9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thousand one hundred and seventy three and twenty four paise) details of which are given in the enclosure at Annexure 'A' to this plaint and the Defendant No.l be directed to pay interest @ 21% till the date of actual payment. (a-1) That Defendant No. 1 be ordered and decreed to pay a sum of US $ 4140 per month alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from due date till payment/realization with effect from 1st November, 1997 towards lease rent until all the 92 containers are returned. In the alternative and without prejudice: (a-2) If this Honourable Court holds that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to claim lease rent beyond the termination of the lease agreement, in that event Defendant No. 1 be ordered and d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mands were made for payment. There was also no dispute regarding lease rental. Ultimately, when the plaintiff found that the containers were not returned and also the lease charges were not paid, the suit No.4794 of 1997 was filed seeking a sum of ₹ 1,61,13,173.14. This included the claim for non-return of the containers and the claim for outstanding rental. After the suit was filed, plaintiff took out a motion, being Notice of Motion No. 378 of 1998 for Receiver and injunction for the containers which were not returned. The learned Single Judge by order dated 11th August. 1999, took the view that there was no case for appointing a Receiver for the properties by way of security for the amounts which may be due. He also held that no ir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant no.l to deposit an amount of ₹ 81,77,632.50 (rounded of to ₹ 82,00,000) within 12 weeks period. It was further directed that the amount was to be deposited in a nationalized bank for a period of 37 months and the deposit was to be renewed at a time by 13 months until the suit was decided. This order is under challenge. Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the Division Bench manifestly erred in directing deposit by overlooking the factual and legal background involved. In a commercial suit where there was dispute regarding the liability such directions could not have been given. Even in respect of a summary suit under Order 37 there was no scope for giving the type of direction a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se 6 of the agreement clearly stipulates that rental charges were to be paid till the containers are returned. This has admittedly not been done. There are several letters where there was express acceptance of the liability. Finally it was submitted that this is not a case where this Court should exercise powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 1950 ( in short the Constitution'). By way of reply to the submissions made by Mr. Venugopal, Mr. Nariman submitted that the scope and ambit of Article 136 is too well known and, therefore, where substantial question of law relating to jurisdiction of a commercial court is raised, 'he Court has to see whether the impugned judgment meets the requirement of law. Accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e had been granted the court must always in every case deal with the merits, even though it was satisfied that the ends of justice did not justify its interference in a given case. It is not as if, in an appeal with leave under Article 136, this Court was bound to decide the question if on facts at the later hearing the Court felt that the ends of justice did not make it necessary to decide the point. Similarly in Baigana v Deputy Collector of Consolidation, [1978] 3 SCR 509 it was held that this Court was more than a court of appeal. It exercises power only when there is supreme need. It is not the fifth court of appeal, but the final Court of the nation. Therefore, even if legal flaws might be electronically detected, it may not interfere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
