Delhi HC: One of the party must make an application for getting Summary judgment, the court can not do it suo motto in Commercial suits

 Apart from this, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has gone wrong in invoking the provisions of Order XIIIA CPC for rendering a summary judgment. It is true that Rule 3 of Order XIIIA CPC empowers the Court to give a summary judgment against a plaintiff or defendant on a claim if it considers that - (a) the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, as the case may be; and (b) there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence. But, in our view, this power can only be exercised upon an application at any date only after summons have been served on the defendant and not after the Court has framed issues in the suit. In other words, Order XIIIA Rule 2 makes a clear stipulation with regard to the stage for application for summary judgment. The window for summary judgment is after the service of summons on the defendant and prior to the Court framing issues in the suit.

{Para 20}

21. The provisions relating to summary judgment which enables courts to decide claims pertaining to commercial disputes without recording oral evidence are exceptional in nature and out of the ordinary course which a normal suit has to follow. In such an eventuality, it is essential that the stipulations are followed scrupulously otherwise it may result in gross injustice. As pointed out above, a specific period of time has been provided during which an application for summary judgment can be made. That period begins upon the service of summons on the defendant and ends upon the court framing issues in the suit. Even if we were to accept, which we do not, the argument of the respondents that the Court had suo moto powers to deliver summary judgment without there being any application, those powers also would have to be exercised during this window, that is, after service of summons on the defendant and prior to framing of issues. In addition to this, we also reiterate that, in our view, a summary judgment under Order XIIIA CPC is not permissible without there being an appropriate application for summary judgment. The contents of an application for summary judgment are also stipulated in Rule 4 of Order XIIIA. The application is required to precisely disclose all material facts and identify the point of law, if any. In the event, the applicant seeks to rely on any documentary evidence, the applicant must include such documentary evidence in its application and identify the relevant content of such documentary evidence on which the applicant relies. The application must also state the reason why there are no real prospects of succeeding or defending the claim, as the case may be.

22. Rule 4(2) of Order XIIIA also requires that where a hearing for summary judgment is fixed, the respondent must be given at least thirty days' notice of the date fixed for the hearing and the claim that is proposed to be decided by the Court at such hearing. Rule 4(3) of Order XIIIA makes provision which enables the respondents to file a reply within the stipulated time addressing the matters set forth in clauses (a) to (f) of the said sub-rule. In particular, the reply of the respondent ought to precisely disclose all the material facts and identify the point of law, if any, and the reasons why the relief sought by the applicant for summary judgment should not be granted. Just as in the case of the applicant, the respondent is also given the opportunity to rely upon documentary evidence in its reply which must be included in the reply and the relevant content identified. The respondent's reply is also required to give reason as to why there are real prospects of succeeding on the claim or defending the claim, as the case may be. Importantly, the reply must also concisely state the issues that should be framed for trial and that it must identify what further evidence would be brought on record at trial that could not be brought on record at the stage of summary judgment. The reply should also state as to why in the light of the evidence or material on record, if any, the Court should not proceed to summary judgment.

23. From the provisions laid out in Order XIIIA, it is evident that the proceedings before Court are adversarial in nature and not inquisitorial. It follows, therefore, that summary judgment under Order XIIIA cannot be rendered in the absence of an adversary and merely upon the inquisition by the Court. The Court is never an adversary in a dispute between parties. Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge has not considered the provisions of Order XIIIA CPC in this light.

24. In view of the discussion above, since no summons had been issued and obviously no application had been filed by the respondents for a summary judgment, the learned Single Judge could not have dismissed the suit invoking the provisions of Order XIIIA CPC.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

RFA(OS)(Comm.) 8/2016 and CM 37888/2016

Decided On: 04.01.2017

Bright Enterprises Private Ltd. and Ors. Vs. MJ Bizcraft LLP and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Badar Durrez Ahmed and Ashutosh Kumar, JJ.

Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

Citation:  MANU/DE/0017/2017.

