A plaintiff in a recovery suit must prove the basis and quantum of its claim with sufficient evidence; failure to do so, combined with the defendant's proof of justified set-off/damages arising from a contractual breach, warrants dismissal of the suit.

THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1-A) OF COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT 2015, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN COM. OS NO.25714/2017 ON DATED 30.01.2025 IN COMMERCIAL COURT BY LXXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-83) MARKED AS ANNEXURE - C AND ALLOW THE APPEAL.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

1. The present appeal is filed by the plaintiff under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions Act, 2015 [CC Act] calling in question the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2025 passed in O.S. No.25714/2017 [impugned judgment] by the LXXXII Additional City Civil And Sessions Judge , Bengaluru (CCH-83) [Commercial Court] whereunder the suit for recovery of money filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Commercial Court.

3. The relevant facts are that the defendant had issued a tender for providing transportation services for spares and steel plates from Chennai Port to the defendant's works at Bengaluru, Mysuru and KGF for period of three years from 01.06.2008 to 31.05.2011. The plaintiff was the successful tenderer consequent to which the parties had entered into an Agreement dated 25.06.2008 [said agreement]. The plaintiff claims that the agreement was extended up to 31.07.2011. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff had breached several terms of the contract and did not render the services as required under the agreement.

4. Due to the disputes that arose between the parties with respect to the said agreement, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act] before this Court in CMP No.132/2012. A learned Single Judge by order dated 14.12.2012, allowed the said application and appointed an arbitrator [arbitral tribunal]. The plaintiff filed a claim petition claiming a sum of `60,83,990/- together with interest @ 21% per annum. However, the arbitral tribunal vide order dated 07.11.2016, terminated the arbitration proceedings. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed the suit [O.S.No.25714/2017] on 24.06.2017 whereunder, the plaintiff sought for recovery of a sum of `1,18,70,115/- from the defendant together with interest @ 21% per annum from date of suit till date of payment.

5. It was contended by the plaintiff in the plaint that the arbitration proceedings commenced on 14.12.2012 and continued up to 07.11.2016 i.e., for a period of 1432 days. That said period of 1432 days is required to be excluded in computing the period of limitation while filing the suit. Hence, it was contended that the suit filed is within time.

6. With regard to the claims made by the plaintiff, it was contended that the defendant was liable to a sum of `52,17,110/- being the freight charges along with bank guarantee amount of `10,00,000/- and illegally forfeited Earnest Money Deposit [EMD] of `2,10,000/- aggregating a sum of `64,27,110/-; which included the admitted liability of `29,61,000/-. Further, it was stated that since the defendant made a claim of `3,63,120/- being the excess freight charges paid, the said amount was deducted and the plaintiff claimed `60,63,990/- in the arbitration proceedings along with `20,000/- towards the cost of the legal notice issu