SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Shreysha Textiles Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Viss Incorporation - Respondent
CM(M) 261 of 2022
Decided On : 28-10-2022

The presence of the parties is necessary to effectively adjudicate on the real controversy in issue in the proceedings, and findings on merits are not justified while examining an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC.

Headnote:

Order I Rule 10 - Deletion of Parties - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Sections 182, 186, 203, 230 - The court discussed the application of Respondents 1 and 2 for deletion of their names from the array of parties in the suit under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC. The court referred to Sections 182, 186, and 203 of the Indian Contract Act, 1882, as well as Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, which delineates the circumstances in which an agent would be personally liable towards the third party, for acts committed on behalf of the principal. The court highlighted that the presence of the parties is necessary to effectively adjudicate on the real controversy in issue in the proceedings and that findings on merits are not justified while examining an application under Order I Rule 10. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the application filed by Respondents 1 and 2 under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC was dismissed.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner instituted a suit seeking recovery from the defendants jointly and severally of USD 103333.28. The suit alleged that the defendants had committed fraud upon the petitioner by not making payment for the processing of unfinished raw material and instead suing the petitioner for recovery of money. During the pendency of the suit, Respondents 1 and 2 moved applications for deletion of their names from the array of parties in the suit.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the impugned order, which proceeded on the premise that Respondents 1 and 2 were merely agents of other defendants and had no personal liability, was not justified. The court highlighted that the presence of the parties is necessary to effectively adjudicate on the real controversy in issue in the proceedings and that findings on merits are not justified while examining an application under Order I Rule 10. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the application filed by Respondents 1 and 2 under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC was dismissed.

Issues: The issues revolved around the necessity of the presence of Respondents 1 and 2 in the suit and whether they were merely agents of other defendants with no personal liability.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the presence of the parties is necessary to effectively adjudicate on the real controversy in issue in the proceedings and that findings on merits are not justified while examining an application under Order I Rule 10.

Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the application filed by Respondents 1 and 2 under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC was dismissed.

ORDER (Oral)

1. CS (Comm) 51/2020 was instituted by the petitioner as plaintiff against five defendants. Respondents 1 and 2, M/s Viss Incorporation and Mr. Sekhar Balasubramanium, proprietor of Viss Incorporation (hereinafter "Viss") were Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. By the impugned order dated 22nd December 2021, the learned District Judge (Commercial Court) ("the learned Commercial Court"), has allowed the application of Respondents 1 and 2, preferred under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for deletion of their names from the array of parties in the suit.

2. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner, as the plaintiff in the suit, has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Quite obviously, the issue of whether Respondents 1 and 2 were necessary parties in the suit would have to be gleaned from the averments in the suit.

4. CS (Comm) 51/2020 sought recovery, from the defendants jointly and severally of USD 103333.28. The plaint averred that the petitioner was engaged in the manufacturing and export of textile made ups. In 2015-2016, it was alleged that Viss the Respondent 1 approached through its proprietor Respondent 2 ("Sekar", hereinafter), pursuant to which Purchase Orders were placed on the petitioner by Respondent 3. Pursuant thereto, according to the plaint, the fabric purchased from Viss was fabricated by the petitioner into cushion covers as per the Purchase Orders issued by Respondent 3. In the process, according to the plaint, the petitioner availed bank loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/-.

5. The plaint further averred that the cushion covers manufactured by the petitioner were approved by Sekar and, thereafter, supplied through Respondent 3 to the US. 13 such shipments were alleged have been made during the period 2nd June 2015 to 7th November 2015, valued at USD 329891.53. Against these shipments, the plaint averred that interim payments were made by the respondents in respect of which the petitioner maintained a running account. According to the plaint, the respondents had made a total payment of US$ 226558.25, leaving an amount of USD 10333.28 outstanding. At the said amount being not liquidated by the respondents despite repeated requests by the petitioner, the petitioner instituted the aforementioned suit.

6. The averment involving Respondents 1 and 2 are to be found in the following passages of the aforementioned suit:

    "3. The Defendant No. 1 is a firm running its business at its above mentioned address at 51, (1st Floor), Pratap Nagar, Street No.2, Mayur Vihar Phase-1, Delhi-110091 through its proprietor/authorised representative Mr. Sekar Balasubramaniam (Defendant No. 2) who is resident of G-49, 2nd Floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi 110019. The defendant no. 2 has been known to Mr. Mohit Agrawal, the director of the plaintiff company, for the last several years.

    *****

    6. In early financial year 2015-16, the Defendant No. 1 (through the Defendant No.2) approached the plaintiff company and conveyed that they are buying agents in India for the Defendant No. 3 company situated at USA and that the Defendant No. 3 company was looking for a fabricator in India to fabricate large quantities of cushion covers for export.

    7. During course of meetings at its office at Mayur Vihar, Delhi, the Defendant No. 1/2 assured that they are buying officials at India for the Defendant No. 3 company situated at USA being run and managed by the Defendant No. 5 who is a US Citizen. The Defendant No. 1/2 conveyed to the officials of the plaintiff company that the Defendant No. 3 company is looking for a fabricator at India to fabricate large quantity of cushion covers and a condition was put before the plaintiff company that the cushion covers must be fabricated by the plaintiff company only from a particular fabric being manufactured by a company namely M/s. Daanishk Incorporation, a textile manufacturing company having its registered office at 16/1550, Mahesh Nagar, Ist Floor, Ichalkaranji,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top