Summary judgment may be granted when a party fails to establish a real prospect of successfully defending a claim as demonstrated by vague and insufficient defenses under applicable procedural rules.

JUDGMENT :

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the original defendants under Section 13 (1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”).

2. The learned Commercial Court, vide judgment dated 17th May, 2025, while appreciating the contentions of the respondent–plaintiff qua the scheme under the provisions of Order XIII-A of the CPC, decreed the suit.

3. The facts necessary for deciding the present appeal are, respondent–plaintiff who is engaged in the business of trading electrical goods, entered into a transaction with the present appellant-original defendant no. 1, a partnership firm, and defendant no. 2, its partner, based on the quotation dated 24th May, 2022.

4. The said quotation was in relation to supply of “OBO Bettermann’ Brand material for ‘Lightening Protection System’ for one of the plaintiff’s worksite, namely, Amrita Hospital at Faridabad.

5. Accordingly, a Letter of Intent for material worth Rs.5,00,000/- was sent through e-mail on 1st June, 2022 by the appellants–original defendants to the respondent–plaintiff. Vide e-mail dated 2nd July, 2022, the appellants–original defendants instructed the respondent– plaintiff to supply the material in different lots/batches. Pursuant to the instructions of the appellants herein, the respondent–original plaintiff supplied the first lot of material against Invoice No. TI-2217 dated 15th July, 2022 at a cost of Rs.4,50,113/-, which amount was payable by 29th August, 2022, failing which interest at the rate of 18% per annum was agreed to be paid by the appellants–original defendants. The appellants–original defendants accordingly made payment of Rs.1,50,113/- till 29th August, 2022; however, failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/-.

6. Such default on the part of the appellants–original defendants in making payment of Rs.3,00,000/- prompted the respondent–plaintiff to issue a notice dated 1st June, 2024, demanding payment of the aforesaid amount along with interest.

7. The mediation taken recourse to, since failed, the suit came to be initiated for recovering a sum of Rs.4,26,101/-, which includes principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/-; Rs.1,15,101/- towards interest from 29th August, 2022 till 15th October, 2022 and Rs.11,000/- as fee for Legal Notice. Pendente lite interest was sought to be recovered @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.

8. The suit was contested by the appellants–original defendants by filing a written statement, wherein the defence set up was that the material supplied by the respondent–plaintiff was not as per the agreed terms and suffered from quality issues. It was further contended that the supply of material was delayed by the respondent–plaintiff, which caused financial loss to the appellants–original defendants, and consequently.

9. On merits, it is urged that the claim of the respondent-plaintiff was denied in its entirety.

10. The respective parties including that of the plaintiff filed documents which are in the form of exchange of communication viz. communication dated 30th March, 2024 sent by the appellants to the respondent, wherein a request for grant of additional time for arrangement of payment was made. The defence that was set up by the appellants was based on three issues- (a) the material that was supplied was defective; (b) there was delay in supplying the material and (c) the requisite consideration towards the material supplied was paid.

11. Base