Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, MUNNURI LAXMAN, JJ.
M/s Naolin Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
M/s Prem Cables Pvt Ltd - Respondent
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 509 of 2024
Decided On : 16-07-2024
CIVIL MISC. APPEAL - COMMERCIAL DISPUTE - Commercial Court Act, 2015, Section 13; CPC, Order 12 Rule 6; CPC, Section 151 - The court discussed the provisions of the Commercial Court Act, 2015, particularly Section 13, which allows appeals against judgments of commercial courts. It also referenced Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC, which permits a party to apply for a judgment based on admissions made by the other party. The court interpreted these provisions to affirm that the respondent-plaintiff's claim was valid due to the appellant-defendant's admission of invoices, and that the jurisdiction of the court was appropriate as the cause of action arose in Rajasthan. The court's decision was influenced by the acknowledgment of the invoices and the determination of interest based on market trends.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-plaintiff, a private limited company, supplied goods to the appellant-defendant and claimed unpaid dues totaling Rs. 44,39,644/-. The respondent filed a suit for recovery, and during proceedings, applied for a decree based on the appellant's admission of invoices. The appellant admitted the invoices but raised objections regarding jurisdiction and the interest rate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant-defendant had admitted the invoices and that the learned Commercial Court had jurisdiction as the cause of action arose in Rajasthan. The court upheld the lower court's decision to award interest at 12% p.a. based on market trends.
Issues: 1. Whether the invoices were properly admitted by the appellant-defendant. 2. Whether the learned Commercial Court had jurisdiction over the matter. 3. Whether the interest rate of 12% p.a. was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once the invoices were admitted, the learned Commercial Court was justified in granting a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The jurisdiction was appropriate as the cause of action arose in Rajasthan, and the interest rate was supported by market trends.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's judgment and decree in favor of the respondent-plaintiff.
JUDGMENT :
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
1. This Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Court Act, 2015 has been preferred claiming the following reliefs :
Any other appropriate direction or order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted.”
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the appellant-defendant are that the respondent-plaintiff is a private limited company, having its registered office at Ahmedabad (Gujarat) and the factory premises are situated at Pipaliya Kala, District Pali, Rajasthan. The respondent-plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and import-export of aluminum, conductors and steel reinforcement.
2.1. The appellant-defendant having registered office in Hyderabad and the respondent-plaintiff claimed to have supplied the material goods to the appellant-defendant and prepared various bill invoices i.e. amount totalling Rs.37,64,383/-, and Rs.6,950 towards previous due payment, which was not duly paid by the appellant-defendant, even after giving notice to this effect by the respondent-plaintiff.
2.2. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for money recovery with interest of 12% p.a., in total Rs.44,39,644/- against the appellant-defendant before the Commercial Court No.2, Jodhpur (Civil Main Suit No. 12/2022). During the suit proceedings, the respondent-plaintiff without giving any evidence, filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC averring that the documents on the basis of which the suit in question was filed, the same were admitted in writing by the appellant-defendant, and thus, on that basis the suit in question deserves to be decreed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The appellant-defendant filed reply to the said application and though admitted the documents of the respondent-plaintiff, but raised an objection regarding jurisdiction, as well as claim of interest @ 12% p.a.
3. The learned Court below framed four issues and after considering all the aspects of the case passed the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2023 as per Order 12 Rule 6 CPC in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and directed the appellant-defendant to pay to the respondent-plaintiff an amount of Rs. 44,39,644/- in total.
4. Thus, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.08.2023, the appellant-defendant preferred the present appeal claiming the aforequoted relief.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submitted that the appellant-defendant only admitted the invoices and raised the objection in respect of jurisdiction of the learned Court below to adjudicate the matter in question, and therefore, the learned Court below has committed jurisdictional error in decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent-plaintiff on the basis of application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
5.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Court below decided the issue nos.1 & 2 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff only on the basis that the appellant-defendant admitted the invoices, but the appellant-defendant did not fully admit the invoices, and took specific objection that the invoices were not prepared properly (i.e. not tallying with the E-way Bill). It was also submitted that the learned Court below did not even examine the matter and decided issues nos. 1 & 2 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, which resulted into complete miscarriage of justice.
5.2. It was further submitted that the learned Court below in issue no.3 granted total 12% p.a. interest while observing that it is the market trend, but
The admission of invoices by a defendant can lead to a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, and jurisdiction is determined by the location of the cause of action.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the registered office of a defendant determines the territorial jurisdiction of a court, and a clause in a contract ousting the jurisdictio....
Point of Law : Recover of amount - Jurisdiction - Section 20 clearly provides that a court within whose local limits the cause of action, “wholly or in part”, arises, would have territorial jurisdict....
The jurisdiction of courts in civil matters is determined by the location of payments made, as established under Section 20 of the CPC.
A court cannot be denied jurisdiction by an agreement between parties if that court is competent to adjudicate the matter based on where the breach occurred and the nature of the contract.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court must consider the entire plaint averments before rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, and specific averments made in t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit was not barred by limitation, and the territorial jurisdiction was rightly decided based on the terms and conditions mentioned in the....
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
