Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

BASIC FACTS OF CIVIL SUIT NO.2812 OF 2004:

1.1 The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (Government of India undertaking, plaintiff No. 1 and Adani Exports Ltd., plaintiff No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) had filed a suit under Order 37 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short C.P.C.) for the liquidated demand of total amount of Rs. 4,48,32,365/- interest on the same from date of the suit over the same. All these amounts have been claimed for loss of goods at Porbandar, Kandla and Mundra Ports being principal amount Rs. 3,59,07,604.00 and interest on the said amounts from 5.6.2003 to 20.10.2004 - from the date of notice till filing of the suit and further interest on the said amount till realisation in favour of the plaintiff i.e. Rs. 3,59,07,604.00 (principal amount) + Rs. 89,24,761.00 (interest amount) = Rs. 4,48,32,365/-.

PRESENT CONTROVERSY:

2. The plaintiffs therefore filed suit for liquidated demand of money on account of percentage loss arrived by arithmetic calculation and suit is filed under Order 37 of the CPC. The suit was filed accordingly somewhere in October 2004. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs have filed voluminous record-documents with list Exhibit 2 i.e. 2/1 to 2/48 (with other relevant papers - paper book running into about 400 pages) which are produced by the plaintiffs by way of separate paper book. After filing of the suit, the notice has been issued to the defendant and they have been served and filed appearance before this Court.

(iii) on a guarantee, where the claim against the principal is in respect of a debt or liquidated demand only;

8.3 Therefore once the suit has been filed for liquidated demand in view of Order 37 Rule 2(b) of the CPC, the suit is maintainable at law. In this behalf I also rely on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Rajinder Kumar Khanna v. The Oriental Insurance Co. and Anr. particularly para 3 and 12 of the said judgment on page 279 and 280 which reads as under:

8.3A S(para 3). The industry of counsel had not been able to produce a single precedent of courts in India, which explained what is Sliquidated demand. However, reference has been made to Words & Phrases Permanent Edition, in which reference is made to Rifkin v. Safenovitz, 40 A 2d. 188. It is stated that Samount claimed to be due is a Sliquidated demand within statute authorizing summary judgments if it is susceptible of being made certain in amount by mathematical calculations from factors which are or ought to be in possession or knowledge of party to be charged.
8.4 Thus the present suit filed by the plaintiffs under Order 37 of the CPC is maintainable on the plain reading of Order 37 as well as the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rajinder Kumar Khanna (supra).
8.5 The second contention of the defendant that present suit of the plaintiffs under Order 37 is not maintainable when plaintiffs filed a suit for liquidated demand plus interest thereon. In this behalf I once again rely upon provision of Order 37 Rule 2(b) of the CPC, particularly after amendment which provides that plaintiffs can recover debt or liquidate demand in money payable by the defendant, with or without interest. The said provision makes it clear that plaintiffs can file suit of principal amount plus interest.