Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Ajay Aggarwal, carrying on business as M/s. Royal Elastics, filed a summary suit against the defendant, Mohit Aneja, proprietor of M/s. Amar Fabrics, to recover a sum of Rs. 18,14,447.90 based on invoices for goods supplied and a confirmation letter dated 1 April 2007. The plaintiff had been supplying goods to the defendant on a regular basis since 2005, with the last transaction on 28 March 2006. The defendant made part payments by cheques on 23 January 2007 and 14 February 2007, and confirmed the accounts for the period 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007. The invoices contained a clause conferring jurisdiction on Bombay courts, and the plaintiff had obtained leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent on 6 October 2009. The defendant filed a reply on 8 February 2010, vaguely denying the acknowledgment and raising a plea of limitation, claiming there were no transactions after 2005. The court found the defendant's denial to be evasive and unsustainable, as the part payments by cheques and the confirmation of accounts falsified the defendant's case. The court held that the suit was within limitation and that the defendant had not raised any triable issue or substantial defense. Consequently, the court allowed the summons for judgment and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff with costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of the suit until realization.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Summary Suit - Leave to Defend - Order 37 CPC - The court considered whether the defendant's denial of liability and plea of limitation constituted a triable issue. Held that the defendant's denial was evasive and unsustainable in light of part payments by cheques and a signed confirmation of accounts, and therefore the defendant was not entitled to unconditional leave to defend. (Paras 2-4) B) Limitation - Acknowledgment of Liability - Section 18 Limitation Act, 1963 - The court held that the suit was within limitation as the confirmation of accounts dated 1 April 2007 and part payments by cheques in 2007 extended the limitation period. The defendant's plea that there were no transactions after 2005 was falsified by the cheques. (Paras 3-4) C) Contract - Jurisdiction Clause - The court noted that the invoices contained a clear clause conferring jurisdiction on Bombay courts, and the plaintiff had also obtained leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, making the suit maintainable in Mumbai. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the defendant has raised a triable issue or a substantial defense to entitle him to unconditional leave to defend in a summary suit for recovery of debt based on invoices and confirmation of accounts.
Final Decision
Summons for Judgment is allowed. The defendant is directed to pay the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 18,14,447.90 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the suit until realization, with costs.
Law Points
- Summary suit
- summary judgment
- limitation
- confirmation of accounts
- part payment
- evasive denial
- jurisdiction clause
