Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 2018 - HC - Indian LawsSuit for recovery alongwith interest - scope and intent of Order XII Rule 6 CPC and Order XIII-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - HELD THAT:- The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, has been enacted with the intent to amend the CPC so as to improve the efficiency and reduce delays in disposal of the commercial cases - Rule 3 of Order XIII-A empowers the Court to give a summary judgment against a defendant on a claim if it considers that it has no real prospect of succeeding or successfully defending the claim, and there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence. The Supreme Court in KARAM KAPAHI & OTHERS VERSUS M/S LAL CHAND PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST & ANOTHER [2010 (4) TMI 1120 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the principle behind Order XII Rule 6 is to give the plaintiff a right to speedy judgment. Under this Rule either party may get rid of so much of the rival claims about 'which there is no controversy'. Sale in a public auction does not render the performance of clause 5 of the second agreement impossible as the defendants elected to waive their right to purchase the modular kitchens. The defendants could not infact have taken delivery of the modular kitchens as admittedly their apartments were not ready - This Court is further of the view, that even if Clause 5 of the Second Agreement contemplated reciprocal obligations on both parties, the sale of the Modular Kitchens in a public auction does not render the performance of Clause 5 of the Second Agreement infructuous/impossible as the defendants elected to waive their right to purchase the Modular Kitchens. When the plaintiff filed an application for sale of the kitchens, the defendants never offered to purchase the same or take delivery of the same from the plaintiff. In fact, in the opinion of this Court, the defendants could not have taken delivery of the Modular Kitchens as their apartments were not ready for installation of the Modular Kitchens admittedly. In the present case, the determination of precise quantum of loss is difficult and that is why there is a clause for a reasonable pre-estimate of costs. In fact, Clauses 2, 3 and 5 provide for admitted cost price and not damages or loss of profit or penalty - This Court is also of the opinion that the plaintiff does not have to prove the base price of 2012 of Modular Kitchens as the said price had been admitted by the defendants in both the First and Second Agreements. Since the defendants have admitted the execution of the aforesaid agreements, they have also admitted the cost price of the kitchens. It is pertinent to mention that the defendants themselves had paid Rs. 2,53,125/- to the plaintiff for a sample kitchen installed by it. The said fact has been recorded in Clause 1(b) of the Second Agreement executed between the parties - Consequently, as the plaintiff in the present suit is only seeking recovery of admitted costs of 2012 of the Modular Kitchens without any element of profit and/or penalty or damages, this Court is of the view that there is no triable issue which arises for consideration, the defences raised by the defendants are moonshine and sham and there is no compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence. The plaintiff is entitled to a summary judgment without a trial - Application allowed.
|