Bombay High Court Allows Summary Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff in Recovery Suit Under Order XXXVII CPC — Defendant's Unconditional Leave to Defend Denied Due to No Triable Issue. The court held that the defendant's defence of defective work was not bona fide and no triable issue was raised, as the defendant failed to provide particulars of defects or evidence of set-off.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 137
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The plaintiff, M/s. Good Earth Minerals Private Limited, filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the defendant, Gannon Dunkerley & CO. Ltd., for recovery of Rs.18,08,463.02 with further interest. The defendant had placed a work order on 21 December 2005 for providing and fixing acid resistant tiles at a factory in Kolhapur, later modified by two work orders dated 20 March 2006. The plaintiff supplied materials and executed the work, raising running bills. The work was completed in December 2006, and the plaintiff submitted final invoices dated 21 January 2007 for Rs.7,69,343 and 25 January 2007 for Rs.12,96,795. The defendant made part payments totaling Rs.10,47,041, leaving an outstanding principal of Rs.10,19,097 on the second invoice. The last payment of Rs.1,00,000 was made by cheque dated 20 April 2007, which the plaintiff appropriated towards the second invoice. The defendant sought unconditional leave to defend, claiming that the work was defective and that they were entitled to a set-off. The court examined whether the defendant had raised a triable issue or a bona fide defence. The court found that the defendant admitted the work was done and part payments were made, but failed to provide any particulars of the alleged defects or any evidence of set-off. The court held that the defence was not bona fide and no triable issue was raised. The court also noted that the plaintiff was entitled to appropriate the part payment as per Section 59 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, since the defendant did not specify how the payment should be appropriated. Regarding interest, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to interest at the contractual rate of 24% per annum from the date of the invoice until payment, and thereafter at 18% per annum from the date of suit till realization. The court allowed the summons for judgment and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff for Rs.18,08,463.02 with further interest at 18% per annum on Rs.10,19,097 from the date of suit till payment.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Summary Suit - Order XXXVII CPC - Leave to Defend - The court considered whether the defendant had raised a triable issue or a bona fide defence to entitle it to unconditional leave to defend. The defendant admitted the work was done and part payments were made, but disputed the quantum and claimed set-off for defective work. The court held that the defence was not bona fide and no triable issue was raised, as the defendant failed to provide particulars of the alleged defects or any evidence of set-off. (Paras 2-10)

B) Contract - Appropriation of Payment - Section 59 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 - The plaintiff appropriated the defendant's part payment of Rs.1,00,000 towards the second invoice. The defendant did not specify how the payment should be appropriated. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to appropriate the payment as per law, and the defendant could not later object. (Para 4)

C) Interest - Contractual Interest - The plaintiff claimed interest at 24% per annum on the outstanding amount. The court noted that the work orders did not provide for interest, but the invoices mentioned interest. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to interest at the contractual rate from the date of the invoice until payment, and thereafter at 18% per annum from the date of suit till realization. (Para 11)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend the summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when the defendant admits the work was done but disputes the quantum and claims set-off for alleged defective work.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the summons for judgment and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff for Rs.18,08,463.02 with further interest at 18% per annum on Rs.10,19,097 from the date of suit till payment.

Law Points

  • Summary suit
  • Order XXXVII CPC
  • unconditional leave to defend
  • triable issue
  • bona fide defence
  • admission of liability
  • part payment
  • appropriation of payment
  • interest rate
  • liquidated damages
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (BOM) (06) 70

Summons for Judgment No. 238 of 2010 in Summary Suit No. 1305 of 2010

2012-06-21

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

Mr. Sharan Jagtiani with Mr. Basant Trilokani for the Plaintiffs; Mr. Shailesh Shah, Senior Advocate with Mr. D. Banerjee for the Defendants

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

Nature of Litigation

Summary suit for recovery of money under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Remedy Sought

The plaintiff sought a decree for Rs.18,08,463.02 with further interest at 24% per annum on Rs.10,19,097 from the date of suit till payment.

Filing Reason

The defendant failed to pay the outstanding amount for work done under a work order for providing and fixing acid resistant tiles.

Issues

Whether the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend the summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC. Whether the defendant raised a triable issue or a bona fide defence. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the contractual rate.

Submissions/Arguments

The plaintiff submitted that the work was completed and the defendant made part payments, leaving an outstanding principal of Rs.10,19,097. The plaintiff claimed interest at 24% per annum as per the invoices. The defendant submitted that the work was defective and they were entitled to a set-off, and therefore sought unconditional leave to defend.

Ratio Decidendi

In a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC, the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend only if a triable issue or a bona fide defence is raised. Mere allegations of defective work without particulars or evidence do not constitute a triable issue. The plaintiff is entitled to appropriate part payments as per Section 59 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, when the debtor does not specify appropriation. Interest at the contractual rate is recoverable from the date of invoice until payment, and thereafter at 18% per annum from the date of suit till realization.

Judgment Excerpts

The Defendants were carrying out construction work for a construction company known as Raymond Zambaiti Pvt. Ltd. at Kolhapur. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that the Plaintiffs supplied the requisite material and executed the works as per the said Work Order and raised running bills upon the Defendants from time to time. The Plaintiffs received last payment of Rs.1,00,000/ from the Defendants vide Defendants’ cheque dated 20th April, 2007. The court held that the defence was not bona fide and no triable issue was raised.

Procedural History

The plaintiff filed Summary Suit No. 1305 of 2010 under Order XXXVII CPC for recovery of money. The defendant entered appearance and sought leave to defend. The plaintiff took out Summons for Judgment No. 238 of 2010. The court heard the summons and delivered judgment on 21 June 2012.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXXVII
  • Indian Contract Act, 1872: Section 59
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeals Against NGT Orders in Sterlite Copper Plant Closure Case — Upholds Maintainability of Composite Appeal Under NGT Act. The Court held that a composite appeal under Section 16 of the NGT Act is maintainable and that closu...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim Case — Reduces Compensation Due to Contributory Negligence of Claimant. Claimant, a driver of a vehicle insured by appellant, was injured in a collision with another vehicl...