9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 1307 - SC - Indian LawsSuit for permanent injunction - outstanding dues and arrears of storage charges - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - HELD THAT - The case in hand stands on a better footing, inasmuch as, the plaintiff-respondent had specifically reserved its rights in the first suit regarding claim against warehousing charges, damages for illegal use and occupation etc. and further had applied for leave before the Trial Court for filing a separate suit, which leave had been granted. There was neither any relinquishment at any stage, nor omission to claim relief. Both the causes of action being separate, the second suit was clearly maintainable. The appellant, who is facing recovery of more than Rs.8 crores, is unnecessarily trying to delay the progress in the suit, which is pending since 2016. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity - Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Appeal challenging correctness of High Court judgment and order. 2. Interpretation of Leave and License agreement supersession. 3. Suit for permanent injunction and possession due to default in payment. 4. Application under Order II Rule 2(3) CPC for separate suit. 5. Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of claim. 6. Bar under Order II Rule 2(2) CPC. 7. Distinction between relinquishment of claims and omission of relief. 8. Applicability of previous judgments to the case. Issue 1: Appeal challenging correctness of High Court judgment and order: The appeal questions the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras dated 24.11.2016, which dismissed the civil revision and an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The defendant in both proceedings has approached the Supreme Court against this decision. Issue 2: Interpretation of Leave and License agreement supersession: The case involves a Leave and License agreement between the parties, superseded by a subsequent agreement. Dispute arose due to default in payment, leading to termination of the license by the respondent and a subsequent legal battle over storage charges and possession. Issue 3: Suit for permanent injunction and possession due to default in payment: The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction and possession against the appellant, citing outstanding dues and arrears of storage charges. The appellant contested this suit, leading to a series of legal proceedings. Issue 4: Application under Order II Rule 2(3) CPC for separate suit: The respondent sought leave to file a separate suit under Order II Rule 2(3) CPC for recovery of arrears and damages beyond the initial suit's scope. The District Munsif Court initially allowed this application, which was later challenged and remanded by the High Court. Issue 5: Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of claim: The appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the respondent's claim in a commercial suit. This application, along with the civil revision, was dismissed by the High Court, leading to the current appeal. Issue 6: Bar under Order II Rule 2(2) CPC: The appellant argued that the commercial suit was barred under Order II Rule 2(2) CPC, claiming that the High Court erred in its interpretation of this rule. Issue 7: Distinction between relinquishment of claims and omission of relief: The High Court's decision was challenged based on the distinction between relinquishment of claims and omission of relief. Previous judgments were cited to support this argument. Issue 8: Applicability of previous judgments to the case: Both parties relied on previous judgments to support their arguments. The respondent cited a specific Supreme Court judgment to establish the maintainability of a second suit for arrears of rent and damages, while the appellant contested the application of a Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court. The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and perusing the record, upheld the High Court's decision. It emphasized the separate causes of action, the respondent's reservation of rights, and the maintainability of the second suit. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the High Court's judgment.
|
