IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
M/S. LOOM CRAFTS FURNITURE INDIA PVT. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
M/S. MT & T RENTALS LTD. - Respondent
RFA 3/2015 & CM No.95/2015
Decided On : 08.12.2015
Order XXXVII - Civil Procedure - 1908 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and specifically focused on the conditions for granting leave to defend under this order. The court also referred to Section 74 of the Contract Act and emphasized the need for the respondent to prove the damages suffered. The judgment was influenced by the interpretation of these legal provisions and their application to the facts of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC claiming unpaid rental charges for aerial work platforms and access equipment supplied to the appellant. The appellant filed an application for leave to defend, disputing the jurisdiction of the court and the damages claimed by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had not objected to the claim raised by the respondent in the demand notice and had received the invoices, but emphasized the need for the respondent to prove the damages suffered. The court granted leave to defend to the appellant on the condition of depositing a specific sum.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the court, proof of damages suffered by the respondent, and conditions for granting leave to defend under Order XXXVII of the CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant should be asked to deposit a specific sum as a condition for granting leave to defend, emphasizing the need for the respondent to prove the damages suffered.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the appeal and the pending application, granting leave to defend to the appellant on the condition of depositing a specific sum and setting out further procedural steps for the trial court.
1. It is noticed that, vide order dated 06.01.2015, the impugned judgment and decree was stayed. The record shows that the respondent/ plaintiff had filed a suit under Order XXXVII of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the CPC). The trial court has decreed the suit.
2. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2014, passed by the learned Additional district Judge (ADJ). By the impugned judgment the learned ADJ has dismissed the appellant’s/ defendant’s application for leave to defend.
3. The case set up by the respondent / plaintiff, broadly, is that, it is, inter alia, in the business of providing aerial work platforms and access equipments, such as, Scissor Lifts, Boom Lifts and aerial work, on rental basis (here after collectively referred to as equipments unless specially adverted to, otherwise).
3.1 It is, therefore, averred by the respondent / plaintiff that equipments were supplied to the appellant / defendant on rental basis, in respect of which, invoices were raised from time to time.
4. It is the case of the respondent / plaintiff that eight (8) invoices were raised between 2.11.2011 and 2.12.2011; the details of which are given in paragraph 7 of the plaint total amounting to Rs.3,37,244/-.
5. It is the stand of the respondent / plaintiff that, at a point in time when, the use of the equipments was over, the equipments supplied to the appellant / defendant, were retrieved.
5.1 On retrieval, the respondent / plaintiff noticed that out of equipments supplied, certain equipments, were either damaged or had missing parts and / or components.
5.2 In respect of the said equipments, challans were generated which, according to the respondent / plaintiff, were counter signed by the site offical of the appellant / defendant.
5.3 In view of the aforesaid circumstance obtaining, the respondent / plaintiff placed three (3) additional bills, the details of which are given in paragraph 8 of the plaint. These three (3) invoices, which are of even date, i.e. 31.03.2012, are for an amount of Rs.3,22,578/- and are titled “damaged / missing parts”.
6. The respondent / plaintiff further avers that the appellant / defendant did not pay the sums, which were due and payable against the services/ rental charges as also against the three invoices which were served upon it, with regard to damaged and missing parts. The only amount which was paid against the eleven (11) invoices, referred to in the plaint, was a sum of Rs.1,65,270/-.
7. Therefore, the respondent / plaintiff being aggrieved by the fact that the appellant / defendant had not paid the entire amount duly served, apparently, upon it, a demand notice dated 19.07.2013.
8. By virtue of the said notice, respondent / plaintiff demanded a sum of Rs.4,94,552/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, payable from the date mentioned on each of the said invoices.
9. To be noted, the sum of Rs.4,94,552/-, is a summation of the amounts due against the eight (8) invoices, referred to in paragraph 7 of the plaint, and the three (3) invoices, referred to in paragraph 8 of the plaint, after adjusting a sum of Rs.1,65,270/-.
10. It is in this background that the respondent / plaintiff instituted the suit, from which, the present appeal arises. The suit was instituted on 03.02.2014. The amount claimed in the suit is Rs.6,58,202/-, which includes the sum of Rs.4,94,552/- i.e. the principal amount alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum, spanning the period 01.04.2012 till 31.01.2014. The interest was, accordingly, crystallized at Rs.1,63,650/-.
10.1 The sum total of the principal and the interest is the suit amount, which is, a sum of Rs.6,58,202/-.
11. Upon institution of the suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC, summons for judgment were issued, whereupon, the appellant / defendant, filed its application for leave to defend.
12. In the application, the appel
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.