown, even if plaintiff unlikely to succeed. (!) (!)
Court's Finding: Plaint discloses cause of action via paras 17,20,23,31,32,33,34 read together, despite no explicit "cause of action" phrase. (!)
Outcome: No merit in application; G.A. No. 1 of 2023 dismissed. (!) (!)
Core Ratio: Plaint cannot be rejected if it discloses a cause of action, even if plaintiff's success uncertain. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
Krishna Rao, J.
1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for a decree for a sum of Rs.19,77,48,220.13/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
2. The defendant has filed the present application being GA 1 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for rejection of plaint. On the following grounds :
(b) It does not disclose a cause of action which can be adjudicated by this Court,
(c) The suit is barred by an existing law,
(d) Non-joinder of necessary parties,
(e) No territorial jurisdiction of Court;
(f) Presence of Arbitration Clause,
(g) Specific admission by plaintiff,
(h) No crystalized claim;
(i) Technical incurable defects.
3. Mr. Shourjyo Mukherjee, Learned Advocate representing the defendant submits that the foundation of the plaint case, is that the defendant wrongfully interfered with the business of the plaintiff due to which the plaintiff is entitled for damages. He submits that there is no pleading in the plaint to the effect as to how the defendant’s act or conduct or the patent itself interfered with the business of the plaintiff. He submits that there is no correlation between the claim made by the plaintiff and the allegations made in the plaint.
4. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the plaintiff has pleaded that Tata Motors Limited blocked the purchase orders of the plaintiff but it is nowhere pleaded in the plaint that the Tata Motors Limited blocked the purchase orders of the plaintiff in view of the act or patent of the defendant. He submits that there is no single averment made in the plaint that due to blocking of purchase order of the plaintiff by the Tata Motors Limited, downfall in the business of the plaintiff was caused by the defendant’s patent.
5. Mr. Mukherjee submits that as per the case of the plaintiff towards the end of January, 2019, the plaintiff was constrained to stop supplying the products to Tata Motors Limited but at the same time, it is also pleaded that the plaintiff supplied the same product to Tata Motors Limited till October, 2021.
6. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the plaint filed by the plaintiff does not disclose as to how the cause of action for claiming damages in the suit arose as the plaint does not contain any pleading as to the correlation between defendant’s patent and downfall in the business of the plaintiff. He submits that there is no pleading in the plaint that Tata Motors Limited stopped accepting products from the plaintiff due to the patent of the defendant. He submits that the plaint does not disclose as to how and from when the plaintiff has suffered the damages. He submits that the plaint does not disclosed any period during which the plaintiff has suffered loss and damages and the plaint also does not disclose how and in what manner the defendant’s conduct has caused any loss and damages to the plaintiff.
7. Per contra, Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Learned Advocate representing the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has been manufacturing and supplying various automobile components to Tata Motors Limited since 1980, along with other major players in the automotive market including Hindustan Motors Limited, AVTEC Auto Limited etc.
8. Mr. Chowdhury submits that plaintiff started supplying/ manufacturing the exhaust brake units exclusively for the use of Tata Motors Limited. Over 95% of the requirement of exhaust brake units was purchased from the plaintiff and the position continued till the year 2019. He submits that in the year 2018, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant who is a business rival is also supplying the same products to Tata Motors Limited on the basis of drawings provided by Tata Motors Limited.
9. Mr. Chowdhury submits that the plaintiff enquired and discovered that the defendant was also engaged to supply exhaust brake units to Tata Motors Limited and in the process, the plaintiff came to know that the exhaust brake units which was supplied by the defendant was patented and
A plaint cannot be rejected if it discloses a cause of action, even if the plaintiff's success is uncertain.
A cause of action based on an approved bill resets limitation; rejection of plaint under Rule 11 is unwarranted where factual disputes exist.
Point of Law : Jurisdiction of the court to take action under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the CPC can arise only in case where the pleadings in the plaint are sufficient to disclose the bar to the suit, a....
Plaint not rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC despite 28-year delay in specific performance suit where fraud, collusion, unilateral cancellation averred, making limitation mixed fact-law issue r....
The main legal point established is that the suit can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC if it appears to be barred by any law, as per the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957.
A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 for failure to disclose a cause of action if new instances of trespass are claimed, necessitating a trial on the merits.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