Print Page

Delhi HC: The court can pass Summary judgment under O 13- A of CPC as amended by Commercial courts Act even after issues are framed

Though proviso to Rule 2 of Order XIIIA unequivocally lays down that no application for summary judgment may be made after the Court has framed the issues, but it cannot be forgotten that Supreme Court in ITC Limited v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (1998) 2 SCC 70 has held that merely because issues have been framed, is no reason for the trial to be undertaken, if it is brought to the notice of the Court that the same is not necessary. The Courts have in innumerable judgments referred to in Dr. Zubair Ul Abidin v. Sameena Abidin @ Sameena Khan, (2014) 214 DLT 340 (DB) (SLP(C) No. 369/370 preferred whereagainst was dismissed on 16th January, 2015), Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 1037 as well as in A.N. Kaul v. Neerja Kaul, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9597 held that the Court on each and every date of hearing has to ensure that no litigation which is deadwood remains pending on the roster of the Court at the cost of other deserving litigations and it is the duty of the Court to eliminate the deadwood on each and every stage. Rule 1 of newly added Chapter XA of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, introduced with effect from 1st November, 2018 also permits the Court to, of its own, pass summary judgment at the time of Case Management Hearing which can also be post framing of issues in the suit. {Para 27}

28. The purpose of the proviso to Rule 2 of Order XIIIA is to discourage filing of applications for summary judgment after issues have been framed, thereby delaying trial and to empower the Court to, if finding the same to be dilatory, dismiss the same in limine. The proviso to Rule 2 of Order XIIIA, in my opinion, cannot be read mandatorily and to that extent is directory.

29. The objective of the Commercial Courts Act even otherwise is to expedite the disposal of the commercial suits and none of the provisions thereof can be interpreted as counterproductive to the said objective of the Commercial Courts Act and it would delay rather than expedite the disposal of commercial suits, if inspite of finding a suit to be befitting of summary judgment, the Court considers itself constrained merely on account of issues having been framed.

 In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.)

K.R. Impex Vs Punj Lloyd Ltd. 

CS(COMM) 646/2016

Decided on January 8, 2019

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6667.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Defendant is entitled to get Summary judgment when plaintiff has filed a false case only to extract money from him without any chance of succeeding

I must mention that though the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff canvassed arguments to the effect that the author of the copyright in the artistic work “CLASSIC” is the grandmother of the Plaintiff - JANVI and not JANVI herself, none of the documents or pleadings in the Plaint support her case. In view of the detailed discussion set out earlier in this judgment I am clearly of the view that the Plaintiff has approached this Court with a completely false case. These entire proceedings are nothing short of an abuse of the process of the Court. I have no hesitation in saying that these proceedings have been filed only to try and extract monies from the Defendant. It's what I would call a nuisance litigation. The Plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding in the above Suit and I find no other compelling reason why the above Suit cannot be disposed of before recording oral evidence. I am, therefore, clearly of the view that the Defendant is entitled to a summary judgment of dismissal of the above Suit under the provisions of Order XIII-A of the CPC. {Para 30}

 In the High Court of Bombay

(Before B.P. Colabawalla, J.)

Interim Application (L) No. 6771 of 2020

In

Commercial (IP) Suit No. 242 of 2015

In the Matter Between

Jayant Industries Vs  Indian Tobacco Company .

Decided on January 11, 2022, 

Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 64 : (2022) 89 PTC 255 : (2022) 4 AIR Bom R 641

Print Page

What is difference between summary procedure as provided under Civil procedure code and The commercial courts Act?

 Summary procedure is a legal process designed to expedite the resolution of certain types of cases, typically by allowing for a faster and simpler resolution than the regular court process. In the context of Indian law, both the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and the Commercial Courts Act provide mechanisms for summary procedures, but they differ in scope, application, and specific procedures.

Summary Procedure under Civil Procedure Code (CPC)

The summary procedure under the CPC is governed by Order XXXVII. Here are the key aspects:

Print Page