9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Stay application under Section 10 of the Civil P. C. - Whether the matter in issue in the subsequent suit is directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit. Analysis: 1. The appeal before the Calcutta High Court arose from a judgment where the stay application under Section 10 of the Civil P. C. was not addressed by the lower court judge, S. Mukharji, J., in a case involving two suits related to the sale of goods and subsequent disputes arising from the destruction of the goods by fire while in the custody of carriers. 2. The first suit was filed in Andhra Pradesh for payment of the balance price of sugar sold, while the second suit was filed in Calcutta for a refund of the price paid for the same goods under the same contract, claiming that the goods were not delivered despite payment, raising questions about the passing of property in the goods to the plaintiff in the Calcutta Suit. 3. The defendant in the Andhra Suit admitted the transactions arose from the same contract, reserving the right to file a separate suit for the balance sum due, including damages for demurrage, which was not raised as a defense in the Andhra Suit, leading to a dispute over the reservation of rights and the scope of the subsequent suit in Calcutta. 4. The Court considered the interpretation of Section 10, emphasizing that the matter in issue in the subsequent suit must be directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit, with a focus on preventing concurrent jurisdiction from trying parallel suits on the same subject matter, as established in previous case law precedents. 5. Referring to relevant case law, the Court highlighted that the subject matter in controversy, arising from the same contract and transactions, was the same in both suits, even if the reliefs claimed were based on different causes of action, stressing that the basis of the claim is not the determining factor, but rather the matter in issue in the two suits. 6. The Court concluded that the reservation of rights to file a separate suit for certain reliefs did not preclude the stay of the Calcutta Suit, as the subject matter in controversy remained the same, and any further questions raised in the subsequent suit could be addressed after the resolution of the Andhra Suit, without prejudicing the plaintiff. 7. Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court's order and granting a stay of the trial of the Calcutta Suit, with the appellant entitled to costs of the application and the appeal.
|
