Case Note & Summary
The appellants, M/s. Rukminirama Steel Rollings Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director, purchased an industrial unit in auction in 2004. The respondents, the Chief Electrical Engineer, State of Goa, and the Director of Mines & Industries, raised a demand for outstanding electricity dues against the industrial establishment. The appellants deposited Rs.62,32,496/- and Rs.1,16,443/- under protest and thereafter filed a suit for recovery of that amount. Evidence was recorded in the suit. On the day of arguments, the appellants' counsel could not remain present as he reached late. The trial court proceeded to decide the suit on merits and dismissed it with costs by judgment and order dated 11-12-2008. The appellants challenged this judgment and decree in the first appeal. The appellants' counsel relied on Order 9 Rule 8 CPC and cited Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. Gujarat Inns Pvt. Ltd. The Advocate General for the respondents did not join the issue regarding the counsel's lateness but fairly stated that the matter could be remanded. The High Court found that the appellants' counsel was not heard on merits, causing prejudice, and therefore allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh hearing.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Right to be Heard - Denial of Opportunity - Order 9 Rule 8 CPC - The appellants' counsel could not argue as he reached late; the trial court proceeded to decide the suit on merits without hearing him. The High Court held that the appellants were prejudiced and remanded the matter for fresh hearing to afford proper opportunity. (Paras 6-10)
B) Electricity Law - Recovery of Dues - Auction Purchase - Liability - The appellants purchased an industrial unit in auction and deposited outstanding electricity dues under protest, then filed a suit for recovery. The suit was dismissed without hearing their arguments. The High Court remanded the case for fresh consideration. (Paras 4-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's dismissal of the suit without hearing the appellants' counsel on merits warrants remand for fresh hearing.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 11-12-2008 are set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh hearing on merits, affording opportunity to both parties to advance arguments.
Law Points
- Order 9 Rule 8 CPC
- Natural Justice
- Right to be heard
- Remand for fresh hearing
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 166
First Appeal No. 239 of 2009
N. H. Patil, N. A. Britto
M. S. Sonak, P. Rao for Appellants; S. S. Kantak (Advocate General), A. Kamat (Additional Government Advocate) for Respondents
M/s. Rukminirama Steel Rollings Pvt. Ltd. and Shri B. Raghavendra
The Chief Electrical Engineer, Electricity Department, Government of Goa; The State of Goa; The Director, Mines & Industries, Government of Goa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
First appeal against judgment and decree dismissing suit for recovery of electricity dues deposited under protest.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought remand of the suit to the trial court for fresh hearing on merits.
Filing Reason
Appellants' counsel was not heard on merits before the trial court dismissed the suit.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed the suit with costs by judgment and order dated 11-12-2008.
Issues
Whether the trial court's dismissal of the suit without hearing the appellants' counsel on merits warrants remand for fresh hearing.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants' counsel submitted that he could not remain present as he reached late, and the trial court proceeded to decide the suit on merits without hearing him, relying on Order 9 Rule 8 CPC and cited Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. Gujarat Inns Pvt. Ltd.
Respondents' Advocate General submitted that they do not join the issue regarding the counsel's lateness but fairly stated that the matter could be remanded.
Ratio Decidendi
Where a party's counsel is not heard on merits due to late arrival, the trial court's decision without hearing arguments causes prejudice and warrants remand for fresh hearing to comply with principles of natural justice.
Judgment Excerpts
We do find that the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants are required to be heard in the matter so that no prejudice is caused to the Appellants.
We are therefore inclined to allow this appeal and remand the matter back to the trial Court on the ground that the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants was not heard on merits of the matter.
Procedural History
Appellants purchased industrial unit in auction in 2004. Respondents raised demand for outstanding electricity dues. Appellants deposited Rs.62,32,496/- and Rs.1,16,443/- under protest and filed a suit for recovery. Evidence was recorded. On the day of arguments, appellants' counsel reached late; trial court dismissed the suit on merits on 11-12-2008. Appellants filed First Appeal No. 239 of 2009 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 9 Rule 8
