M/S GPR POWER SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. vs M/S JAGUAR INTERNATIONAL LTD.
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 01.05.2024
+ RFA(COMM) 156/2024
M/S GPR POWER SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. ….. APPELLANT
Through: Mr Sumit Kumar, Advocate.
versus
M/S JAGUAR INTERNATIONAL LTD. ….. RESPONDENT
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)
CM APPL. 25490/2024
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
RFA(COMM) 156/2024 and CM APPL. 25491/2024 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking interim relief]
2. This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 16.01.2024. Via the impugned judgment, the trial court has decreed the suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff for Rs.6,90,047/-. In addition thereto, interest @ 12% has also been awarded in favour of the respondent/plaintiff for the following periods:
(i) From 20.01.2014 till the date of institution of the suit i.e., 17.07.2019.
(ii) On the adjudged principal sum from the date of filing of the suit till its realisation.
2.1 Besides this, cost has also been awarded in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.
3. The record discloses that the respondent/plaintiff had instituted a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recovery of Rs.6,90,047/- along with interest @ 24% per annum. Total amount as claimed in the suit action was Rs.13,69,602/-.
4. Concededly, the appellant/defendant had attempted to stall the suit action by filing an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 [in short, 1996 Act]. This application, however, was dismissed by the trial court on 12.02.2020.
4.1 It is thereafter that the appellant moved an application for leave to defend. The said application was disposed of by the trial court via order dated 25.01.2021, granting conditional leave to defend to the appellant/defendant. The condition imposed by the trial court was that the appellant/defendant would have to deposit the entire suit amount, i.e., Rs.13,69,602/- by filing a fixed deposit receipt [in short, FDR] in court. The said FDR would thus have remained as security till the conclusion of the trial and final judgment in the matter. The fate of the FDR was obviously dependent on the final outcome in the suit action.
5. Being aggrieved, the appellant/defendant carried the matter to this court. The appellants/defendants petition under Article 227 was, however, dismissed. The appellant/defendant did not rest with the decision rendered in the of the Article 227 action and instead preferred to carry the matter to the Supreme Court. However, the appellants/defendants efforts did not meet with success. The SLP preferred by the appellant/defendant was dismissed on 06.11.2023.
5.1 As a result, the conditional leave to defend order dated 25.01.2021 passed by the trial court attained finality. It is against this backdrop that the trial court took recourse to the provisions of Order XXXVII Rule 3(6)(b) of the CPC. This provision empowers the plaintiff to seek a judgment, albeit forthwith where the defendant fails to provide a security, as indicated by the court.
5.2 The trial court took note of the said provision and in particular the fact that in the balance sheet for the years ending on 31.03.2014, 31.03.2015, 31.03.2019 and 31.03.2020 the appellant/defendant had consistently disclosed that it owed Rs.6,90,047/-to the respondent/plaintiff .
5.3 The court also noted the fact that outstanding sums were claimed with regard to the goods supplied between 31.08.2013 and 10.10.2013.
6. Mr Sumit Kumar, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/defendant, says that the entire matter pivoted on a purchase order dated 22.11.2012 which even according to the respondent/plaintiff was fabricated.
6.1 In this regard, reference was made to the reply filed by the respondent/plaintiff to the Section 8 application.
6.2 The record also discloses that the respondent/plaintiff had taken a position that 22.11.2012 was the initial purchase order which was followed by the purchase order dated 14.12.2012.
6.3 As a matter of fact, interest @ 24% per annum claimed by the respondent/plaintiff was denied to the respondent/plaintiff because of this fact situation obtaining in the matter.
7. In our view, the submissions raised by Mr Kumar would have had, if at all, some weight, had he allowed the matter to proceed to trial. The appellant/defendant, as indicated above, did not comply with the condition incorporated in the order dated 25.01.2021, ceding space to the respondent/plaintiff to exercise his right to seek a judgment, albeit forthwith, from the trial court.
7.1 The trial court, as noted above, concluded that the appellant/defendant was required to pay the principal amount ofRs.6,90,047/- as it continued to show respondent/plaintiff as a creditor in its balance sheet for Financial Years (FYs) 2013-14 to 2019-20.
7.2 Mr Kumar sought to explain the entries in the balance sheet by adverting to notation contained therein which alluded to the fact that the amount reflected in the schedule concerning creditors was subject to the confirmation.
7.3 It was, thus, Mr Kumars contention that since the amount reflected in the schedule to the balance sheet was subject to confirmation, the court could not have taken those figures as the gospel truth.
7.4 This submission, in our opinion, is completely misconceived.
7.5 Apart from the fact that the appellant/defendant consistently continued to show the outstanding balance payable to the respondent/plaintiff, the fact that there was a notation in the balance sheet stating that the amount shown was subject to confirmation would only indicate that either the respondent/plaintiff would confirm the amount or claim an amount at variance with the figure shown in the appellants/defendants balance sheet.
7.6 In other words, in the very least, insofar as the appellant/defendant was concerned, the amount shown in the schedule appended to the balance sheet had to be paid to the respondent/plaintiff.
8. Given the aforesaid position, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is without merit and, accordingly, is dismissed.
9. Consequently, pending application shall stand closed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
MAY 1, 2024 / tr
RFA(COMM) 156/2024 Page 5 of 5