Bombay High Court Grants Summary Judgment for Recovery of Price of Goods Sold and Delivered Under Order XXXVII CPC — Defendant Fails to File Reply to Summons for Judgment. Interest Reduced from 18% to 12% per annum as Court Exercises Discretion Under Order XXXVII Rule 3(6)(a) CPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The plaintiff, Chandur Moriani, filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the defendant, Vinod Gada, for recovery of the price of goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff relied on various invoices and delivery challans, the originals of which were produced in court. A notice of demand was issued by the plaintiff's advocate, to which the defendant's advocate replied alleging that the goods were defective. The plaintiff filed a summons for judgment, which was served on the defendant on 8 June 2010. The defendant did not file any reply to the summons for judgment. The court noted that under clause (a) of sub-rule 6 of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII CPC, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment as there was no reply filed. The plaintiff claimed interest at 18% per annum based on a clause in the invoices, but the court, considering the facts, reduced the interest rate to 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till payment or realization. The court made the summons for judgment absolute with the modified interest rate and also directed that the plaintiff would be entitled to refund of court fees, if any, in accordance with rules.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Summary Suit - Order XXXVII Rule 3(6)(a) CPC - Default Judgment - Where the defendant fails to file a reply to the summons for judgment, the court may pass judgment for the plaintiff if the documents on record support the claim - The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment as the defendant did not file any reply despite service of summons for judgment (Paras 1-3).

B) Interest - Contractual Interest - Reduction by Court - The plaintiff claimed interest at 18% per annum based on invoice terms, but the court reduced it to 12% per annum from the date of suit till payment, considering the facts of the case (Paras 4-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a summary judgment under Order XXXVII Rule 3(6)(a) CPC when the defendant fails to file a reply to the summons for judgment, and what rate of interest should be awarded.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Summons for judgment made absolute with modification that interest on the sum of Rs.1,45,061/- will be payable at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till payment or realization. Plaintiff entitled to refund of court fees, if any, in accordance with rules.

Law Points

  • Summary suit
  • Order XXXVII CPC
  • Summons for judgment
  • Default in filing reply
  • Entitlement to judgment
  • Interest rate reduction
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011:BHC-OS:701

Summons for Judgment No. 196 of 2010 in Summary Suit No. 2809 of 2007

2011-01-14

A.S. Oka, J.

2011:BHC-OS:701

Ms. Shilpa Goenka i/b M.M. Legal Associates for the Plaintiff; None for the Defendant

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Summary suit for recovery of price of goods sold and delivered.

Remedy Sought

Plaintiff sought a judgment against the defendant for the sum claimed with interest.

Filing Reason

Defendant failed to pay the price of goods sold and delivered despite demand.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment under Order XXXVII Rule 3(6)(a) CPC when the defendant fails to file a reply to the summons for judgment. What rate of interest should be awarded on the principal sum?

Submissions/Arguments

Plaintiff submitted that summons for judgment was served on 8 June 2010 and no reply was filed by the defendant. Plaintiff relied on invoices and delivery challans to prove the claim. Defendant's advocate in a reply to the notice of demand alleged that the goods were defective.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Order XXXVII Rule 3(6)(a) CPC, if the defendant fails to file a reply to the summons for judgment, the court may pass judgment for the plaintiff if the documents on record support the claim. The court has discretion to reduce the contractual rate of interest based on the facts of the case.

Judgment Excerpts

As there is no reply filed, in view of the documents on record and clause (a) of subRule 6 of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment. Interest is claimed at the rate of 18% per annum on the basis of the clause in the invoices. Considering the facts of the case, further interest deserves to be granted at the rate of 12% per annum.

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed Summary Suit No. 2809 of 2007. Summons for Judgment No. 196 of 2010 was filed and served on the defendant on 8 June 2010. No reply was filed by the defendant. The court heard the plaintiff and passed judgment on 14 January 2011.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXXVII Rule 3(6)(a)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Grants Summary Judgment for Recovery of Price of Goods Sold and Delivered Under Order XXXVII CPC — Defendant Fails to File Reply to Summons for Judgment. Interest Reduced from 18% to 12% per annum as Court Exercises Discretion Und...
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Dismisses Revision Against Order Allowing Production of Original Documents in Summary Suit. Order XXXVII Rule 7 CPC permits application of general CPC provisions for filing originals of photocopies already on record.