Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 4567
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M. SUNDAR, J.
Powerwave Technologies Sweden AB - Appellant
Versus
Syrma Technology Private Limited and Ors. - Respondent
A. No. 7113 of 2018 and C.S. No. 851 of 2015
Decided On : 20-12-2018
For the Appellant :P.V. Balasubramaniam, Advocate
For the Respondent:Raghavan Ramabadran and S. Seetharaman, Advocates
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Rule 3 of Order 13-A - Suit claim though technically – Power wave Group of Companies - Summary Judgment and it pertains to provisions/procedure by which this Commercial Division can decide/dispose off Suit without recording oral evidence Primary grounds on which a Summary Judgment can given are spelt out in Rule of Order amended as amended by said Act According Rule Summary Judgment can be given by Commercial Division against Plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on claim and Summary Judgment can be given against Defendant if Defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending claim - Besides these two possibilities other kinds of Judgments/Orders that can be passed without oral evidence have been adumbrated in various rules and sub-rules Order of amended CPC as amended by said Act - Both these possibilities are circumscribed by a rider that there should be no other compelling reason as why Suit should not be disposed before recording oral evidence - As this spelt in Rule of amended CPC as amended –Held, Plaintiffs document but it First Defendants document - To be précis it First Defendant-STPLs Document as it is First Defendants document and as First Defendant has chosen file document series of Invoices together with Written Statement First Defendant has either stand or fall these Invoices - very that part supplies have been vide Invoices between STPL and Power wave Sweden reveals that transaction essentially between STPL and Power wave Sweden - Therefore nothing remains for trial/oral evidence - Plaintiff to succeed in its claim - Furthermore it emerges clearly owing to stated position of First Defendant-STPL that has no real prospect of successfully defending claim - It also unfurls indisputably from narrative supra that there no reason much less compelling reason as to why the claim in instant Suit should not disposed of before recording oral evidence - In other words requirements/grounds or in other words determinants/parameters for Summary Judgment amended by said Act stand satisfied in its entirety in the instant case - Therefore this Commercial Division is of view that prayer in Summary Judgment Application being deserves to be acceded Summary Judgment Application is predicated on admitted amount leaving a difference - It has also been set out supra elsewhere in this Order/Judgment that oral instructions from Plaintiffs Holding Company-Power wave Inc and adjustment of prepayment made by Plaintiff Power wave Sweden after giving credit to part supply made by First Defendant-STPL not only crux and gravamen but is also the sole cliff anchor clincher of this Suit - As this clear position that emerges from hearing in the summary Judgment application based on stated positions of parties exercising powers of this Commercial Division Order Rule part of Suit claim to extent is dismissed and there shall be Judgment/Decree on the remaining part of the Suit claim together with Interest at rate annum - This is qua sub-paragraph prayer paragraph - With regard to sub-paragraph of Prayer Paragraph in Plaint considering the nature of matter and considering that a giant part of Suit claim is being decreed by way of Summary Judgment parties are left to bear their own Costs – Order accordingly
JUDGMENT :
M. SUNDAR, J.
1. In the main Suit, there is a sole Plaintiff, which goes by the name 'Powerwave Technologies, Sweden AB' (hereinafter 'Powerwave, Sweden' for the sake of brevity) and there are two Defendants. The First Defendant goes by the name 'Syrma Technology Private Limited', Chennai (hereinafter after 'STPL' for the sake of brevity) and the Second Defendant is State Bank of India, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as 'SBF for the sake of brevity). Besides the above said abbreviations and short forms, parties in this Application shall also be referred to by their respective ranks in the main Suit wherever necessary for the sake of convenience and clarity.
2. Instant Application has been taken out by Powerwave, Sweden primarily under Order 13-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ('CPC for brevity) as amended by 'the Commercial Courts Act, 2015' ('said Act' for brevity).
3. It is necessary to notice that aforesaid Order 13-A of amended CPC, as amended by said Act is captioned 'Summary Judgment' and it pertains to provisions/procedure by which this Commercial Division can decide/dispose off a Suit without recording oral evidence. Primary grounds on which a Summary Judgment can be given are spelt out in Rule 3 of Order 13-A of amended CPC as amended by said Act. According to Rule 3, a Summary Judgment can be given by the Commercial Division against the Plaintiff, if the Plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim and Summary Judgment can be given against the Defendant if the Defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim. Besides these two possibilities, other kinds of Judgments/Orders that can be passed without oral evidence have been adumbrated in various rules and sub-rules under Order 13-A of amended CPC as amended by said Act. Both these possibilities are circumscribed by a rider that there should be no other compelling reason as to why the Suit should not be disposed of before recording oral evidence. As this is spelt in Rule 3 of Order 13-A of amended CPC, as amended by said Act, this Commercial Division deems it appropriate to extract entire Rule 3, which reads as follows:
'Order 13-A. Summary Judgment:
1. ....
2. .....
3. Grounds for summary Judgment.- The Court may give a summary Judgment against a Plaintiff or defending on a claim if it considers that-
(a) the Plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or the Defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim as the case may be; and
(b) there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence.'
4. Reverting to the case on hand, to be noted, the Suit claim made by Powerwave, Sweden, which is the Plaintiff is Rs. 3,90,19,305 (Rupees Three Crores Ninety Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Three Hundred and Five only). The instant Summary Judgment Application seeks a Summary Judgment and Decree to the extent of 5,49,033.40 USD, the equivalent of which is Rs. 3,56,87,171 (INR). Therefore, the instant Application is virtually for the Suit claim though technically, it is Rs. 33,32,134 (INR) lesser than the Suit claim. To be noted 'USD' denotes American Currency i.e., 'Dollars' and 'INR' denotes Indian Currency i.e., 'Rupees'.
5. After hearing this Summary Judgment Application in detail, it came to light that this Application turns on a very narrow compass owing to the nature of the transaction between the parties and the stated positions of the adversaries as it unfurled in the hearing, all of which shall be alluded to infra.
6. Mr. P.V. Balasubramaniam, learned Counsel for Plaintiff and Mr. Raghavan Ramabhadran, on behalf of First Defendant (STPL) besides Mr. S. Seetharaman on behalf of Second Defendant (SBI) were before this Commercial Division.
7. Learned Counsel for Second Defendant SBI submitted that Second Defendant is only a formal party and therefore, they
